Abortion and the Supreme Court of Justice: Timeline

August 24, 2000

The Legislative Assembly of the then-Federal District (now Mexico City) approves amendments regarding
abortion in its Criminal Code based on a bill introduced by Head of Government Rosario Robles (with the reform subsequently becoming known as the “Robles Law”).

The amendments add two new legal grounds under which abortion would not be punishable: when the pregnant woman’s health is at risk, and when the product of conception presents congenital or genetic abnormalities.

September 25, 2000

Action of Unconstitutionality 10/2000—the draft ruling for which is prepared by Justice Olga Sánchez Cordero—is filed by legislators from the National Action Party and the Green Ecologist Party elected to the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District. The action challenges Section III of Article 334 of the Criminal Code for the Federal District, which establishes the existence of genetic or congenital abnormalities in the product of conception as grounds for non-liability of the crime of abortion. It also challenges the addition of Article 131 bis to the Code of Criminal Procedures for the Federal District, which authorizes the public prosecutor to permit abortion in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or non-consensual artificial insemination.

January 30, 2002

By a majority vote, the Plenary of the SCJN upholds the constitutionality of Section III of Article 334 of the Criminal Code for the Federal District, holding it to be grounds for acquittal. This decision requires authorities not to impose sanctions on those who chose to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds established in the provision.

April 24, 2007

The Legislative Assembly of the Federal District approves a law decriminalizing abortion up to the twelfth week of pregnancy and establishing mechanisms to provide this health service properly. The reform amends articles 144 through 148 of the Criminal Code for the Federal District and adds a third paragraph to Article 16 bis 6 and a final paragraph to Article 16 bis 8 of the Federal District Health Law.

April 26, 2007

The decree on the reform is published in the Official Gazette of the Federal District.

May 24, 2007

The president of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH, for its Spanish initials) files an action of unconstitutionality before the SCJN against the reform of articles 144 to 147 of the Criminal Code for the Federal District and the addition of a third paragraph to Article 16 bis 6 and a final paragraph to Article 16 bis 8 of the Federal District Health Law. The action argues that the reform violates, among other rights, the right to life of the product of conception, the right to protection of the gestational process, and the right to procreation and parenthood, as well as alleging incorrect application of criminal law and encroachment on jurisdiction.

May 25, 2007

The head of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR, for its Spanish initials) files a separate action of unconstitutionality seeking to invalidate the same provisions challenged by the CNDH the previous day and additionally including Article 148 of the Criminal Code and Article 16 bis 7 of the Health Law. He argues that the reform “compels public healthcare personnel to perform pregnancy terminations, thereby allowing agents of the Mexican state to deprive the embryo or fetus of life.”

August 28, 2008

After an extensive series of public sessions, reporting justice Sergio Salvador Aguirre Anguiano and the other members of the Plenary of the SCJN rule on Action of Unconstitutionality 146/2007 and its consolidated case 147/2007 by a majority of eight votes. The Court holds that decriminalizing abortion at the request of thepregnant woman up to the twelfth week of pregnancy isconstitutional.

April 16, 2009

Mexico’s Official Standard NOM-046-SSA2-2005: Family, sexual, and gender-based violence; Criteria for prevention and care, is published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF, for its Spanish initials). This standard replaces NOM-190-SSA1-1999: Provision of health services; Criteria for medical care in cases of family violence.

June 11, 2009

The governor of the state of Jalisco files a constitutional controversy against NOM-046, arguing that the health authority lacks jurisdiction to regulate matters related to the administration and enforcement of justice and that state legislatures are the bodies responsible for legislating on care for victims of family and sexual violence. He further argues that the standard violates the rights of health service providers by requiring them to immediately offer emergency contraception to women who are victims of the crime of rape.

May 27, 2010

Justice José Ramón Cossío Díaz and the other members of the Plenary of the SCJN rule that emergency contraception is not a “chemical abortion” but rather a contraceptive method. The Court thus holds that it is constitutional to mandate the provision of emergency contraception through an Official Mexican Standard that is binding for federal, state, and municipal authorities, including those of the state of Jalisco.

