translated from Spanish: Court validates conscientious objection, as long as it does not put life at risk

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) ruled, by 8 votes in favor and 3 against, that the conscientious objection of doctors does not violate the Constitution, as long as it does not endanger the patient’s life or is a medical emergency. 
The plenary session of the Court analyzed Article 10 Bis of the current General Health Law, which was challenged by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH). This article establishes that medical personnel may excuse themselves from providing the service offered by the health sector by referring to their right of conscientious objection.
Find out: What is conscientious objection and what are its limits? Lawyers and doctors explain it

Ministers Arturo Zaldívar, Norma P¡ña and Javier Láynez spoke out against conscientious objection because they said the current rule is deficient and does not focus on patients. 
Zaldívar voted against it because she said that the norm lacks a gender perspective, since it is women and pregnant people who suffer the impact of conscientious objection, especially at the time of having an abortion.
Judge Piña said that Article 10 of the Health Law has normative deficiencies and affects the effective enjoyment of the right to health and life.

Read: Court Orders: Never Again Should Anyone Who Decides to Abort Be Criminalized
In Monday’s session, the ministers only resolved the constitutionality of conscientious objection. But they must also rule on whether or not the rules challenged by the CNDH are respectful of the right to protection of people’s health. 
The ministers will continue with the debate on the subject on September 20.
 
What we do at Animal Político requires professional journalists, teamwork, dialogue with readers and something very important: independence. You can help us keep going. Be part of the team.
Subscribe to Animal Político, receive benefits and support free journalism.#YoSoyAnimal

Original source in Spanish