Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments. Colombia: Sentence T-636/2011 (Armenia) – The claimant, A.A., requested an abortion due to the strong likelihood of fetal malformation (as she suffered from epilepsy and the drugs she was taking could adversely affect her pregnancy). Her request was denied by two different courts and was then appealed to the Constitutional Court. After further medical examinations, however, she discovered that the fetus did not have any malformations, and she withdrew her request. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court ruled on A.A.’s case, deciding (1) to revoke the denials of the first and second instance courts and (2) to warn the health care provider of its obligation to observe the provisions of Sentence C-355 and refrain from making unwarranted value judgments.

Mexico: The Supreme Court ruled that the amendments declaring the right to life from the moment of conception from Baja California (11/2009) and San Luis Potosi (62/2009) were within the constitutional order.

Brazil: Supreme Federal Court ruled that a lesbian couple could legally marry.

Colombia: The Constitutional Court issued Sentence T-841/2011 denying the declaration of invalidity requested by Attorney General Ordoñez and confirming mental health as a grounds for legal abortion.

Colombia: Bill 06/11 presented by a coalition of the Conservative Party seeking to “guarantee all human beings equal protection of the right to life.” La Mesa por la Vida y la Salud de Las Mujeres lobbied the Office of the High Counsellor for Women, provided legal concepts to members of Congress, participated in a public hearing, and helped facilitate agreements and alliances among different civil society groups. The bill was withdrawn later that year.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued its decision in L.C. v. Peru.

Colombia: Sentence T-841/2011 – B.B. requested an abortion for her 12-year-old daughter, A.A., on the grounds that the pregnancy put her life at risk. A.A.’s health care provider denied the request, and first and second instance courts upheld the denial. Eventually, A.A. gave birth. Her case was appealed to the Constitutional Court, whose ruling set a constitutional precedent insofar as it declared that the identify of women who request an abortion should be withheld in judicial processes, in order to promote access to health and justice. The ruling also ordered the health care provider to pay damages to A.A. and upheld women’s fundamental right to abortion.

Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner re-elected president.

Brazil: A court in Alagoas made marriage licenses available to same-sex couples at all registries throughout the state.

Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action. Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action. Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action. Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action. Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action. Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action. Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action. Colombia: Sentence T-959/2011 – Due to an illness that she was suffering, X.X. requested an abortion from her health care provider on the grounds that the pregnancy could endanger her life and health. She was denied the procedure. Finally, after filing a tutela, she received a caesarean section. The Constitutional Court reiterated the obligation of health care providers to refrain from imposing obstacles or unnecessary barriers to women’s access to abortion. However, it also considered that the caesarean section had resolved the issue and, as a result, declared the lawsuit inadmissible due to a lack of cause of action.