Editor’s note. This appeared at the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues.
The Supreme Court of Justice in Mexico decided 3 to 1 to reject a proposal to overturn federal law and declare that the criminalization of abortion is unconstitutional and that women have the right to make their own decisions on abortion.
Currently abortion is illegal on the federal level with a rape exception.
Three justices rejected the attempt by Justice Arturo Zaldívar to change the federal criminal code. He argued that the restriction of abortion ‘violates women’s rights to personal development, sexual and reproductive health, and freedom from discrimination’.
The ruling centered on the case of Margarita Pino Salazar who was denied an abortion at a federal hospital and instead had it performed in a private health facility. Zaldívar attempted to have declared as unconstitutional two provisions of the Federal Penal Code that deal with the criminalization of abortion. He cited the case of Salazar but the fact that the articles did not apply to her helped to weaken the case.
It was the first time that the Court has considered the penalization of abortion on the federal level. Pro-life advocates celebrated the decision.
An official tweet from the Court suggests that there will be future considerations on abortion: “La @SCJN decidió no pronunciarse, por el momento, sobre la interrupción del embarazo en hospitales federales.”
Translation: The @SCJN declined to rule, for the moment, on the termination of pregnancy in federal hospitals.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Mexico has ruled against the legalization of abortion, marking a significant moment in the country’s ongoing debate over reproductive rights. This decision comes amid increasing pressure from both domestic and international pro-choice advocates, who have been campaigning for the liberalization of Mexico’s abortion laws.
The ruling was met with a range of reactions, reflecting the deeply polarized nature of the abortion debate in Mexico. Pro-life advocates celebrated the decision as a victory for the protection of unborn children and the affirmation of traditional values. Many in this camp argue that life begins at conception and that the state has a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society, including the unborn.
On the other hand, pro-choice supporters expressed profound disappointment and concern over the ruling. They argue that access to safe and legal abortion is a fundamental human right and essential for women’s health and autonomy. The decision, they claim, denies women the right to make decisions about their own bodies and forces many to seek unsafe and illegal abortions, which can lead to serious health complications and even death.
Mexico’s abortion laws are among the strictest in Latin America, with abortion largely prohibited except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. Despite these restrictions, there has been a growing movement towards decriminalization in several states. For instance, Mexico City and the state of Oaxaca have legalized abortion up to twelve weeks of pregnancy, setting a precedent that pro-choice activists hoped would spread to the rest of the country.
The Supreme Court’s decision, however, underscores the challenges that remain in achieving nationwide reform. The ruling indicates a reluctance to shift from deeply entrenched legal and cultural norms that prioritize the protection of unborn life over women’s reproductive rights. This decision has significant implications for the legal landscape of abortion in Mexico and reflects broader regional trends in Latin America, where the abortion debate is often intertwined with issues of religion, morality, and human rights.
Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue that it is consistent with Mexico’s cultural and moral values. Many point to the influence of the Catholic Church, which remains a powerful institution in Mexico and a vocal opponent of abortion. The Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life from conception play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and policy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also has political ramifications. It comes at a time when President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration faces various social and economic challenges. The abortion debate adds another layer of complexity to the political landscape, influencing voter sentiments and potentially impacting future elections.
For pro-choice advocates, the ruling is a setback, but it also serves as a catalyst for renewed activism and advocacy. Organizations dedicated to women’s rights and reproductive health are likely to intensify their efforts, focusing on raising awareness, providing support for women in need, and lobbying for legal reforms at the state level. The international community, including human rights organizations and pro-choice groups, continues to support these efforts, emphasizing the importance of aligning Mexico’s laws with international standards on reproductive rights.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, it is clear that the debate over abortion in Mexico is far from over. The ruling may have reaffirmed existing laws, but it has also highlighted the persistent and passionate divisions within Mexican society. The ongoing struggle between pro-life and pro-choice advocates will undoubtedly continue to shape the country’s legal and cultural landscape in the years to come.
This decision by the Supreme Court of Mexico is a critical juncture in the nation’s journey toward balancing the protection of unborn life with the rights and autonomy of women. It reflects the complexities of the abortion debate, which encompasses not only legal and medical considerations but also deeply held beliefs about morality, human rights, and social justice. As both sides of the debate mobilize in response to this ruling, the future of abortion rights in Mexico remains a contentious and pivotal issue.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
