TIME00198

Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.Colombia: Sentence T-171/2007 (Cúcuta) – The claimant, D.D., was five months pregnant when she was denied an abortion that she had requested on the grounds of fetal malformation. She filed a tutela against her health care provider, but the second instance court ruled against her on the grounds that her request was not covered by Sentence C-355/2006. Two months later, she received an emergency caesarean section. Although the court ruled that D.D.’s case lacked a cause of action, it emphasized current regulations on pregnant women’s access to health services, particularly regarding cases where abortion is permissible under the exceptions laid out in Sentence C-355/2006. In this way, the ruling set a precedent in terms of women’s access to surgical abortion and its reaffirmation of existing norms on abortion.