Featured Image
Pro-abortion activists in

CHACO, Argentina, February 2, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – After an injunction filed by pro-lifers, a judge in the northern province of Chaco, Argentina has blocked the recently enacted abortion law from taking effect in the region. Up until early January 2021, abortion in Argentina was a crime punishable of up to four years in prison. Now, Law 27.610 on Access to Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy (IVE) has legalized abortion up to 15 weeks. But for now, the law is blocked in the province of Chaco.

Judge Marta Aucar approved the precautionary measure, which defends the rights of the unborn child and declares the new law unconstitutional. It reads in part, “The execution of abortion procedures restricts, undermines, abuses, limits and alters the right to life of the unborn child, [which is] protected by our legal system from conception.” The petitioners behind the pro-life initiative are Hilda Beatriz Dellamea, Christina Araceli Chemes, Clelia Mirtha Avila, Gabreila Monzon, and Claudia Mariel Medina, sponsored by Fernando Enrique Guirado.

Pro-abortion groups are positioning themselves to fight back. The National Campaign for the Right to Legal, Safe and Free Legal Abortion said they are aware of the situation and are “working on a legal and political strategy.”

The province’s Secretary of Human Rights and Gender put out a statement saying that the provincial government has not been formally notified, arguing that, while they were respecting the judicial process, the abortion law has already been passed by the representatives of the people. “We are going to continue promoting this right to protect women and pregnant people.”

“For the judge's ruling to take effect,” BATimes reports, “the Chaco Province government must be formally notified, giving the authorities the right to appeal.”

The actions of Judge Aucar have been attacked by National Senator María Inés Pilatti Vergara. Vergara has accused Judge Aucar of being “closely linked to the Catholic Church” of being “mindless and irresponsible” and a “legal monstrosity.”

Pro-abortion lawyer Soledad Deza believes the injunction “is destined to fail” because Chaco cannot have a “lower standard of human rights than the rest of the provinces.”

However, including the national Constitution, each province has its own constitution. Things like health and education are regulated by each province according to its own needs. In that sense, even though the abortion law was voted in a federal move as a “public order,” the petitioners maintain abortion goes against the Chaco constitution. They believe that “the interpretation of the law [which is] more favorable to the human person” will prevail.

“In addition, it specifies that of the different ‘international instruments with constitutional hierarchy’ that protect the life of the unborn, the document mentions article 75, paragraph 23 of the national Constitution, where ‘children, women, the elderly and the people with disabilities [are] especially protected by our Constitution.’”

The Chaco dispute will most likely be slow moving through the courts and eventually land in the Argentine Supreme Court. Yet they are not alone. Other regions are taking similar pro-life action.

Lawyer Guillermo Juan Sueldo, a Buenos Aires attorney, initiated a protective measure or a writ of “amparo” as a remedy for the protection of the constitutional rights of unborn children against the overreach of the national government.

“The law must be subordinate to the Constitution,” Sueldo asserts. “Likewise, the jurisdictional protection of fundamental rights represents the foundation of the rule of law, understanding that the State does not grant rights, but rather recognizes them. For this reason, it corresponds that the Judicial Power, in its role as protector of the constitutional order, guarantees fundamental rights, corresponding to the functions of the State.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Hold UN accountable for babies killed by sex-selection abortion
  Show Petition Text
14038 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 15000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Please SIGN this important petition asking the UN to call for an unequivocal ban on sex-selection abortion - abortions which are procured purely because the parents want a baby of one sex (usually, male) and not the other.

All abortions are wrong**, but the UN's agency which monitors the world's population, UNFPA, just issued a report stating that sex-selection abortion is a violation of human rights.

Unfortunately, the same report also says that, "bans on sex selection...infringe reproductive rights, including access to safe abortion."

This is a classic case of the United Nations speaking out of both sides of its mouth, showing its glaring hypocrisy in the process.

Where are the self-professed 'feminists' at the UN when it comes to sex-selection abortion?

Their contradictory philosophy allows for the slaughter of girls in the name of women's rights!

And now, with this petition, we're going to hold them accountable.

With this petition, we say to the UN: You can't have it both ways. Either you will defend females against the violence and discrimination of abortion, or you won't.

SIGN this petition and urge the UN to call for a definitive ban on sex-selection abortion, and defend the right of all girls and boys to be born.

The UNFPA, itself, estimates that there are 140 million fewer girls in the world today because of sex-selection abortion. Of course, this leads to a massive imbalance between the sexes in places where sex-selection abortion is widely practised, especially in China and India.

And, as the UNFPA admits, the imbalance between the sexes has the side-effect of increasing other activities which also adversely affect women, like human trafficking and prostitution.

Again, where are the feminists on this critical issue?

The UN claims that bans on sex-selection abortion are ineffective, but we all know that the law is a teacher. As such, legal bans would actually contribute to the cultural change supposedly sought after by the UN.

So, it's time for the UN to put up or shut-up, and call for a worldwide ban on sex-selection abortion.

Thank you for SIGNING this important petition and holding the UN accountable for every baby killed as a result of sex-selection abortion. We urge the UNFPA to call for a definitive ban on sex-selection abortion with effective enforcement.


'UN Population Fund defends ‘right’ to abort female half of population' -

'UN Population Fund officially adopts pro-abortion mandate despite US objections' -

UN Abortion Newspeak - 'An 'arbitrary' approach to human life' -

UNFPA State of World Population 2020 - 'Defying the practices that harm women and girls undermine equality' -

**LifeSite believes that abortion - the intentional killing of an innocent pre-born human being - is never necessary and always gravely immoral. By asking the UN to call for a ban on sex-selection abortion, we are not, in any way, endorsing abortion for any other reason. By way of this petition, we are highlighting how, by its own statements, the UN's position on abortion, and, in this case, sex-selection abortion, is actually anti-reason and anti-woman. The UN seems to believe that they must advocate for abortion at any cost.


  Hide Petition Text


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.