The Court also determines that NOM-046 neither encroaches on the sphere of authority related to the administration of justice, nor contravenes any legal provision, nor imposes excessive obligations on health personnel.

December 26, 2008

A reform is published in the Official Gazette of Baja California amending the first paragraph of Article 7 of the state’s constitution to read as follows: “by establishing that, from the moment an individual is conceived, they fall under the protection of the law and are deemed to be born for all corresponding legal purposes, until their natural or non-induced death.”

January 26, 2009

The Ombudsperson for Human Rights and Citizen Protection of the state of Baja California files Action of Unconstitutionality 11/2009, seeking to invalidate the reform. He argues that providing unconditional and absolute protection to the conceived but unborn was contrary to the federal Constitution and unduly restricts women’s rights.

September 3, 2009

A reform is published in the Official Gazette of San Luis Potosí amending Article 16 of the state’s constitution. Itsfirst paragraph establishes that “The State of San LuisPotosí recognizes human life as the foundation of all human rights and therefore respects and protects it from the moment it begins at conception.”

October 5, 2009

Members of the Congress of San Luis Potosí file an action of unconstitutionality seeking to invalidate Article 16. They argue that the provision grants legal personhood to the unborn and restricts women’s rights to health and life, bodily integrity, decision-making, and non- discrimination.

September 28–29, 2011

In its rulings on both actions of unconstitutionality, the justices of the SCJN recognize that the protection of prenatal life is important but must be understood in relation to women’s rights. Therefore, the Court determines that protecting life during pregnancy is compatible with the legal grounds for abortion and even with the decriminalization of voluntary abortion.

January 22, 2014

The SCJN orders the immediate release of Adriana, an Indigenous woman who had been reported by her own family for the crime of family homicide. Adriana had been sentenced to 22 years in prison for aggravated homicide and had already served seven years of that sentence. After reviewing the case, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of death of the product of conception, let alone Adriana’s responsibility for it. Thus, the Court holds that her rights to an impartial justice system, adequate defense, and the presumption of innocence have been violated.

December 8, 2015

Marimar, a 17-year-old girl, becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Accompanied by her mother, she goes to the public prosecutor’s office to report the crime. There, they are informed that she has the right to have an abortion but are not told about the procedure or referred to any health institution.

January 9, 2016

Marimar and her mother go to the Dr. José G. Parres General Hospital of Cuernavaca where, after being
informed that the pregnancy was high risk, they request a legal termination. However, the hospital’s Bioethics Committee decide to deny her that right, even though it is guaranteed by NOM 046 and the General Law on Victims. The Committee concludes that Marimar should continue the pregnancy because “although the product presented a congenital malformation, it did not place the fetus’s health or the mother’s life at risk.”

April 4, 2018

The SCJN rules that the Bioethics Committee’s refusal of services constitutes a violation of the human rights of Marimar and her mother that disregarded the provisions of the General Law on Victims, the state Criminal Code, and Article 1 of the Constitution. By denying access to medical services for the termination of a pregnancy resulting from rape, their reproductive rights were violated. The Court also emphasizes that the General Law on Victims requires timely, comprehensive, and effective reparations for the human rights violations suffered by Marimar and her family.

October 12, 2016

18-year-old Fernanda becomes pregnant as a result of rape. After learning of her pregnancy, she submits several requests for a termination of pregnancy to state health services in Oaxaca, all of which were denied. In response to one of her requests, the attending gynecologist lies to her, telling her that abortion was a crime (across the country, abortion is legal when the pregnancy results from rape). Fernanda is later referred to another hospital, where she is not provided the service because the hospital staff is on strike and only attending emergencies. As a result, she is obliged to terminate her pregnancy in Mexico City.

April 18, 2018

In this case, the SCJN’s ruling confirms that denying access to medical services for the termination of a pregnancy resulting from rape constitutes a violation of human rights. The Court further establishes that cases in which a woman who is a victim of rape requests a termination of pregnancy must be treated as urgent. Therefore, health authorities are required to respond efficiently and immediately to such requests in order to prevent the physical and psychological consequences of sexual violence from continuing over time.

