Mexican state of Aguascalientes challenges attempt to facilitate abortions at federal hospitals

May 17, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The Mexican state of Aguascalientes is fighting back against a new federal regulation that will make it easy for women to obtain abortions by claiming they were raped, without any proof of the crime.

The federal government’s Secretariat of Health decreed in March that rape victims could begin to receive abortions in federally-funded hospitals and clinics without filing charges against the alleged rapist beforehand.

The new rule is a modification of its NOM 046, which allows rape victims to have their unborn children killed in federal facilities. In the past, states such as Aguascalientes have required those claiming to have been raped for the purpose of gaining permission to have an abortion to file charges against the alleged rapist. Under the new norm, only a signed statement alleging a rape occurred will be required of those seeking to kill their unborn children. Girls as young as 13 years of age will be able to sign such claims themselves, without their parents’ signatures.

The state of Aguascalientes is challenging the new regulation before the nation’s Supreme Court, on the grounds that it violates the state’s right to maintain its own civil and penal codes.

“It goes against our civil code, which clearly specifies the oversight of parents, and against the penal code, which requires that charges be filed,” Ulises Ruiz, a representative in the state legislature, told CNN. “It also goes against the laws regarding children and adolescents.”

However, pro-abortion feminists expressed confidence that the left-leaning Supreme Court would rule in favor of the measure.

Dahlia de la Cerda Ulloa, an activist with the group Necesito Abortar (I Need to Abort) observes that  the court is likely to  reject Aguascalientes’ suit, because there is already “a [legal] precedent for [the state of] Guanajuato. The government wanted to declare the interruption of pregnancy because of rape to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court told them that they didn’t have the authority because federal regulations are above local constitutions and it was rejected.”