Amnesty International recently addressed the Supreme Court of Mexico, urging the high court to uphold an April 2007 decision legalizing abortion in Mexico City, according to reports by Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.
“Fulfilling its duty to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to life does not require the Mexican state to restrict women’s access to safe abortion services,” AI wrote in a statement to the court.
Mexico has traditionally outlawed abortion but for exceptional cases such as rape and illness. A majority of Mexican provinces still follow laws which make abortion illegal. The 2007 legislation, which legalized abortion through the twelfth week of pregnancy, applies only to citizens within Mexico City.
AI argues that under the current laws, the situation in Mexico has proved hostile for women. Their statement cited high rates of maternal mortality due to clandestine abortions and obstruction of access to legal abortions for those women who qualify for exceptional circumstance.
“Unreasonable restrictions on women’s access to safe abortion services are not conducive to giving effect to the right to life,” wrote AI. Interestingly, the stringency of Mexico policy calls into question the frequently-made assertion by pro-choice groups in the U.S. that America has the most draconian abortion laws in the world.
AI’s statement comes in response to the federal Human Rights Commission, which challenged the new law last year with the help of Mexico’s Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora on the basis that liberalized abortion law violate the Mexican constitution. California Catholic Daily reported Mora testified that the constitution protects human life from the moment of conception.
“The product of conception is a person,” Mora said, “and because of that, it is unacceptable that the suppression of its life be permitted before the twelfth week of gestation.”
Both AI and the Human Rights Commission have cited United Nations Human Rights Committee comments, with different interpretations. In taking a pro-abortion stance, AI claims it is campaigning for basic human rights of the women of Mexico. AI insists that forcing women to undertake illegal operations often results in death and medical complications.
AI cited a 2000 general comment by the UN, which stated: “States parties should give information on any measures taken by the State to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to ensure that they do not have to undergo life-threatening clandestine abortions.”
AI in turn contends that Mexico’s constitution requires the country to comply with international law.
The Human Rights Commission contends that the unborn child has a basic human right to life as well. Mora continued his testimony, arguing that well before the twelfth week, “the new person’s vital organs have been formed and it is possible to know if it is a boy or a girl. Nobody can doubt we are in the presence of a human being.”
According to the Catholic Family report, none of the treaty language in AI’s statement to the court demonstrate that repealing the abortion legislation would actually violate Mexican law or any obligations to international law.
As of July 8, the Mexican Supreme Court had concluded hearings for the case, and a decision is expected to be made by the end of the year.
Ben Giles is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
