Conscientious objection and abortion

Created by GIRE based on SAI data.
*Entity in which more than one obligated entity responded and data differ.

Findings

Due to the deficient responses provided by health institutions, it is difficult to determine whether
both conscientious objectors and willing, trained, and available health personnel perform VTP
procedures. Key findings include the following:

• Ten federal entities do not maintain records of health personnel who perform VTP procedures in their jurisdiction, making it impossible to determine whether there are sufficient personnel to assist service users who decide to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of rape from the moment they submit their request.
• Nine federal entities provided information solely on the total number of willing, trained, and available personnel who perform VTP procedures. This makes it difficult to determine whether, in cases of medical emergency, conscientious objectors also perform the procedures upon request by the service user.
• Two federal entities (Nayarit and Querétaro) did not disaggregate the information between conscientious objectors and willing, trained, and available personnel for VTP procedures; however, they did report the total number of health personnel who perform the procedure. This may indicate that these entities consider the performance of VTP an obligation, given that it constitutes a right of victims of sexual violence.
• In the case of Jalisco, the information provided on conscientious objectors and willing, trained, and available personnel includes health personnel specializing in anesthesiology, gynecology, and pediatrics as a single group. However, since conscientious objection may only be invoked by personnel directly involved in the procedure, the obligated entity’s response is incorrect, as not all the specialties listed are related to the performance of VTP procedures.
• Baja California does not have information on health personnel who perform VTP, nor does it provide specific data on conscientious objectors or on willing, trained, and available personnel to carry out this procedure. This makes it difficult to determine what type of personnel is providing VTP services to users.
• Although it is noteworthy that Veracruz is the only entity that explicitly recognizes that conscientious objection cannot be invoked in cases of VTP, it is not possible to determine whether its hospitals have personnel available at all times to perform the procedure, as the state does not provide the total number of health personnel who perform it, nor does it disaggregate the information between conscientious objectors and willing, trained, and available personnel.
• Only eight entities (Chihuahua, Mexico City, Colima, Morelos, Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco, and Yucatán) report the total number of health care personnel who perform VTP and distinguish between conscientious objectors and willing, trained, and available personnel who carry out this procedure.
• Overall, in 75% of federal entities, it is not possible to determine whether both conscientious objectors and willing, trained, and available personnel perform VTP procedures. This lack of information prevents assessment of whether conscientious objection is undermining the right to the highest attainable standard of health for service users by failing to ensure that all health personnel carry out medical emergency procedures, such as VTP.