September 24, 2013

Marisa, a beneficiary of the Institute of Security and Social Services for State Workers (ISSSTE, for its Spanish initials), is informed that her pregnancy was high risk and decides to request a termination of pregnancy on health grounds.

November 6, 2013

After repeated denials, Marisa submits a written request for the termination of her pregnancy on health grounds. However, the responsible authority rejected her request, arguing that ISSSTE, as a federal institution, is governed by the General Health Law, which does not contemplate the termination of pregnancy.

May 15, 2019

The SCJN granted Marisa a constitutional protection lawsuit (amparo), holding that the denial of the termination of her pregnancy violated her right to health, which is closely linked to her rights to life, personal integrity, non-discrimination, and reproductive autonomy. The Court also emphasizes that the right to health encompasses not only physical health, but also mental and social well-being. From a gender perspective, the ruling recognizes that women’s right to health includes the possibility of terminating a pregnancy when their health is at risk. The SCJN underscores the need to guarantee reproductive health services for women and highlights the impact that denying access to abortion on health grounds has on their lives.

The Court further establishes that denying services that are exclusive to pregnant people, such as abortion, constitutes an act of discrimination. Women and other people with the capacity to gestate have the right to benefit from all measures that allow them to attain the highest possible standard of health, with due respect for their sexual and reproductive health, including procedures such as the termination of pregnancy, even when such services are not expressly provided for in the General Health Law.

This criterion marks an important step forward in the exercise of reproductive rights, as it affirms that public health institutions are required to provide abortion services to women who request them when their health is at risk.

October 9, 2018

When Jessica was 17, she was sexually assaulted. In addition to being born with cerebral palsy, Jessica suffered from seizures. The economic hardship in which she and her mother lived, as well as the lack of infrastructure to support people with disabilities in Mexico, were obstacles to Jessica being able to communicate for herself, so she required the care of her mother and grandmother to perform basic activities, such as eating.

During one of Jessica’s seizures, her mother and grandmother take her to the General Hospital of Tapachula, Chiapas, where they are informed that she was five months pregnant (167 days). They request a termination of pregnancy, as the pregnancy was the result of rape.

The hospital denied the abortion on the grounds that the pregnancy exceeded the ninety-day limit established in the Criminal Code of Chiapas for terminating a pregnancy. As a result, they filed a constitutional protection lawsuit (amparo). A District Judge denies the amparo, arguing that the time limit on abortion does not place Jessica at a disadvantage or violate her human rights, and stating that “the federal Constitution protects human life and likewise protects the product of conception […] regardless of the biological stage it is in.”

July 7, 2021

In a unanimous decision, the SCJN rules that denying access to abortion services in cases resulting from rape constitutes serious violations of human, sexual, and reproductive rights. The Court further explains that a total prohibition of abortion services in such cases violates the right to health. The Court determines that establishing a single, generic time limit for abortion in cases of sexual violence constitutes a form of violence against women and people with the capacity to gestate, as it disregards human dignity, undermines free personal development, and negatively affects psychological health. It also holds that imposing a time limit violates the rights of people with disabilities, as it fails to account for cases in which they may not even be aware that they are pregnant and, for this reason, are unable to seek health services in a timely manner.

November 7, 2017

The Attorney General’s Office (PGR, for its Spanish initials) files an action of unconstitutionality against Articles 13 (Section A), 195, 196, and 224 (Subsection II) of the Criminal Code of Coahuila, arguing that Section A of Article 13 regulated a matter that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary— namely, mandatory pretrial detention. It further argues that Articles 195 and 196 violate women’s rights to reproductive autonomy and freedom by preventing the termination of pregnancy during its early stage. Article 196 provides that “a sentence of one to three years of imprisonment shall be imposed on a woman who voluntarily terminates her pregnancy, or on the person who causes the abortion with her consent.”

