ARTICLE IN PRESS

IJG-06312; No of Pages 4
International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j g o

1 ETHICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

2 The evolution of Mexico City's abortion laws: From public morality to

3 women's autonomy
4 Alejandro Madrazo ⁎
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Mexico City, Mexico

F
5
6

OO
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
7
8
9
10
11 Keywords: Before 2000, Mexico City's criminal laws prohibited induced abortion to maintain public morality. The 19
12 Abortion regulation Criminal Code considered abortion by accident or in cases of rape not criminal, and criminal but excusable— 20
13 Decriminalization of abortion and therefore not punishable—in certain cases not endangering public morality, such as medical necessity to 21
14 Law reform save the woman's life. In 2000, the Criminal Code was reformed expanding exceptions from criminal liability,

PR
22
15 Public health policy particularly in cases of danger to a woman's health or where fetal survival was at risk. In 2004, Mexico City 23
16 Public morality
enacted its own law, effectively decriminalizing consensual abortion in cases of rape, fetal malformation, and 24
17 Women's autonomy
18 Women's health
risk to the woman's health. A 2007 reform further decriminalized all consensual abortion within the 25
first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and required public hospitals to provide abortion and family planning services. 26
In August 2008, the Supreme Court of Mexico ruled Mexico City's 2007 liberalization of abortion law 27
constitutional. 28
ED
© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 29
31 30
33
34
32
1. Introduction reasons why a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy; 60
and the 2007 reform, which openly decriminalizes abortion during 61
Over the last few years, the transformation of abortion laws in
CT

35 the first trimester. In the first conception, the law came to be more 62
36 Mexico City has been profound. Until recently, Mexico City had the liberal, incorporating health—even mental distress—as acceptable 63
37 most restrictive abortion legislation of all Mexican states, permitting reasons for society not punishing abortions. In the second conception, 64
38 abortion only in cases of rape and when the woman's life or the fetus's it is no longer society that is to decide when the termination of a 65
39 life were at risk. The law was expressed in the rhetoric of honor and pregnancy is acceptable, but each individual woman deciding about 66
E

40 public morality. In contrast, legal reforms were enacted in 2007 by her own pregnancy. These two conceptions are diametrically different 67
41 Mexico City's Legislative Assembly, allowing for abortion on request yet, as we shall see, the former paved the way for the latter to provide 68
42 during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and mandating that the health the guiding notions for the law governing abortion.
RR

69
43 service be provided free of charge in public city hospitals. The new
44 regulation of abortion was explicitly intertwined with the language of 2. Public morality and the woman's role as wife and mother 70
45 sexual and reproductive rights, education, equality, dignity, and auto-
46 nomy. In the late summer of 2008, Mexico's Supreme Court confirmed Legislative change regarding abortion began soon after Mexico City 71
47 the constitutionality of this new law. acquired the authority to determine its own laws. Until the late 1990s, 72
CO

48 Between these two extremes lies a string of legislative reforms Mexico City was under direct control of the Federal Government in that 73
49 (2000, 2004, and 2007) and two constitutional challenges before the the President appointed its Governor and the Federal Congress enacted 74
50 Supreme Court (2000–2002 and 2007–2008). There are probably few its laws. The standing statute governing criminal law was the Federal 75
51 examples of such Copernican shifts in abortion regulation through Criminal Code (CPF, for its initials in Spanish), enacted by Congress in 76
52 widely publicized democratic legislative channels. This article aims to 1932. Its abortion clauses had remained unaltered since then. 77
UN

