A new debate in Colombia unveils the weaknesses and risks that the non-legislation of abortion represents in the country. A young woman from Popayán interrupted her pregnancy with seven months of gestation. The argument (backed by doctors) was that she suffered from mental problems and was not prepared to be a mother.
Abortion was decriminalized in 2006 in Colombia through a ruling of the Constitutional Court (C-355). Three elements are required for abortion to be allowed: 1) Danger to the life or health of the woman, 2) Malformations of the fetus incompatible with life, 3) Violation or incest. The woman who performed the abortion seems not to be protected by any of these causes; however, she argued that she suffered a mental illness, specifically depression, all this against the will of the father.
Profamilia, a non-profit organization that promotes respect, the exercise of sexual and reproductive rights in Colombia, were the ones who attended and practiced the abortion in question. This organization states that before performing an abortion, they follow the strict measures established by the Constitutional Court. Profamilia considered that mental illness represented a danger to the mother’s life, linking this to the first cause for abortion. Regarding the months of gestation, the organization indicated that according to ruling SU-096, there are no limits on the gestational age for carrying out the procedure.
The Colombian Ministry of Health establishes that: “the existence of a risk to the health of women in any of these areas is sufficient and it is not required that damage has already been generated due to the continuation of pregnancy. The concept of danger has to be valued by women and not by third parties or by the professionals who attend to it. The foregoing, given that it is your body, your health and your life that is exposed to the inherent risks of motherhood and this can be weighted according to your welfare standards. Each woman, then, defines the risk margins she is willing to run.“
The high court said that there are already 46 barriers for women to have access to legal abortion, and to establish a limit of weeks for abortion would be nonsense. Also, in some cases, health risks or malformations are not identified until advanced ages in pregnancy. It is also not required that the doctor who diagnoses have any specialty as this would mean another barrier for women.
The problem, in this case, is the non-typification of abortion, it is necessary a broad and explanatory legal framework. So women, doctors, even the judicial system, are protected against the uncertainty of interpretations. Currently, Colombians are unaware of the regulations in force for the voluntary termination of pregnancy. Some barriers and protocols deter women from practicing any procedure, objections by doctors because the practice does not match their religious beliefs and the lack of control or government entities that can investigate and sanction in cases that merit it.
It cannot be that Colombia handles such a sensitive issue as abortion through a 2006 ruling, the laws are customary, they must adapt to new times and new practices. The Colombian Congress should start a debate to legislate on abortion; this is not going to be the last case that brings the controversy of interpretation of ruling C-355. Likewise, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) should make available to the Colombian government all the necessary material to help legislators.