September 7, 2021

By a unanimous decision, the justices of the SCJN hold that it is unconstitutional to sanction or criminalize those who decide to terminate a pregnancy. The Court emphasizes that the inclusion of self-induced or consensual abortion in the Criminal Code of the State of Coahuila violates reproductive rights and undermines the dignity of women and people with the capacity to gestate.

As a result of this ruling, law enforcement and judicial authorities may not initiate criminal proceedings against girls, adolescents, women, or other pregnant people who voluntarily terminate a pregnancy. In addition, health personnel are required to provide comprehensive health services to those who decide to end a pregnancy and to respect their human rights.

This ruling provides criteria endorsed by the country’s highest court to decriminalize voluntary abortion. As such, legislators in states where reproductive autonomy continues to be restricted and punished now have a clear legal basis upon which to amend their criminal codes accordingly.

June 11, 2018

The president of the CNDH files an action of unconstitutionality seeking to invalidate the decree published on May 11, 2018, in the Official Gazette of the Federation adding Article 10 bis to the General Health Law, as well as its Second and Third Transitory Articles.

September 21, 2021

The SCJN holds that conscientious objection is not absolute and that, for its regulation and exercise to be constitutionally valid, it must be subject to certain limits. These include that conscientious objection be individual in nature, that it reflect a genuine conflict of conscience within a constitutional and democratic context, and that it respect the human rights of others. The Court therefore finds that Article 10 bis of the General Health Law does not establish sufficient limits on conscientious objection, deeming it invalid. It urges the federal legislature to legislate on the matter again, under specific parameters.

The ruling further held that the rights of women and other people with the capacity to gestate—as recognized in the Constitution and the country’s health laws—must be protected by the state, which has an obligation to guarantee them in a timely manner, with quality, and without discrimination. Conscientious objection must not, under any circumstances, restrict or violate the human rights of others, and health institutions may not invoke it to evade their obligations, including the duty to ensure that non-objecting health personnel are available at all times.

February 20, 2015

In Hidalgo, Carlota is the victim of rape by a member of her community at 16 years old. The aggressor threatens to harm her and her family if she tells anyone what had happened, leading her to remain silent. About a month later, she begins to feel unwell and seeks medical care, where she is prescribed medication for stomach pain. A few days later, she takes a pregnancy test, which comes back positive.

Carlota and her family go to the public prosecutor’s office to report the crime and request a termination of pregnancy. The prosecutor who handles the case denies the abortion on three occasions, arguing that Carlota had not reported the assault at the time it occurred but only after learning she was pregnant and seeking to terminate the pregnancy; that there is no evidence to substantiate the alleged threats; and that, according to the forensic report, there was neither physical evidence nor psychological harm to establish that she had been raped.

With GIRE’s accompaniment, Carlota filed a constitutional protection lawsuit (amparo) challenging the refusal to authorize the termination of her pregnancy, as well as the expert psychological assessment and the requirements in force in Hidalgo for accessing abortion in cases of rape. Specifically, the claim argues that denying the termination of her pregnancy violated her rights to health, equality and non-discrimination, personal integrity, reproductive autonomy, and the best interests of the child. It also highlights deficiencies in the actions of the prosecutor and in the expert witness.

February 23, 2022

In its ruling, the SCJN reiterates that establishing a time limit for terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape imposes an unjustified barrier to women’s access to their rights. Denying or obstructing services that are specific to women—such as termination of pregnancy in cases of rape—affects their rights to health, equality, and non- discrimination. It also entails a complete disregard for human dignity and the free development of personality of women and people with the capacity to gestate whose pregnancy is not the result of a free and informed decision. Thus, the Court rules that Section II of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the State of Hidalgo is unconstitutional and invalidates the actions of the public prosecutor that prevented Carlota from terminating her pregnancy.

November 23, 2018

A legislative minority files an action of unconstitutionality against Section I of Article 4 bis A of the Constitution of the State of Sinaloa, which provides that “from the moment an individual is conceived, they fall under the protection of the corresponding law, until their death.” The petitioners argue that state authorities lack the power to constitutionally define when life begins. They also argue that the provision fails to consider the relevant constitutional standards in light of the criteria established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Artavia Murillo vs. Costa Rica.