53 track the path of this change, fleshing out the legal and conceptual Before 2000, abortion was treated as a matter of public morality 78
54 shifts that took place in this period. under the Federal Criminal Code. Under the CPF (which remains the 79
55 This gradual change reflects two different underpinning concep- statute applicable under federal jurisdiction) abortion is defined as 80
56 tions of the values that should guide abortion laws. These two “the death of the product of conception at any moment during 81
57 different conceptions are best captured by the 2000 reform—known as pregnancy” [1]. The CPF establishes that the crime of abortion “is not 82
58 the Ley Robles—which expands exceptions to a criminal law prohibi- punishable” when the result of imprudence (i.e. accident) or “in cases 83
59 tion of induced abortion, increasing the number of socially accepted of rape” [2]. Furthermore, criminal sanctions are “not to be applied” 84
when the woman or “product” risked death in the concurring opinion 85
⁎ Carretera México- Toluca 3655 Col. Lomas de Santa Fe, c.p. 01210, México, D.F. Mexico. of two doctors (time permitting, otherwise one will suffice) [3]. The 86
E-mail address: alejandro@madrazolajous.com. difference between these two exceptions is subtle but important. In 87

0020-7292/$ – see front matter © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.004

Please cite this article as: Madrazo A, The evolution of Mexico City's abortion laws: From public morality to women's autonomy, Int J Gynecol
Obstet (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 A. Madrazo / International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

88 cases of imprudence or rape, when the abortion is not punishable, the conception's survival at risk” [5]. The inclusion of this 151
89 criminal character of abortion disappears. In contrast, in case of exception is particularly important when coupled with the 152
90 medical necessity to save the woman's life, the act remains criminal, elimination of the “risk to the life of the fetus” exception. 153
91 but is considered excusable and thus not punished. The fact that rape Taken together, these two moves indicate that it is the 154
92 eliminates the criminal character of the conduct reveals the moral emotional distress of the woman in cases such as anence- 155
93 orientation of the statute, for it reveals that the legislator is most phaly that concerned the legislator, not the risk to the fetus's 156
94 concerned with the woman's conduct leading up to pregnancy. life. 157
95 More revealing of the underpinning public morality is the language (5) Importantly, it replaced the term “mother” by the term “woman,” 158
96 of the Federal criminal law statute. Justice Fernando Franco pointed to signaling a distancing from the previous assumptions about the 159
97 this fact at the Supreme Court deliberations on August 27, 2008. The CPF expected roles of women. This is the only “conceptual” change 160
98 establishes reduced punishment for “the mother” if three circumstances that was undertaken by the Ley Robles. It was, however, important 161
99 concur: (1) that she does not have a “bad reputation”; (2) that she kept in signaling future changes to come. 162
100 the pregnancy concealed until the abortion; and (3) that the pregnancy (6) Finally, the Ley Robles included a new procedural regulation for 163
101 is “the fruit of a legitimate union” [4]. Speaking of “the mother” rather authorizing abortions in cases of rape and involuntary insemina- 164
102 than “the woman” reveals assumptions the legislators made concerning tion, putting a time limit of 24 hours for authorities to consider 165
103 the proper role of a pregnant woman. Further, the crime is deemed lesser authorization once the rape and pregnancy were demonstrated. 166
if circumstances occur that acknowledge the “damage” that abortion

OF
104
105 causes to public morality—not the fetus—by the woman's discretion in What needs to be clearly understood about the Ley Robles of 2000—in 167
106 concealing the pregnancy and its termination, and the pregnancy contrast to the 2007 decriminalization—is that its logic remained within 168
107 occurring within marriage. the concept that privileges socially accepted reasons for abortion over a 169
woman's capacity to decide over her own pregnancy, that is, her auto- 170
3. From public morality to health: The Ley Robles nomy. It includes aspects that raise the issue of a woman's autonomy—

