He federal judge Miguel Medina authorized to treat during the fair in January an action of unconstitutionality against the Ministry of Health of the Nation for the current Protocol for the Comprehensive Care of People with the Right to Legal Interruption of Pregnancy (ILE) The federal prosecutor Ricardo Rafael Toranzos declared her competent.
In the judicial action, which dates from December 22, the resolution 1/2019 of the Ministry of Health of the Nation is questioned. This generated an initial confusion since some media reported that the presentation went against the recently approved law of Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy, something in practice impossible since until it is promulgated, it lacks validity.
Similarly, Provida groups from Salta announced that as soon as this happens, they will also turn to the courts to try to annul it as unconstitutional.
Among those present in the action against the ILE are the provincial deputies Cristina Fiore (Salta Renovation Party) and Gladis Moisés (Let’s change), and Deputy Andrés Suriani (Let’s change). In addition, the names of Carlos Elbio Alderete, Rene Luis Castellón, Mónica Elizabeth Medina, Miguel Armando Miranda, Héctor Favio Zerpa and Jorge Daniel Roldan appear.
The proposal maintains that the protocol is unconstitutional because “it eliminates the state duty to protect the right to life of an undetermined number of unborn children” and contemplates “the absolute relaxation of the requirements to achieve such a condition of unimputability.”
Fiore and Suriani are the political wing in Salta of the militancy of the sector that opposes the legalization of abortion, a movement calling itself “save the two lives” and that identifies with the “celestial handkerchiefs.” Fiore already established her position when she was a national senator in 2018 and voted against the IVE.
Among some of the arguments used by the plaintiffs against the protocol of legal interruptions, they argue that “the concept of health is distorted by including psychosocial causes as a permissive reason for abortion, and with the possibility of considering the woman a victim of sexual abuse to her only subjective criterion “. They indicated that “it is possible to carry out cruel and inhuman acts prohibited by article 18 of the National Constitution, such as killing embryos with the heart already beating and fully formed fetuses since no time limit is set.”
Another argument outlines that the protocol does not contemplate “the possibility of performing a less harmful procedure such as, for example, the early delivery or the offer to the mother of the subsequent delivery for adoption “.
The plaintiffs also consider that the protocol produces “an unjust lack of protection for the raped woman by facilitating the rapist to force the victim to request a free abortion without reporting the rape, thus leading to new rapes “.
They question that proof of rape is not required and that the testimony is sufficient if the victim is under 13 years of age and a sworn statement if he is of legal age. They also believe that there is a limitation of the right to conscientious objection for health professionals.
The lawyer specialized in constitutional justice and human rights and member of the Gender Legal Institute of Salta, Tania Kiriaco, stated to Salta / 12 that the lawsuit is in the first stage of the proceedings and that it is nothing new because the arguments outlined by the plaintiffs have already been resolved in other cases in different courts of the country. He pointed out that “arguments are political and not in accordance with the law”, and that they are used by Fiore and Suriani “to stay current during these years.”
The lawyer indicated that the action protocol of the ILE is adapted to the Fal ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The lawyer recalled that Salta has not yet adhered to the updated protocol.
From the “anti-right” sectors, they have been announcing that they will go to court against the IVE. Kiriaco said that “society has already approved the IVE, and considered that it is the duty of the State to protect this right.” She also believed that legislators are required to work for the expansion of rights for women, not to obstruct them.
The federal judge of Salta, Miguel Medina, in 2009 also made national news for partially suspending the Audiovisual Communication Services law after an injunction filed by a consumer defense association. The ruling was later reversed by a higher court and later the Communication Law was in full force ratified by the Supreme Court of Justice, which declared it constitutional.