At the same time, on November 26, 2018, the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) files another action of unconstitutionality against the same provision. It argues that the state legislature lacks authority to expand the protection of a right in a way that adversely affectsother fundamental rights. Specifically, it maintains that protecting life beginning at conception unjustifiably restricts the rights of women and people with the capacityto gestate.

September 9, 2021

The SCJN examines the constitutionality of “protection of life beginning at conception” in Sinaloa and, by majority, holds that state constitutions may not grant personhood status to embryos or fetuses in order to adopt measures that restrict the reproductive autonomy of women and people with the capacity to gestate. Therefore, the existence of such clauses in state constitutions is not sufficient grounds to deny sexual and reproductive healthservices or to restrict access to abortion. The Court makes clear that protecting life during pregnancy does not conflict with the rights of born persons, who are the unquestionable holders of rights, and that it is not within the authority of the states to define the origin of human life.

May 26, May 30, and October 10, 2022

The Plenary of the SCJN rules on the following actions of unconstitutionality in the same terms as the Sinaloa ruling: Action 41/2019 and its consolidated case 42/2019, filed by the CNDH and the Human Rights Commission of the State of Nuevo León; Action 85/2016, filed by the CNDH; and Action 72/2021 and its consolidated case 74/2021, filed by the Human Rights Commission of the State of Aguascalientes and the CNDH.

In early 2022, the organizations CECADEC, TERFU, Cultivando Género, Morras Help Morras, and GIRE file a
constitutional protection lawsuit (amparo) challenging the regulation of the crime of abortion in the state of Aguascalientes. The aim is to ensure that all women and people with the capacity to gestate are able to access safe abortion care without being criminalized. To rule on the amparo, the First Chamber of the SCJN considers a draft ruling prepared by Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá. The proposal seeks to strike down the provisions of the Criminal Code regulating self- induced and consensual abortion, as well as the requirements that condition access to abortion in cases where the life of the pregnant person is at risk and in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape.

August 30, 2023

After deliberating on the amparo, the SCJN determines that the crime of self-induced and consensual abortion must no longer be applied in Aguascalientes. As a result, it is no longer possible to criminalize any woman or person with the capacity to gestate for having an abortion, nor the health personnel who assist them. The Court also establishes that health institutions are obligated to provide this service and to guarantee the right to decide of all users. Finally, it orders the state congress to repeal the provisions declared unconstitutional before the end of the ordinary legislative session during which the ruling was notified.

Due to its historical significance in matters of reproductive justice, it is important to note that this is the first time that the effects of an amparo filed by civil society organizations were general in nature. In this case, the ruling benefits all women and people with the capacity to gestate living in Aguascalientes. Moreover, because the amparo was decided by a majority of four votes, the ruling is binding on all local and federal judges.

In September 2021, as part of a legal strategy to ensure that all women and people with the capacity to gestate have access to safe abortion care without being criminalized, GIRE files a constitutional protection lawsuit (amparo) seeking to eliminate the offense of self-induced and consensual abortion from the Federal Criminal Code. The amparo is ruled on by the First Chamber of the SCJN following deliberation on a draft ruling prepared by Justice Margarita Ríos Farjat.

September 6, 2023

After analyzing the amparo lawsuit filed by GIRE, the First Chamber of the SCJN rules that the provisions of the Federal Criminal Code that criminalize abortion will no longer have legal effect. As a result, no woman or person with the capacity to gestate may be criminalized for having an abortion, and the same applies to those who assist them.

The SCJN also orders the federal judiciary to repeal the provisions that criminalize voluntary abortion in the Federal Criminal Code before the end of the ordinary legislative session during which the ruling is notified. Because the decision is adopted unanimously, the ruling is binding on all local and federal judges.

November 12, 2021

The organization Servicios Humanitarios en Salud Sexual y Reproductiva (SHSSR), accompanied by UNASSE A. C. and Abortistas MX, files a constitutional protection lawsuit (amparo) challenging the constitutionality of the protection of life beginning at conception established in the Constitution of the State of Yucatán, as well as the legal framework regulating the crime of abortion in the state. The claim argues that these provisions are contrary to the rights to the free development of personality, health, equality, and non-discrimination, and reproductive autonomy of women and people with the capacity to gestate. The case ultimately reaches the Supreme Court.