RO
108 171
most notably the inclusion of nonconsensual artificial insemination as a 172
109 The first in a chain of legislative reforms regarding abortion was case deserving special regulation, and also replacement of the word 173
110 enacted in 2000. It consisted of the following changes to the CPF. “mother” by “woman”—yet it still advances the liberalization of abortion 174
through socially acceptable exceptions to a general ban—congenital 175
111 (1) It eliminated the alternative sanction that allowed diminished malformations and risk to the health of the mother. It was not until 2007, 176
112
113
114
115
116
punishments in case of concurrence of the woman's “good
reputation,” “concealed pregnancy,” and “legitimate union.” This
change was key in moving away from the public morality thrust
of the law, focusing instead on the well-being of the fetus. As will
become clearer in this section, this shift in the good protected by
DP with full decriminalization, that a woman's capacity to decide becomes
the premise underlying abortion law.
The Ley Robles was challenged by a minority of conservative local
congressmen before the Supreme Court of Mexico, on grounds that
177
178
179
180
authorizing abortions in cases of genetic or congenital conditions of the 181
117 the legislation—from public morality to the fetus itself—is central fetus violated the fetal constitutional right to life. The Court ruled in 182
to the Ley Robles, and instrumental in the reform strategy that
TE
118 January of 2002 in favor of the constitutionality of the reform, 183
119 was to be carried out in 2007. recognizing the right to life of the fetus, but deeming that the reform 184
120 (2) It made the crime of abortion punishable only if successfully “does not authorize the taking of the life of the product of conception, 185
121 carried out, excluding failed attempts from punishment. This but rather it merely contemplates the possibility that once the criminal 186
122 change reflects a shift from focusing on criminal intent to harmful act takes place no sanction be applied” [6]. Because of the special type of 187
EC

123 result, again moving the legislation away from damage to moral- procedure under which the challenge was brought, the Court's holding 188
124 ity and into the field of damage to the fetus. was nonbinding as precedent. However, it recognized a right to life of the 189
125 (3) It concentrated all exceptions to the ban on abortion under the fetus, and it implied that the constitutionality of the 2000 reform law lay 190
126 category of “sanctions not to be applied.” This is consistent with in maintaining the criminal nature of the offense. In this sense, the Court 191
127 the shift in focus from the morality of the conduct (in which the seemed to rule in favor of liberalization because the legislation remained 192
RR

128 conduct leading to pregnancy is relevant in assessing the within the concept that allows for abortions only when socially 193
129 sanction) to a uniform focus on result (in which conduct leading acceptable reasons, previously established in law, are satisfied, which 194
130 to abortion is relevant, but not conduct leading to pregnancy). is a far cry from allowing abortion on grounds of respect for women's 195
131 (4) It incorporated several new exceptions to the ban on abortion, autonomy. 196
132 namely:
CO

133 (a) When a woman is artificially inseminated without her 4. From “no sanctions” to “no crime”: The 2004 reform 197
134 consent. The infrequency of such cases leads one to think
135 that, rather than dealing with a pressing social problem, Six months after the Supreme Court's ruling, in June of 2002, Mexico 198
136 the reform aimed to signal that the woman's consent was City finally published its own New Criminal Code for the Federal District 199
137 determinant in allowing for interruption of pregnancy. In (NCPDF). The clauses regulating abortion remained fundamentally 200
this, we can see the second crucial shift in the legislative unaltered from the Ley Robles reform. One change worthy of notice,
UN

138 201
139 history of abortion in Mexico City: while still nascent, the insignificant from a normative perspective at the time, but relevant in 202
140 notion of women's autonomy is now visible. retrospect, was a slight alteration in the definition of the crime of 203
141 (b) When there is a threat to the woman's health. This exception abortion. The new code replaced the word “preñez” with the word 204
142 replaced threat to the life of a woman or “product of “embarazo,” both synonyms meaning “pregnancy,” but the former 205
143 conception,” and was to be interpreted to include cases considerably out of use in the 21st century [7]. The new code's regulation 206
144 when the woman's life was threatened. Importantly, this of abortion was revised shortly thereafter, in December 2003, and was 207
145 eliminated the threat to fetal life as a relevant question, published in January 2004. 208
146 emphasizing the woman's well-being—in her physical body, Continuing down the path timidly laid out by the Ley Robles, the 209
147 not as a moral agent—as the emerging concern of the law. 2004 reform advanced the notion that the woman's consent must be 210
148 (c) When there are adverse genetic and congenital conditions regarded as central in abortion legislation. It raised the punishment 211
149 affecting the fetus “which may result in physical or mental for abortion without the woman's consent, which had been for a term 212
150 damage, to the extent that they put the product of of 3–6 years' imprisonment, to a term of 5–8 years. Furthermore, it 213

