Abortion

Peruvian Court Bans Distribution of EC in Public Sector

In mid-October, the Peruvian Constitutional Court—the highest court in Peru--issued a ruling banning the free distribution in the public health system of the Emergency Contraception pill.

In mid-October, the Peruvian Constitutional Court—the highest court in Peru–issued a ruling banning the free distribution in the public health system of the Emergency Contraception pill (EC) arguing that it is an abortifacient. The tribunal did not ban the sale of EC pills in private pharmacies because it only has legal jurisdiction over the actions of public institutions.

The most recent court decision is hard to understand because in 2006 this same court approved the distribution of EC by public hospitals and health centers, based on the scientific evidence of its effect as a contraceptive method.

According to experts from the Colegio de Médicos del Peru (Association of Physicians of Peru) and the World Health Organization, EC prevents ovulation and does not have any detectable effect on the endometrium (uterine lining) or progesterone levels when given after ovulation.  Therefore, EC pills are not effective once the process of implantation has begun, and will not cause abortion.

In response to the Constitutional Court’s ruling the Colegio de Médicos will appeal the measure at the international level, with the support of other organizations such as the Colegio de Abogados (association of lawyers of Peru), the Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights National Coalition), and feminists groups and academics organizations.

The Colegio de Médicos del Peru will argue that the Peruvian Constitutional Court’s ruling ignores the recommendations of the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which in 2007 called on the Peruvian Government to enhance family planning services to women and girls, including emergency contraception.

Even for the Peruvian government the measure was incomprehensible, so it asked the Constitutional Tribunal for a clarification. On November 11 the court made clear that it was forbidden for the Ministry of Health –or another governmental body- to distribute the EC pill, or to sell or give away the stock of emergency contraception pills.

Soon after Oscar Ugarte, minister of Health, announced that the 7,000 pills in stock will be donated to Instituto Peruano de Paternidad Responsible (INNPARES) an NGO devoted to sexual and reproductive health.” Immediately the Constitutional Court accused the Ministry of rebellion against its ruling.

INNPARES stated that it can distribute the pill to poor people, but not for free, since transportation costs would be involved.

Before the sentence, the EC pill cost about U.S. $9 per use, which already was an unaffordable amount for many women living under the poverty line. After the sentence the price was increased up to U.S. $20 per use.

That is why, for various human rights organizations and feminist groups the ruling is discriminatory because only a few can afford the high cost, which excludes the poorest women. They also argue that the lack of free EC pill distribution will increase the number of abortions, now estimated to 370,000 a year, particularly since poor women made pregnant as a result of rape or facing unwanted pregnancies will have no other option.

The president of Peru, Alan Garcia announced that the government will not appeal to international bodies, such as the Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR), but said that citizens can do it, and they can have the support of the Defensoría del Pueblo (official body in charge of defending human rights) in developing the procedure.

To understand why lawyers are deciding on science matters and changing their opinion we have to take into account three factors.

The first is the timing of the Constitutional Court’s announcement. The measure was issued just one week after the Special Reviewer Commission of the Peruvian Penal Code announced its support of a new law authorizing therapeutic abortion for specific reasons, and proposing decriminalization of abortion in cases of rape or congenital disorders in the fetus. Therefore for many analysts the ruling was intended to counteract the possible liberalization of abortion.

The second is the origin of the ruling. It was issued as a result of a demand submitted by the nongovernmental group Acción de Lucha Anticorrupción Sin Componenda (Action of contra-corruption fight), which has as honorific members: Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. This group is a non-governmental organization devoted to “protect values and moral.”

The third is the connection to business interests. The Ministry of Health distributed a generic version of the EC pill, while the pharmacies sell the brand name versions such as Postinor and others. There is no concrete evidence of links between pharmaceutical labs and current members of the Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal, but certainly this ruling is to the benefit of the labs, because now women have to buy EC pills from pharmaceutical labs.