August 21, 2024

The First Chamber of the SCJN rules on the amparo following deliberation on a draft ruling prepared by Justice Margarita Ríos Farjat. The Court bases its ruling on precedents in which it recognized the legitimate interest of civil society organizations to file amparo lawsuits in defense of collective rights, such as Amparo in Review 79/2023 (filed by GIRE for the decriminalization of abortion in Aguascalientes). The Court reaffirms the elements that make up the right to decide developed in Action of Unconstitutionality 148/2017 (concerning the decriminalization of abortion in Coahuila).

The Court declares unconstitutional several provisions of the Criminal Code of Yucatán, including those that impose an absolute ban on self-induced and consensual abortion, suspend health personnel and midwives from professional practice for providing the service, treat abortion as a crime through existing exemptions from criminal liability, require a second medical opinion to authorize the procedure in certain cases, and condition access to abortion on the consent of a parent or legal guardian. The Court concludes that these provisionsviolate the autonomy and freedom of decision of  women and people with the capacity to gestate and ordered the state judiciary to repeal them.

The Court also declares unconstitutional the portion of Article 1 of the state constitution that protects life beginning at conception.

April 27, 2022

GIRE, Balance A. C., the Disability Rights Office in Mexico, No se metan con nuestras hijas, and Mutantes Disidentes Sinaloa jointly file an indirect constitutional protection lawsuit (indirect amparo) challenging the finalportion of Section IV of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the State of Sinaloa, with the aim of declaring it unconstitutional. This part of the law establishes that theconsent of women and people with the capacity to gestate is not required to carry out a legal termination of pregnancy when they were deemed unable to provide it themselves.

The organizations argued that this criterion violates the rights to equality and non-discrimination, health, and self- determination of women and people with the capacity to gestate, particularly those with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities.

October 16, 2024

After the Collegiate Criminal Court of the Twelfth Circuit recognizes the organizations’ legitimate interest to challenge the provision, the Court’s First Chamber rules on Amparo in Review 636/2022. In its ruling, the Court declares Section IV of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the State of Sinaloa unconstitutional.

The Court acknowledges that stereotypes and assumptions about the sexuality and reproductive lives of women and people with the capacity to gestate with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities often lead third parties to override these persons’ decisions, enabling medical interventions without their free and informed consent, including abortions, sterilizations, and forced contraception. The Court therefore concludes that the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is an expression of reproductive autonomy and free self- determination. Respecting that decision requires ensuring the service user’s full participation in society. Conversely, denying them the ability to make decisions about their own body prevents them from actively participating in shaping their lives and communities.

The Court concludes its analysis by outlining the direct implications of understanding the right to decide under the social model of disability. First, it emphasizes the obligation to respect the right to legal capacity of pregnant persons with disabilities. Second, it establishes the prohibition of any regime that seeks to substitute their decisions with those of a third party. Instead, the Court underscores the need to develop frameworks that support informed and consensual decision-making by pregnantpersons with disabilities regarding the termination or continuation of a pregnancy.

June 2, 2023

The CNDH files an action of unconstitutionality against Article 181 of the Criminal Code of the State of Chiapas, amended by Decree No. 184, published on May 3, 2023, in the state’s Official Gazette. The Commission argues that the provision was unconstitutional because it criminalizes women and people with the capacity to gestate who decide to have an abortion, thereby nullifying their right to decide.

November 7, 2024

In resolving Action of Unconstitutionality 125/2023, the SCJN revisits the arguments it previously developed in Action of Unconstitutionality 148/2017 (Coahuila). The Court reiterates that the right to decide applies both to women and to people with the capacity to gestate, and that this right forms part of the right to health, including access to safe abortion care.

The Court also states that the punitive approach adopted by the state legislature does not reconcile the right to decide of women and people with the capacity to gestate with the human rights protected in the Constitution but rather nullifies it by perpetuating criminalization.

