![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Over the past two decades, the abortion rights controversy has become the most prominent field of dispute between feminists and religious conservatives across Latin America. In this context, the political branches of government have generally been reluctant to change the region’s restrictive legal frameworks around abortion. Since the mid-2000s, Latin American feminists have turned to the courts in search of long-pursued reforms in this field. Through an analysis of the role of constitutional courts in the liberalization of abortion laws in Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, this study points out the diverse ways in which courts have contributed to the advancement of abortion rights, becoming alternative venues for feminist advocacy in Latin America. It highlights how courts have been used to liberalize abortion laws, ensure the implementation of existing abortion laws, and deter backlash processes. Furthermore, it details how courts have offered a platform for public debate on abortion. The study’s findings show that the judicial system can be a favorable forum for feminist activism in Latin America when access to other institutions is blocked. The findings also add nuance to the critique of the use of courts for social change, which stresses the pernicious consequences of the judicialization of social movements.
RESUMEN
En América Latina, en las últimas dos décadas, la controversia sobre el derecho al aborto se ha convertido en el campo de disputa más prominente entre movimientos feministas y movimientos religiosos conservadores. En este contexto, los poderes políticos se han mostrado generalmente reacios a cambiar los restrictivos marcos legales del aborto en la región, y desde mediados de la década de 2000, sectores del feminismo latinoamericano recurrieron a los tribunales en busca de reformas en este campo. A través del análisis del papel de las cortes constitucionales en la liberalización de las leyes de aborto en Colombia, Brasil, Argentina y México, este estudio señala los diversos modos en que los altos tribunales han contribuido al avance del derecho al aborto, convirtiéndose en un espacio alternativo para el avance de causas feministas en América Latina. Se señala cómo las cortes han sido una vía para liberalizar las leyes de aborto, garantizar la implementación de abortos legales y enfrentar procesos de reacción conservadora. Asimismo, se detalla cómo los tribunales han ofrecido una plataforma para la deliberación pública sobre el tema del aborto. Estos hallazgos muestran cómo el poder judicial puede ser un ámbito institucional favorable para el activismo feminista en América Latina, cuando otras vías institucionales están bloqueadas. También plantean matices a las críticas sobre el uso de los tribunales para el cambio social, que enfatizan las consecuencias perniciosas de la judicialización de las causas de los movimientos sociales.
RESUMO
Na América Latina, nas últimas duas décadas, a polêmica pelo direito ao aborto tornou-se o campo de disputa mais proeminente entre movimentos feministas e movimentos religiosos conservadores. Nesse contexto, os poderes políticos geralmente têm relutado em mudar os marcos legais restritivos do aborto na região e, desde meados dos anos 2000, setores do feminismo latino-americano recorreram aos tribunais na procura de reformas neste campo. Por meio da análise do papel dos tribunais constitucionais na liberalização das leis de aborto na Colômbia, Brasil, Argentina e México, este estudo aponta as várias maneiras em que os tribunais têm contribuído para o avanço dos direitos ao aborto, tornando-se um espaço alternativo para o avanço das causas feministas na América Latina. Ressalta-se como os tribunais têm sido um caminho institucional para liberalizar as leis de aborto, garantir a implementação de abortos legais e enfrentar processos de reação conservadora. Também se detalha como os tribunais forneceram uma plataforma para deliberação pública sobre a questão do aborto. Essas observações mostram como o judiciário pode ser um site institucional favorável para o ativismo feminista na América Latina, quando outros sites institucionais encontram-se bloqueados. Também trazem nuances às críticas ao uso dos tribunais para a mudança social, que enfatizam as consequências perniciosas da judicialização das causas dos movimentos sociais.
Acknowledgments
I am especially thankful to Ruth Rubio-Marin, as well as to the anonymous reviewers for their help in writing this article, which is part of my PhD thesis, submitted to the European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy, in 2015.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 See the map of the world’s abortion laws (Center for Reproductive Rights Citationn.d.). Currently, a group of six countries in the region – the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Surinam – completely prohibit abortion without exceptions. A second group of countries – the majority in the region – consider abortion a crime with some exceptions, generally to save a woman’s life or in cases of rape or risk to the woman’s health. It should be noted, however, that in the latter cases, it has been difficult to access legal abortions because of unnecessary judicialization and governments’ reluctance to implement abortion services. Finally, there is a third group of jurisdictions where abortion upon request of the woman is legal: Cuba since 1965, Puerto Rico since the 1970s, Guyana since 1995, Mexico City since 2007, Uruguay since 2012, the Mexican state of Oaxaca since 2019, and Argentina since 2020.
2 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, Portal de Belén – Asociación sin Fines de Lucro c. Ministerio de Salud y Acción Social de la Nación s/amparo, March 5, 2002.
3 Tribunal Constitucional, Sentencia Rol 740-07-CDS, April 18, 2008.
4 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Case No. 12.361, November 28, 2012.
5 Tribunal Constitucional, Sentencia Rol No. 5572-18-CDS/5650-18-CDS (acumuladas), January 18, 2019.
6 See also Bergallo and Ramón Michel (Citation2016) for a thorough analysis of the role of constitutional jurisprudence in the liberalization of abortion laws in the region.
7 Corte Constitucional, C-355/2006, May 10, 2006.
8 Supremo Tribunal Federal, Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) No. 54, April 12, 2012.
9 Supremo Tribunal Federal, ADPF No. 442, March 7, 2017.
10 See Lamas (Citation2009) and Madrazo (Citation2009) for thorough accounts of the evolution of Mexico City’s abortion law.
11 Suprema Corte, Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 10/2000, January 30, 2002.
12 Suprema Corte, Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 146/2007 and acumulada 147/2007, August 28, 2008.
13 Suprema Corte, Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 11/2009, September 28, 2011; Suprema Corte, Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 62/2009, September 29, 2011.
14 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, F.,A.L. s/medida autosatisfactiva, Expte. 21912, March 13, 2012.
15 It should be noted that, in contrast with the other cases in this study, in Argentina, there is no abstract action of unconstitutionality. This institutional feature makes it more difficult for feminist actors to reach the Supreme Court through strategic litigation on abortion rights.
16 A tutela claim is a legal instrument similar to the amparo writ of other Latin American countries, with special features that have made it a major instrument for the protection of constitutional rights in Colombia.
17 Corte Constitucional, SU-096/2018, October 11, 2018.
18 Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Amparo en Revisión 601/2017; Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Amparo en Revisión 1170/2017.
19 Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Amparo en Revisión 1388/2015.
20 Corte Constitucional, T-627/2012, August 10, 2012.
21 In fact, between the time that the first public hearing was convoked and the time of its actual occurrence, another hearing took place at the STF on the stem cell research case (ADI 3510/DF 2008).
22 Vote of Justice Marco Aurélio Mello, Supremo Tribunal Federal, ADPF No. 54, April 12, 2012.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Alba Ruibal
Alba Ruibal has a permanent position as Full-Time Researcher at the National Scientific and Technological Research Council (CONICET), Cordoba, Argentina. At present, she is also National Consultant at UN Women Argentina. She holds a PhD in Law (European University Institute, 2015), a PhD in Political Science (FLACSO-Mexico, 2006) and a Master’s in Politics (New York University, 2003). She currently pursues two lines of research: (1) the role of movements and counter-movements in the constitutional politics of abortion in Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Brazil); and (2) the impact of federalism in sub-national legal mobilization for women’s rights in Argentina. She has twice been awarded Fulbright Commission grants, and has been a Visiting Scholar at the University of Brasilia, Yale University, and KU Leuven.