Skip to main content

Edge's News: Mexico Supreme Court says criminalising abortion unconstitutional...

This is a historic step,’ Supreme Court justice says of ruling hailed as a major victory for women’s rights.


Mexico’s Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to penalise abortion, a major victory for women’s health and reproductive rights that comes amid a “green wave” of abortion decriminalisation in Latin America.


The Mexican court’s decision on Tuesday follows moves to decriminalise abortion at the state level, although most of the country still has tough laws in place against women terminating their pregnancy early.


“This is a historic step for the rights of women,” said Supreme Court Justice Luis Maria Aguilar. The court unanimously annulled several provisions of a law from Coahuila – a state on the border with the US state of Texas – that had made abortion a criminal act, and its decision will immediately only affect the northern border state.


But it established “obligatory criteria for all of the country’s judges”, compelling them to act the same way in similar cases, said Supreme Court President Arturo Zaldivar.


The decision came amid a wave of abortion rights victories in Latin America, including in Argentina, where the Senate late last year voted to legalise elective abortions until the 14th week of pregnancy.



Ecuador in April legalised abortion in cases of rape, while women’s rights advocates in other countries in the region – where the Catholic Church continues to wield a strong influence – are pushing to loosen restrictive abortion laws, as well.


But several US states have recently taken steps to restrict women’s access to abortion, particularly Texas, which last week enacted the strictest anti-abortion law in the country after the US Supreme Court declined to intervene. Civil and immigrant rights groups have denounced the Texas law, which bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.


They say Black women and other minorities, as well as women in low-income communities, will be hardest hit by the prohibition – and at least one group, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), has said it will not abide by the legislation.


“RAICES assisted and gave financial support to immigrants seeking abortion in Texas for years, and will continue to do so – no matter what,” RAICES CEO and President Jonathan Ryan said in a statement last week.


Meanwhile, the Mexican ruling on Tuesday opens the door to the possibility for the release of women incarcerated for having had abortions. It could also lead to US women in states such as Texas deciding to travel south of the border to terminate their pregnancies.

Mexican reproductive rights group GIRE hailed the court’s decision as “a historic move”.


The Supreme Court in Mexico City on Tuesday evening, said the decision “sets in motion a precedent that would decriminalise abortion in the rest of the country”.

“In broader terms what this means is that Mexico becomes the fourth country in Latin America to seek decriminalisation of abortion,” Rapalo said.


In July, the Mexican state of Veracruz became just the fourth of the country’s 32 regions to decriminalise abortion. The other 28 states penalise abortion with some exceptions.


Rapalo added that while the Supreme Court’s ruling is final, pushback is expected.

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that Mexico is one of the most catholic countries in the world,” he said. “We should expect that in many of the more conservative parts of the country this decision by the Supreme Court is not going to be a welcome decision.”


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The FCT Minister–Soldier Standoff: A Test of Civil Authority and the Rule of Law

On November 11, 2025, Nigerians watched in disbelief as a video surfaced showing a tense confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and a group of armed soldiers who blocked his convoy from accessing a disputed piece of land in Gaduwa, Abuja. The incident, brief but dramatic, was more than a moment of political theatre. It struck at the heart of a much bigger issue — the place of the military in a democracy, and the sanctity of civilian authority under the Nigerian Constitution. The Legal Position: Who Was Right? The Minister’s Authority Under Section 302 of the 1999 Constitution and the FCT Act , the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory exercises the executive powers of the President within Abuja. That means the Minister is not just a political appointee — he represents federal executive authority . His duties include overseeing land allocation, urban planning, and the enforcement of development control through the Federal Capital T...

Nigeria: On the Right of Self-Defence and Protection of National Sovereignty

The Federal Republic of Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the respect for the sovereignty and political independence of all States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Nigeria is a sovereign and independent nation. Our Constitution vests sovereignty in the people of Nigeria and mandates the Government to protect the territorial integrity and independence of our country. This sovereignty—recognised under international law and reaffirmed by our membership in the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—is inviolable. The Government of Nigeria has observed with grave concern recent statements and actions that amount to a threat of aggression and possible violation of our territorial integrity. We remind all States that any such threat or use of force contravenes Article 2(4) of the Ch...

Kebbi’s 3 a.m. Withdrawal Shows Why President Tinubu’s Security Reforms Can’t Wait

When Governor Nasir Idris of Kebbi State revealed that security personnel deployed to vulnerable communities were withdrawn at 3:00 a.m.—just 45 minutes before an attack—Nigerians reacted with shock, anger, and a single question that refuses to disappear: Who gave the withdrawal order? It is a fair question. It is also one that may take time, investigation, and institutional honesty to answer. But the Kebbi incident exposes a deeper truth about security management in Nigeria: our command structure is too fragmented for a country battling multi-layered threats. And this, more than anything, validates President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s push for a centralised, technology-driven, and accountable security coordination model. Nigeria’s security agencies—military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence units—operate in parallel lanes with overlapping mandates. State governors, despite bearing the title “Chief Security Officer,” have no legal authority over federal forces. This incoheren...