By a majority of nine votes, the Court declares Article 181 of the Criminal Code of Chiapas invalid and orders the state judiciary to remedy the constitutional defects and amend the law to decriminalize abortion in the state.

On November 26, 2024, with 33 votes in favor, 1 against, and 4 abstentions, the Congress of Chiapas amends the state Criminal Code to decriminalize voluntary abortion up to 12.6 weeks of gestation.

April 20, 2021

A woman files a constitutional protection lawsuit (amparo) challenging the constitutionality of Articles 143, 145, and 146, Section I, of the Criminal Code of the State of Chihuahua.

October 18, 2023

The First Chamber rules on the amparo after considering a draft ruling prepared by Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá. It holds that being a woman or a person with the capacity to gestate is sufficient to establish the legitimate interest required to challenge the constitutionality of the crime of abortion. The Court reasons that by prohibiting abortion, the provision imposed a direct and unrestricted ban on a specific group (women and people with the capacity to gestate), resulting in indirect personal harm.

The Court also finds that the first and second paragraphs of Article 143, as well as Article 145 (which defined voluntary abortion as the termination of pregnancy with the woman’s consent at any stage of gestation and punished it with imprisonment) entirely nullified the rights of women and pregnant people. The Court holds that imposing motherhood undermines a woman’s life plans  and right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical, mental, and social well-being. Such harm runs counter to the state’s obligations regarding the right to health and violates the constitutional right to decide. For these reasons, the Court concludes that these provisions were unconstitutional.

Regarding Article 146, which addresses exemptions from criminal liability, the SCJN rules that keeping those provisions in the Criminal Code reinforces the notion that abortion constitutes a criminal act. The Court therefore declares this article unconstitutional as well.

On this basis, the SCJN rules in favor of the claimant and orders Chihuahua legislators to remove these provisions from their legal framework and refrain from using them as grounds to deny access to abortion services in public health institutions in the state. The Court further establishes that those institutions must provide the procedure when requested by the claimant, without accusing, prosecuting, or convicting them for doing so.

Because the ruling is adopted unanimously, the state legislature is required to amend or repeal the first and second paragraphs of Article 143, Article 145, and the introductory clause and Section I of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of Chihuahua. The legislature, however, fails to comply with this obligation.

January 30, 2025

Due to the Chihuahua judiciary’s failure to revise the provisions declared unconstitutional, the Plenary of the SCJN, through a General Declaration of Unconstitutionality, invalidates these provisions. From this point forward, the state may no longer penalize users of abortion services or those who assist them.

Because the declaration concerns a general criminal provision, it also has retroactive effects in favor of women, people with the capacity to gestate, and medical and health professionals who have performed abortions with the consent of the woman or pregnant person and who are under investigation, being prosecuted, or have already been convicted for this crime. This means that all investigations initiated against women or people with the capacity to gestate for the crime of abortion, as well as against those who assisted them, must be closed. The same applies to those who were sentenced or imprisoned for this crime, who have the right to have their cases reviewed in order to obtain their release.

February 25, 2025

A conflict of criteria arises when two or more courts resolve similar cases differently, creating uncertainty about how the law—or a prior Supreme Court criterion—should apply in similar situations.

In this case, the conflict of criteria concerns the state’s obligation to provide safe abortion care. One court holds that, based on rights protected by the Constitution and international treaties, as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Coahuila case, local health authorities arerequired to guarantee access to abortion. Another court reaches the opposite conclusion, arguing that neither the Constitution nor state laws contain a clear mandate imposing such an obligation.

To resolve this conflict, the Court must determine whether the federal government is required to guarantee abortion services as part of the right to health. After reviewing the matter, the Court states that access to the right to health is essential for making decisions about reproductive life and must therefore be protected without discrimination, ensuring access for all people. In line with its prior ruling in the Coahuila case, the Court reaffirms the obligation of local health authorities to implement, disseminate, and organize health services in order to guarantee access to voluntary abortion.

