National Health Fund clarifies circumstances in abortion case

Woman had requested termination of pregnancy for malformation

Correo del Sur

Caution: Machine assisted translation of ” CNS aclara actuación en caso de aborto: La Mujer Había Pedido Interrumpir el Embarazo por Malformación.” Correo del Sur, 16 Marzo, 2019.

The regional administrator of the National Health Fund (CNS) Chuquisaca, Javier Menacho, disclaimed responsibilities on the alleged violation of the rights of a pregnant woman who requested the legal and safe termination of her pregnancy due to congenital malformation of the fetus. He clarified that the family requested, by their own decision, the discharge of the patient and then went to another hospital where they fulfilled the desire of the mother.

At a press conference, Menacho explained that in mid-February of last year they treated a patient with a five-month pregnancy. She had been transferred from Villa Tunari, Cochabamba.

He said that after doing the corresponding studies they determined that the fetus had a congenital malformation; then, the woman’s family asked for the termination of the pregnancy.

The doctors met in a medical meeting and, following the protocols, gave three options: the first, continue with the pregnancy; the second, to guide the family on the malformation of the fetus; and the third, obtain a legal approval that allows interrupting the pregnancy.

“However, the professionals of the institution claimed ‘conscientious objection’, that is, that no one can be forced to interrupt the life of a human being,” Menacho explained.

He said that days later, the family requested the discharge of the patient and saw it convenient to go to another hospital, where they did proceed with the termination of the pregnancy.

“We are waiting for our legal report, what steps have to be followed, with what charges we are to proceed. I cannot begin a process immediately without having a adequate evidence because I cannot judge anyone without having something concrete, “Menacho said.

Hospital denies legal abortion care

The Ombudsman’s Office calls for punitive action

Correo del Sur

Caution: machine assisted translation of “Hospital niega atención de aborto legal.” Correo del Sur, 15 Marzo 2019.

The Ombudsman’s Office asked the authorities of the Jaime Mendoza Hospital, the National Health Fund and the Ministry of Health to take civil, criminal and / or administrative action against those responsible for violating the rights of a pregnant woman who requested legal interruption of her pregnancy due to congenital malformation of the fetus, a right that was denied.

The case was made public yesterday by the Ombudsman, Nadia Cruz, who said that the decision of the citizen is supported by the Plurinational Constitutional Judgment No. 206/2014, but despite this, the hospital refused to perform the termination of pregnancy, so the woman had to resort to another center.

She explained that the rule permits legal interruption when “pregnancy endangers the health or life of women, there is the existence of lethal congenital malformations, or is the product of rape, rape and incest.” She asked for respect for the law and the human rights of women.

Bolivia enacts new abortion law with limited conscience clause

Sean Murphy*

A new abortion law has been enacted in Bolivia as part of the revision of the country’s Penal Code.  Section 153 of the Penal Code now permits abortion of any girl under the age of 20 for any reason and at any point in gestation, when pregnancy results from rape, incest or involuntary artificial reproduction.  Abortion is also allowed at any point in gestation in the case of present or future risk to the life or “overall health” of a woman, and (when pregnancy is under 8 weeks gestation) the woman is a student or has the care of a disabled relative.

The protection of conscience provision prohibits “the national health system” from asserting conscientious objection and insists that conscientious objection is limited to individual medical personnel “directly involved in the accomplishment” of the procedure, and must be stated in advance.  “The national health system” is not defined in the law.  It would appear from this that private or denominational health facilities (if they exist and are legally part of the national health system) cannot establish policies prohibiting abortion.

The fact that abortion is permitted as an exception to a general prohibition should mean that medical personnel or institutions of the opinion that a women does not qualify for an abortion under one of the legal criterion (such as risk to “overall health”) cannot be compelled to participate.  This would not constitute conscientious objection and could not be stated in advance.