Please cite this article as: Madrazo A, The evolution of Mexico City's abortion laws: From public morality to women's autonomy, Int J Gynecol
Obstet (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Madrazo / International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3

214 undertook a major shift in the legal character of permitted abortions. bility for an abortion—the Legislative Assembly redefined the crime of 278
215 Article 148 abandoned the language that stated that in some cases abortion itself. Abortion is now defined as the interruption of a 279
216 sanctions “were not to be applied” and replaced this language by pregnancy after the 12th week. This leaves untouched the bases of 280
217 stating that rape, congenital malformation of the fetus, risk to the exclusion of criminal responsibility for abortion beyond the 12th 281
218 woman's health, and unwanted artificial insemination were all “to be week, while eliminating the crime of abortion from the books before 282
219 considered reasons to exclude criminal responsibility.” This meant the 12th week of pregnancy. Within the first trimester, it is now for a 283
220 that abortion under the specified circumstances was no longer consi- woman to decide freely on her continuation of pregnancy, indepen- 284
221 dered excusable yet criminal conduct, but rather that the conduct lost dently of what is deemed socially acceptable. 285
222 its criminal character altogether. This represented a gargantuan shift Furthermore, the reform defined pregnancy as the process of 286
223 in the underlying assumptions of the regulation of abortion. Abortion human reproduction starting with implantation of the embryo in the 287
224 was effectively decriminalized for the first time, if only in limited wall of the uterus, making emergency contraception fall outside the 288
225 socially sanctioned cases. definition of both pregnancy and abortion. A parallel crime was 289
226 In decriminalization, this reform risked falling outside the scope of inserted of forced abortion, which was defined as the interruption of a 290
227 the 2002 Supreme Court ruling, which justified finding the Ley Robles pregnancy without the woman's consent at any moment during the 291
228 constitutional because the criminal character of the conduct had pregnancy, with increased penalties in cases of physical or psycho- 292
229 remained. However, the 2004 legal reform was not challenged in logical violence. This last inclusion underlined yet again the woman's 293
230 court. In fact, it was approved by all parties in the Legislative Assembly, consent as the centerpiece of the emerging regime on abortion. 294

F
231 including the National Action Party, a staunch opponent of the In addition to the redefinition of the crime of abortion, the 295
232 liberalization of abortion law and a historic ally of the Roman Catholic sanctions applied to women for post-12th week abortions were sub- 296

OO
233 Church, because it allowed for conscientious objection on the part of stantially reduced, allowing for an alternative between a short prison 297
234 the health service provider [8]. term of 3–6 months or a fine of US $400 to US $600 (still a significant 298
235 A sister reform added two articles to Mexico City's Health Law. amount, considering the daily minimum wage is set at about US $4.00). 299
236 Article 16 bis 6 stated that public health institutions run by the city A sister reform, made to the Health Law of Mexico City, explicitly 300
237 government were under an obligation to perform abortions free of clarifies that all women are entitled to free legal abortions in city 301
charge, in cases permitted by the criminal law. It also mandated that hospitals, even if they are covered by private or other public healthcare

