For those not aware, Dominican Republic debate a new constitution. At first the idea seemed to be good ... modernize the Constitution and incorporate rights of so-called Third Generation, and guarantees such as the writ of amparo and habeas corpus, and many other topics. The idea to upgrade or update was good, until we find the wording inflexible on issues too important, such as the endless debate regarding when the beginning of life, and their subsequent protection as provided in Article 30 Reform of the draft Constitution. Life as the highest good must be protected . Who can argue with that? NOBODY . But to determine from what point life begins no less than the Constitution of a country ... is not only nonsense, but it is the greatest proof that the state will be anything but a secular state.
Unfortunately the good intention of being modern Dominicans hit the inflexible and inaccurate wording of provisions that do nothing to resurrect retrograde policies, while violating the rights most elementary, as is the same right to life.
The famous Article 30 provides that protection improperly originates from the moment of conception . Such which is written, the effects can be many and one more pathetic than another
1. It would limit the right to life of women, bearing in mind that even in cases of life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, for example, doctors would be legally prevented intervene to safeguard the lives of women.
2. D esconoce human rights already enshrined.
3. denies the right to health for women.
4. Limit access to certain contraceptive methods, such as the IUD or the emergency pill.
5. Denies the right to the preservation of natural dignity of individuals.
6. Prohibit the use of assisted reproductive techniques for couples who want children and can not procreate by natural means .
How to promote sustainable development policies in a country that denies basic rights to more than half of the population? How to postulate that every citizen has the right to live in a healthy environment or that there is freedom of worship, and at the same time establish that women are limited but the right to health and according to Art. 30, the doctors could not intervene in cases of pregnancy where there was life threatening for the mother? The task will be difficult.
Throughout this debate, I take the audacity to quote some lines written by my colleague and good friend, Dr. Daniel Collado, one of these discussions via email on Article 30 .... She said:
The issue is not giving the green light to become abortions right and left, without any control ... the issue of time of initiation of life NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER . There are cases and cases, and a principle like the one just adopted makes it extremely difficult to rise to exceptions required TO SAVE LIVES. The desk will be seriously weighed by doctors before being accused of murderers based on a standard constitutional ...
... So what just done is to condition a right based on a set of principles outdated and sexist to the extreme. From a strictly legal point that should not be included ... exegesis can not be an issue much so indeed.
understand that the debate must also consider that women have the right to life ... and as said Minou Tavares, the right to life should not be disentangled from other rights ...
N or I can agree more with his words ... now just have to wait for a miracle to avoid Article 30 is worded as it is ...
with marches and perhaps get something, at least some noise. But what really may have no effect is simply bringing an expedited appeal under the Courts Dominicans, by all citizens who believe that if this constitution embodies the right of young people to education physical or sporting activities even more so to guarantee the right to life of women, and not limit their right to health.
not achievable development from precepts and archaic stone ... but if so, it would be the most unsustainable developments.
