The deadline for the legislature to deal with the executive branch’s partial veto of the bill guaranteeing termination of pregnancy in the event of rape is this Friday, April 15 In the absence of a statement from Parliament, the text of the Executive Branch’s partial objection to the Justice Department’s project would come into effect. That It has caused disagreements and different reactions in pro-life groups and feminist groups.
With the text of the veto, which will come into force on April 16 when the declaration of the National Assembly is verified, since it can only be confirmed or ratified in the original text, It stipulates that in Ecuador, a girl, a youth and a woman have access to an abortion for rape up to 12 weeks of pregnancy before filing a complaint before the public prosecutor’s office or affidavit. And in demolition of land in case of rape is not considered a right but an exception, as proposed by President Guillermo Lasso.
Virginia Gómez de la Torre, Director of the Desafío Foundation, comments on what happened to the project it was something foreseeable and that they expected it since the Constitutional Court had issued a judgment in which it should enact a law without clear parameters and at the discretion of the National Assembly.
“The fact that the court decriminalized abortion in the case of rape is already a big step, but symbolic, because it will not be operational, it was the court itself that allowed this with its judgment,” he emphasizes, saying that in the legislature didn’t even take the opportunity to know if they could get the 92 votes to ratify the original text.
The meeting, convened at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 14, lasted 30 minutes. The motion for approval of the Executive’s objections, presented by MP Pierina Correa (UNES), received only 17 votes in favour, 73 against, 40 abstentions and 7 members of the Assembly did not participate. President Guadalupe Llori immediately suspended the session as the Democratic Left Group was asked to consider the request for ratification by MP Alejandro Jaramillo, President of the Judiciary Commission. The other blocks remained silent and left the plenum.
Gómez says what happened is a sign of “a conspiracy that Llori has with President Lasso”.
“Llori used power in fraudulent ways… anti-technical, anti-gender and anti-women, she showed the contempt she has for the women of her country, we cannot ask her to show sympathy for the issues.” who are defending the rights of the class of popular women she claims to represent,” she points out, mentioning it now the expectation focuses on the regulation to be issued by the executive branch.
“The regulation will end one task, which is to shield what the Department of Health must do to prevent women and girls from being given access to abortion for rape. This is ongoing and it is executive power and it will be the icing on the cake,” he says.
National Assembly President Guadalupe Llorri interrupted the session where the project was being discussed amid complaints. Photo: APIEstefanía Chávez, litigator for the Surkuna organization, dismisses what happened in the National Assembly, agreeing with Gómez that it would be a sign of a pact in favor of the president, believing that the veto imposes restrictions on the executive branch and many survivors of the violence omits sexually.
For the jurist, the project discussed at the assembly was “modest” since it contained positive aspects stemming from civil society’s approaches to “feed on a broader reality”.
“The veto is 97% modified, it’s practically a new project and a clear anti-democratic exercise weighing the president’s personal beliefs, it leaves out everything that was won in a broad debate with the assembly,” he says and opines that the project, which was discussed on the basis of scientific contributions and from many branches, was disrupted.
Members of a pro-abortion group protest in a file photo outside the National Assembly in Quito. Photo: Jose JacomeChávez mentions that they will continue to try to activate all constitutional channels against the norm and demands that the CC review their constitutionality. Gómez confirms this and says that, given this foreseeable scenario, several women’s organizations, including the foundation she heads, have been meeting for more than three weeks They have worked to pursue an unconstitutionality lawsuit or take precautionary measures, although he admits they don’t have much hope or confidence that they will get results.
On the side of the anti-abortion groups, Martha Cecilia Villafuerte, National Director of Familia Ecuador, explains that it must be taken into account that everything that has come out of the hands of the President has continued to be blocked in the Assembly that vetoing abortion for rape was not exceptional but they could not and mentions that they will take legal action not only against the possible new law but also against the CC ruling.
“Tomorrow this project will go through the Ministry of Justice and we will already have the first abortion law in Ecuador,” he says.
Villafuerte says they will now work to block the idea of abortion being seen as an option and step up the work they’ve been doing for years to save both lives and the prevention of domestic violence and teenage pregnancy, mainly in rural areas.
Pro-life groups protest in a file photo outside the National Assembly. Photo: The UniverseFor his part, Pastor Francisco Loor Mendoza, a member of the Faith, Life and Family Resistance Council collective, stresses that the problem lies in the CC’s decriminalization of abortion in cases of rape and that this is unconstitutional.
He points out that they do not share what the veto establishes, because from the moment of conception they will always seek the defense of life, but that they understand that the restrictions and regulations were necessary “to prevent abuse and manipulation by those who wish to promote abortion” as a result of the ruling.
Loor highlights aspects such as the existence of a complaint to carry out the procedure and conscientious objection to respect the principles of professionals, although he stresses that in the future they will see “what legal mechanisms they can use to overturn the judgement. “
“We must continue to fight for this court judgment to be overturned by another constitutional court later or by a referendum,” he emphasizes. (I)