PR
238 302
239 women be provided with information regarding their alternatives to systems. The clause is largely redundant, but seems designed as a 303
240 abortion and the possible consequences to health of abortion, again guarantee against restrictive interpretations on the part of the admi- 304
241 strengthening the importance of the woman's capacity to decide. nistration, that could conceivably contrive financial barriers to frustrate 305
242 Importantly, it set a time limit of 5 days after a petition was submitted a woman's access to safe and timely abortion. More importantly, it 306
243 for performing legal abortions. Article 16 bis 7, on its part, established provides a clear message, that not only is a woman to be allowed to make 307
244 a right to conscientious objection for health service providers, but her decision, but she must also be provided with the means to make her 308
ED
245 carved out an exception if the life or health of the woman is in danger. decision effective. 309
246 Finally, if a health provider conscientiously objected to perform an To round off the new law governing abortion, a new article, 16 bis 8, 310
247 abortion, the provider had the obligation to refer the patient to a was inserted into the Health Law, to explicitly mandate that sexual and 311
248 doctor who did not object. reproductive health be a priority of public health policies in Mexico City, 312
249 In short, the 2004 reform maintained the law within the rationale of specifically invoking the constitutional right of all persons to decide the 313
CT

250 allowing abortion only in cases that are socially acceptable, but it number and spacing of their children freely, responsibly, and in an 314
251 advanced the notion of a woman's autonomy by highlighting informa- informed manner. Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution states that all 315
252 tion. Importantly—although this cannot be heralded as the moment persons have the constitutional right “to decide in a free, responsible and 316
253 when autonomy prevailed—it reclassified the socially acceptable informed manner the number and spacing of their children.” 317
exceptions as not criminal, and not merely excusable. Article 16 bis 8 further lays out the guidelines for these policies, which
E

254 318
merit extensive citation. The article calls for “permanent, intensive and 319
255 5. The 2007 reform: Decriminalization during the first trimester integral” education and training campaigns promoting sexual health, 320
RR

reproductive rights, and responsible “maternity and paternity,” family 321

256 The Mexican Constitution does not allow for immediate re-election planning, and contraception services aimed at reducing the number of 322
257 of elected officials, so all members of legislative bodies are renewed with abortions through the prevention of unplanned and unwanted preg- 323
258 each election. Accordingly, a new administration and a new legislature nancies, reducing reproductive risk, avoiding the propagation of sexually 324
259 came into power in Mexico City in late 2006. A new reform to abortion transmitted diseases, and helping in the full exercise of sexual rights 325
CO

260 laws was soon proposed, with full decriminalization of consensual taking into account a gender perspective, and respect for sexual diversity 326
261 abortions during the first trimester. The months that followed this in accordance with the characteristics of the multiple population groups, 327
262 proposal for reform of the law saw a heated debate in the media, with especially girls and boys, adolescents and youths. The Article charges the 328
263 surprisingly little public mobilization on the streets, despite energetic city government with “providing medical and social counseling regard- 329
264 efforts on the part of both women's rights groups and the Catholic ing sexual and reproductive health, permanently providing free services 330
Church and its allies to mobilize their bases of support. In April 2007, the which include information, spreading awareness and orientation on the
UN

265 331
266 reform was approved by an overwhelming majority of the Legislative subject, as well as the provision of all contraceptive methods of which the 332
267 Assembly. Opposition to the reform was incapable of gathering the efficacy and security have been scientifically proven” [9]. 333
268 legislative support required to challenge the reform before the Supreme The 2007 reform puts the law governing abortion in Mexico City 334
269 Court. The specific type of constitutional procedure for a direct con- squarely on the side of privileging women's autonomy, shifting the 335
270 stitutional challenge before the Supreme Court required the support of focus from criminal repression of choice toward preventive services, 336
271 at least 33% of the legislative body to grant them standing, but this education, and respect for women's self-determination and funda- 337
272 volume of opposition to the law was not present. mental rights. Within a month of enactment, however, the reforms 338
273 The 2007 reform represents a shift in conceptions that underlie the were challenged by the President of Mexico's National Human Rights 339
274 liberalization of abortion law. Instead of widening the socially accep- Commission (CNDH) and the Attorney General of the Federal 340
275 table exceptions to the prohibition of induced abortion—one option Government. The President of the CNDH, a collegiate body, acted on 341
276 proposed by women's groups was to include the earnest pursuit of a his own authority, and half the members of the CNDH opposed the 342
277 woman's life plan as a cause for the exclusion of criminal responsi- claim of unconstitutionality when appearing before the Supreme 343

