Constitutional Court Ignores Int’l Abortionists, Strikes Down Exceptions for Hard-Cases
WASHINGTON, DC, February 12 (C-Fam) Just days before going into effect, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic in December struck down provisions to the Criminal Code that would have decriminalized abortion in the country.
Religious and conservative groups argued that the changes to the country’s pro-life law were unconstitutional. The Court agreed, resting its decision solely on procedural grounds, but not mentioning the rights of the unborn.
In early 2015, President Danilo Medina recommended weakening the Dominican Republic’s abortion ban. An amendment was added to the Criminal Code that legalized abortion in cases of rape, disability, incest and when carrying the baby to term would endanger the mother’s health.
The changes were touted as a trend to decriminalize abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean where most countries protect unborn children. Six countries – Chile, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Dominican Republic – ban abortion in all circumstances.
The changes, however, were made without following the legislative process. They were not voted on by both Chambers of Parliament, as mandated by the Dominican Constitution. For this reason – alone – they were struck down.
The Justices did not make any reference in their decision to article 37 of their Constitution, which protects life “from the moment of conception to the natural death.” Nothing was declared on the fundamental and universal right to life; nothing on the rights of the child.
Pro-life advocates had specifically challenged the constitutionality of the abortion provisions.
The Dominican Fundación Justicia y Transparencia, Fundación Transparencia y Democracia and Fundación Matrimonio Feliz, while disputing the procedural violation, had developed their most important arguments around two legal facts on the right to life.
They argued it is a State obligation to defend life from the moment of conception, as recognized by international human rights treaties. And, abortion is not, and could never become, a women’s fundamental right.
The Justices addressed these rights in a five-line paragraph, out of a 170-pages-long decision. Procedural violations of the law always supersede substantial ones.
The Dominican Court missed an opportunity to expose false allegations made by several groups in Amicus Curiae briefs filed in the case. Most of these claimed the existence of an internationally recognized “abortion right” and of an international consensus on “sexual and reproductive rights,” that necessitate women’s freedom to “choose”.
One argument raised by Amnesty International may sound like a threat to the Dominican Government. They claimed that limiting women’s access to abortion would constitute a form of torture and inhumane treatment. A government that is guilty of torture is obligated to compensate its victims and loses respect in the international community.
The Dominican Republic’s ruling was greeted as a huge defeat by pro-abortion activists.
“This decision takes women’s and girls’ human rights back to the 19th century,” said Erika Guevara Rosas, Americas Director at Amnesty International.
Starting about 30 years ago, Latin American countries renewed and increased protection of unborn life, gaining momentum after abortion advocates launched an international campaign to pressure countries.
The amendment to the Dominican Republic’s constitution recognizing the right to life was adopted in 2009. El Salvador’s constitution was amended in 1999 to recognize human life from conception.
In 2006, Nicaragua’s president signed a bill banning abortion in all cases. In 2005, Honduras declared March 25 as the “Day of the Unborn Child.”
View online at: https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/constitutional-court-ignores-intl-abortionists-strikes-exceptions-hard-cases/
© 2024 C-Fam (Center for Family & Human Rights).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
www.c-fam.org