Anti-abortion protester outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC, December 1, 2008: Affirming and exporting a political contingency such as abortion as if it were a universal, essential, and inalienable right is colonization by another name.| Photo: EFE/EPA/SAMUEL CORUM
The President of Ecuador recently vetoed a bill (PL) that on the face of it created a narrow exception by allowing abortion in cases of rape, but in fact posed a broad and serious threat to fundamental rights and security of Ecuadorian women.
Repeatedly invoking the protection of the privacy of victims, the bill put obstacles in the way of the investigation and prosecution of the rapist – this was one of the reasons for the president’s veto. As the bill stands, it is likely to contribute to an increase in repeat rapes – and the Ecuadorian Congress has days to decide whether to accept the President’s veto or overrule it and make of the original Ecuadorian law bill. .
It is clear that the discussion on the PL is complex. Establishing policies to protect the health and well-being of women, especially rape victims, should always be a political priority. But the language of the original PL, which prompted 61 amendments from President Guillermo Lasso, dealt much more with rape than with rape victims.
The PL sets the stage for the total destruction of the country’s laws, as it establishes abortion as a basic human right and removes barriers of conscience for individuals and institutions that do not want to participate.
It is clear that Lasso’s veto triggered a global reaction. Almost any limitation or regulation on abortion is rejected by progressives without further consideration. But many countries regard the protection of life as the core of their values and do not want liberalized abortion policies.
Letting countries protect women’s rights and safety without interference from pro-abortion lobbyists or politicians is an important part of upholding their sovereignty. This is why this PL is not just about women’s safety; it is also a struggle for the ability to legislate without international coercion.
The Geneva Consensus Declaration, signed in 2020 by dozens of countries, is an unqualified endorsement of the health gains for women of all ages, and also rejected the so-called international right to abortion. In doing so, the signatories rejected notions of a pro-abortion global consensus.
The force and intent of this rejection have important consequences for world politics. After all, progressives say it’s wrong to prejudice the culture of others — or anyone else, for that matter — based on our own values. We are told that exporting our commitments is a “colonizing” thing. Progressives chastise the world for alleged violations of the freedoms of others.