Please cite this article as: Madrazo A, The evolution of Mexico City's abortion laws: From public morality to women's autonomy, Int J Gynecol
Obstet (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 A. Madrazo / International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

t1:1 Table 1 A word should also be said about the political context that allowed 388
a
Abortion on request in Mexico City: Numbers after decriminalization. this shift to happen, especially in a dominantly Roman Catholic 389
t1:2
t1:3 • Applications for information regarding abortion: 36 709 country. First of all, the existence of an active, well-informed, and 390
t1:4 • Abortions requested in Mexico City public hospitals: 24 473 influential critical mass of women's rights activists both ignited and 391
t1:5 • Abortions practiced in Mexico City public hospitals: 18 620 guided the legislative transformation [11]. Second, when looking at 392
t1:6 • Number of city hospitals offering the service of legal abortion: 11
patterns, the timing of reforms was consistently strategic. The 2000 393
t1:7 • Procedures used: Misoprostol, manual vacuum aspiration, and/or dilatation and curettage
t1:8 • Number of doctors that practice abortions in public city hospitals: 21 Ley Robles and the 2004 and 2007 reforms were undertaken soon 394
t1:9 • Assistant personnel per hospital: 3 on average (2 nurses and 1 social worker) after elections, in a less tense political atmosphere, and with enough 395
t1:10 • Age range of patients: 13–46 years time before the next election for Catholic voters to forgive or forget. A 396
t1:11 • Casualties stemming from the procedure: 1 death due to performance of procedure
successful strategy was to position reforms at moments when politics 397
outside of protocol to a patient 16 weeks into her pregnancy.
t1:12 • Complications other than casualties: none
were not dominated by potential presidential candidacies. The two 398
a
most important reforms (in 2000 and the 2007 reform) were pushed 399
Data were obtained using Mexico City's access to public information system and
through at times when the Mexico City Governor's potential 400
reflects data from the coming into force of the 2007 reform (April 27, 2007) up until
t1:13 January 22, 2009. presidential candidacy was not a central concern of legislators from 401
his party. The third and last significant circumstance was specific to 402
the 2007 reform, the most radical in the sequence of reforms, namely 403
the existence, prior to and beyond the abortion reforms, of a broad and

OF
404
344 Court. The current federal administration is headed by the National stable more left-wing and liberal legislative coalition led by the 405
345 Action Party, which has historic ties to the Catholic Church. majority party, which allowed for the marginalization of the right- 406
346 The challenge was brought on several allegations of unconstitution- wing party's position. 407
347 ality, notably that the legal reforms violated the fetus's fundamental
right to life. The Supreme Court ruled in August of 2008 in favor of the 7. Antiabortion backlash

RO
348 408
349 reforms being constitutional, finding that there were no constitutional
350 grounds to claim that a fetus has a right to life, and, more importantly, A note of caution should be sounded since backlash has been quick to 409
351 that there was no constitutional obligation binding the legislature to appear after the Supreme Court's August 2008 ruling. Several identical 410
352 protect the fetus specifically through criminal law. Furthermore, in its initiatives have been introduced in state congresses to reform local 411
353 incidental commentary, the Court found that the measure taken by the constitutions, ensuring that the right to life be protected “from con- 412
354
355
356
357
legislature, to decriminalize abortion during the first 12 weeks, was
“ideal” for safekeeping women's rights—the objective explicitly pursued
by the legislature— such as their freedom over their body, their physical
and mental health, and their lives, and that, even if the protection of the
DP
ception.” Within less than a year of the decision—to March 2009—four
states have approved their constitutional amendments (Sonora, Baja
California, Morelos, and Puebla). At least 7 others are in the process of
being discussed. A similar amendment to the federal Constitution has
413
414
415
416
358 fetus was pursued, criminalization did not ensure the proper develop- already been introduced at the federal Congress. In January 2009, 417
359 ment of gestation given the social context, and that it did, in fact, Mexico's President, Felipe Calderón, inaugurated a world forum in 418
TE
360 perpetuate discrimination against women [10]. Mexico City, organized by the Catholic Church, in defense of “family” and 419
“life,” the President acting in defiance of Mexico's tradition of strictly 420
361 6. The result: From public morality to personal autonomy secular government. Abortion has already reached the Supreme Court 421
yet again. The local human rights defense organ challenged the Baja 422
Eight years of gradual and continuous legislative reform have moved California amendment on claims that it affects the (federal) constitu- 423
EC