March 21, 2024

Through Decree 342/2024, the Health Law of Tlaxcala is amended to include Chapter II bis: Medical Care for Victims of Domestic Sexual Violence. The new provisions impose conditions for accessing healthcare services, including legal abortion in cases of sexual violence and emergency contraception.

April 22, 2024

The federal government, through the Legal Counsel of the Federal Executive (CJEF), files Action of Unconstitutionality 89/2024 before the SCJN, challenging Decree 342/2024.

The claim argues that several of its provisions were unconstitutional for the following reasons:

• In cases of sexual violence, conditioning access to healthcare services on the initiation of a criminal investigation creates uncertainty, allows for discretionary decision-making, and may hinder timely care.
• Limiting access to healthcare services only tocases that have been reported violates the right to health.
• Requiring the consent of a parent or legal guardian for girls and adolescents to access emergency contraception undermines their autonomy, dignity, and comprehensive protection.

The action of unconstitutionality also argues that the criminalization of self-induced and consensual abortion under Article 242 of the Tlaxcala Criminal Code violates women’s dignity, autonomy, and free development of personality, as it prevents them from exercising their right to decide.

December 2, 2025

The Court, by unanimous decision, declares invalid the portions of Articles 53 bis and 53 ter that condition access to healthcare services on the existence of a complaint or judicial proceeding, as well as the part of Article 53 Quater that requires the consent of a parent or legal guardian for girls and adolescents to access emergency contraception. It also removes from Article 44 bis of the Health Law the requirement of “authorization from the Public Prosecutor’s Office” to access termination of pregnancy.

As part of the same regulatory framework, the Court also declares invalid Article 242 of the Criminal Code of Tlaxcala, which criminalizes self-induced and consensual abortion and provides for the suspension from professional practice of medical and midwifery personnel who participate in abortion services.

In this ruling, the Court takes into account the decision of the First Collegiate Court of the Twenty-Eighth Circuit, which, in resolving an amparo lawsuit filed by GIRE (AR 175/2023), had already determined that the first, second, and fourth paragraphs of Article 242 of the Criminal Code of Tlaxcala—which criminalized abortion without exception—were unconstitutional.

This was the first time that the Court, in its new composition following the judicial reform, addressed a case related to abortion.

April 20, 2026

The SCJN ruled on Amparo in Review 426/2025, brought in Tamaulipas by several women and people with the capacity to gestate. The amparo lawsuit challenged legal provisions that criminalized voluntary abortion without exception, as well as the failure to provide the services necessary to guarantee access to it. The Court declared the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Constitution of the State of Tamaulipas unconstitutional. The provision protected life “from the moment of fertilization until natural death.” The Court held that this provision violated the rights of women and people with the capacity to gestate.

In the same ruling, the Court also declared unconstitutional the provisions of the state’s Penal Code that criminalized voluntary abortion at any stage of pregnancy. It held that these provisions restricted individuals’ freedom to make decisions, reinforced the notion of motherhood as an obligation, and stigmatized those who choose to have an abortion. However, the ruling did not order amendments to the state’s criminal legislation because its effects were limited to the parties to the case. In other words, only the individuals who brought the amparo lawsuit may access voluntary abortion services without facing criminal penalties.

April 20, 2026

The SCJN decided Contradiction of Criteria 125/2025, regarding the effects of amparo rulings in abortion cases. The matter arose because two collegiate courts reached different conclusions in similar cases. A group of eight people in Campeche and another of 25 in Durango challenged the failure of the health authorities to guarantee access to voluntary abortion. The Campeche court ordered the implementation of the infrastructure needed to provide abortion services, as well as the dissemination of information about those services. By contrast, the Durango court held that it could not order the implementation of public health policies.

The SCJN agreed with the Campeche court, holding that amparo rulings may have broader effects than simply benefiting the individuals who file the claim, as they can eliminate structural barriers within the healthcare system that hinder access to abortion.

This decision is significant because it reinforces that guaranteeing reproductive rights requires more than recognizing them in law; it also requires creating the conditions necessary to ensure effective access to abortion services.