Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-585/2010 (Villavicencio) – The claimant, C.C., requested an abortion on the grounds of risk to her health and life. Claiming conscientious objection, her attending physicians refused to perform the procedure, and the hospital asked her to fulfill additional requirements. C.C. filed a tutela, which was denied by the court of first instance. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which stated that pregnant women cannot be forced “to take heroic sacrifices or lay down their own rights for the benefit of third parties or the public interest.” It also stressed the importance of timely diagnoses by health care providers. Finally, it ruled that the hospital had violated C.C.’s fundamental right to abortion.

El Salvador: Creation of the organization Vida SV El Salvador in the wake of two key events: (1) an abortion rights lawsuit filed before the Supreme Court by the Citizens’ Coalition for the Decriminalization of Abortion and (2) a request by the UN Human Rights Committee asking El Salvador to review its legislation on abortion. Vida SV El Salvador is made up of Catholic Action members and has gradually turned its attention to actions related to the legal and bioethical fields.

Mexico: The local congress of the state of Nayarit reformed article 7 of its Constitution to recognize, protect, and guarantee the right to life of every human being from the moment of fertilization until its natural death.

Argentina: T.N. Case – In Río Negro, an 11-year-old girl was sexually abused repeatedly by her father and uncle, resulting in pregnancy. The case was brought to court, and an abortion was granted by Judge Lozada. Subsequently, the president of the Bar Association of Río Negro, who was also tie founder of a pro-life organization, began impeachment proceedings against the judge.

Colombia: The lawsuit to annul Decree 444 of 2006 was admitted. The lawsuit called for the nullification of Decree 444, “which regulates the provision of sexual and reproductive health services,” on the grounds that issues such as conscientious objection and financing for abortion should be regulated by laws passed by Congress and not through decrees issued by entities within the health system.

Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion. Colombia: Sentence T-388/2009 – X.X., when 12 weeks pregnant, was diagnosed with a serious malformation of the fetus. However, her health care provider denied her an abortion. X.X.’s husband filed a tutela, which was denied by the judge of first instance, who claimed conscientious objection. Thereafter, the Constitutional Court ruled that public servants cannot pose obstacles not covered by Sentence C-355/2006, reiterating that judicial authorities may not plead conscientious objection to refrain from authorizing requests for abortion.

Colombia: San Ignacio Hospital was sanctioned by the Ministry of Health for its refusal to provide abortion services on the basis of institutional conscientious objection. This sanction was achieved thanks to a complaint filed by the Superintendence of Health.

Mexico: The local congress of the state of San Luis Potosi reformed article 16 of its Constitution to recognize that all human life begins at the moment of conception.

Mexico: The local congress of the state of Guanajuato reformed its Constitution to affirm that “a person is every human being from conception until natural death; and the State shall guarantee the full enjoyment and exercise of all their rights.”

Mexico: The local congress of the state of Yucatan reformed article 1 of its Constitution to “recognize, protect and guarantee the right to life of every human being, [which] from the moment of its fertilization, comes under the protection of the law and is recognized as born for all legal purposes, until his natural death.”