“I have decided to include observations on the bill with the aim that it be in absolute agreement with the ruling of the Constitutional Court,” said the president about the regulations that establish the maximum time for the interruption of a pregnancy resulting from sexual violence.
According to his veto, there are clear provisions in the sentence that have not been complied with by the legislature or are not consistent with the Ecuadorian legal framework.
Consequently, on the issue of deadlines, the head of state added the observation of unifying the maximum period for this medical practice in 12 weeks, which modifies the regulation, according to which that time was for girls, adult adolescents from urban areas, while for indigenous people and residents in rural areas, a limit of 18 weeks was established.
The objections also include the inclusion of requirements that will provide the legal body with compliance with the Court’s ruling, issued in 2021, after which the legal project of abortion for rape was elaborated.
In the opinion of the ruler, the Parliament omitted the conditions of access to the interruption in its regulation.
On the other hand, Lasso added articles to guarantee all health professionals the right to apply conscientious objection, a principle that allows them to reject a certain obligation, for ethical, religious reasons.
The president warned that the veto includes 61 alternative texts and the National Assembly will have 30 days to decide whether to maintain the original document or accept the Executive’s new proposal.
«I firmly believe that our laws should not be a factor of division, but of encounter. The laws are for the service of all Ecuadorians, in their vast diversity and plurality », he emphasized.
Before issuing his opinion, the president reiterated that he defends life from conception, but taking into account his current position, he will do everything possible to enforce the principles of a fully republican and democratic system.
The Rape Abortion Bill keeps the population divided between those who consider that it is a way of doing justice to the victims of this scourge and pro-life groups, in which nothing justifies the interruption of pregnancy.
jha/scm