362
363 abortion laws in Mexico City far away from where they stood at the tional rights of women. This year, two Supreme Court seats are eligible 424
364 opening of the 21st century. Consistent patterns emerging from this for renewal. So it seems that Mexico City's decriminalization of abortion 425
365 trajectory include the gradual and constant exclusion of public morality is the beginning, not the end, of abortion politics in Mexico. 426
366 from the language and thrust of the law; the emergence of the woman's The struggle between public morality and private autonomy may 427
consent as a determinant factor to be taken into account by the law; and, have only just begun. 428
RR

367
368 equally important, having sexual and reproductive health and rights be
369 the center of the law regulating abortion, both criminal and adminis- References 429
370 trative. The result, and the transcending significance of the example of [1] Código Penal Federal, art. 329. 430
371 Mexico City's new law, is not only decriminalization of abortion during [2] Código Penal Federal, art. 333. 431
372 the first trimester, but also robust legislation enhancing family planning, [3] Código Penal Federal, art. 334. 432
CO

[4] Código Penal Federal, art. 332. 433

373 respect for sexual and reproductive rights and, importantly, prevention [5] Article 334, Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, «Decreto por el que se reforman y 434
374 of unwanted pregnancies. adicionan diversas disposiciones del Código Penal para el Distrito Federal y del Código 435
375 A major achievement, of great relevance to the international public de Procedimientos Penales para el Distrito Federal,» 24 de agosto de 2000: 1-2. 436
[6] Diputados integrantes de la Asamblea Legislativa del Distrito Federal, Acción de 437
376 health community, is the widely accessible program of abortion on inconstitucionalidad 10/2000 (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación). 438
377 request implemented by Mexico City's Ministry of Health. Table 1 [7] Article 144, Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, «Decreto de Nuevo Código Penal 439
UN

378 provides some of the most salient numbers the Ministry of Health has para el Distrito Federal,» 16 de Julio de 2002: 2-74. 440
[8] Marta Lamas «La larga marcha hacia la despenalización del aborto en la Ciudad de 441
379 made public, but the experience of Mexico City should be recorded in
México,» ed. Eugenia Huerta, Configuraciones (Fundación Pereyra), no. 26 (enero- 442
380 detail so that it can provide accumulated data for epidemiologists, marzo 2008): 46-59. 443
381 health policy makers and, in general, the public health community [9] Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, «Decreto por el que se reforma el Código Penal 444
para el Distrito Federal y se adiciona la Ley de salud para el Distrito Federal,» 26 de 445
382 around the globe. Few, if any, experiences in safe, accessible abortion
abril de 2007: 2-3. 446
383 have been undertaken that can compare with that of Mexico City in [10] Opinion of the Court in Acción de inconstitucionalidad 146/2007 y su acumulada 447
384 volume and impact in a diverse, politically plural society. The daunting 147/2007. 448
385 task of reorienting a health system, and mobilizing so many human, [11] Lamas M. «La larga marcha hacia la despenalización del aborto en la Ciudad de 449
México,» ed. Eugenia Huerta, Configuraciones (Fundación Pereyra), no. 26 (enero- 450
386 material, and economic resources so quickly, has met with seemingly marzo 2008): 46-59. 451
387 surprising success and should be studied attentively. 452
453

Please cite this article as: Madrazo A, The evolution of Mexico City's abortion laws: From public morality to women's autonomy, Int J Gynecol
Obstet (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.004