Abortion protester outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, December 1, 2008: Affirm and exporting a political contingency such as abortion as if it were a universal, essential and inalienable right is colonization by another name.| Photo: EFE/EPA/SAMUEL CORUM
The president of Ecuador recently vetoed a bill (PL) that, at first glance, created a narrow exception by allowing abortion for rape, but actually posed a broad and serious threat to basic rights and to the safety of Ecuadorian women.
Repeatedly invoking the protection of victims’ privacy, the bill put obstacles in the way of investigating and prosecuting the rapist — that was one reason for the president’s veto. As the bill now stands, it is likely to contribute to an increase in repeat rapes — and Ecuador’s Congress has a few days to decide whether to agree with the president’s veto or overturn it and make the original bill Ecuador’s law. .
It is clear that the PL discussion is complex. Establishing policies to protect the health and well-being of women—especially rape victims—should always be a political priority. But the language of the original PL, which incited 61 amendments by the President Guillermo Lasso, dealt much more with rape than with rape victims.
The PL sets the stage for the total destruction of the country’s laws, as it establishes that abortion is a fundamental human right and removes obstacles of conscience for individuals and institutions that do not want to participate.
It’s clear that Lasso’s veto unleashed a global backlash. Almost any limitation or regulation on abortion is rejected by progressives without further consideration. But a lot of countries see the protection of life as the core of their values and don’t want liberalized abortion policies.