The Supreme Court and Debunking Abortion Myths
← Back
A pregnancy resulting from sexual violence can only be terminated during the first ninety days of gestation: FALSE
Terminations of pregnancies resulting from sexual violence must be provided at any time, with no gestational age limit. Neither the General Law on Victims (LGV) nor Official Standard NOM-046
establish gestational time limits for victims of sexual violence to access
voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP).[5]
At present (April 2026), no criminal code in Mexico establishes time limits for accessing abortion in cases of rape. In the past, some states did impose restrictions in such cases (for example, limiting access to the first ninety days or the first twelve weeks of pregnancy). As a result, the Supreme Court ruled on several cases related to VTP for women and other pregnant people who had suffered sexual violence and declared unconstitutional the provisions that restricted this right in the criminal codes.
The case of Jessica—also accompanied by GIRE—was one of the cases ruled on by the SCJN in relation to VTP. Jessica was born with cerebral palsy and, at the age of 17, became pregnant as a result of sexual violence. In 2018, a hospital in Chiapas denied her access to abortion services because her pregnancy exceeded the ninety-day limit established in the state’s Criminal Code for such procedures. Following the denial, an amparo lawsuit was filed, which was rejected by the district judge who heard the case on the grounds that this temporal limitation did not place Jessica at a disadvantage nor violate her human rights. The judge also stated that “the federal Constitution protects human life and likewise protects the product of conception […] regardless of the biological process in which it is found.”
In July 2021, in Amparo in Review 438/2020, the SCJN determined that, although the Chiapas Criminal Code establishes a maximum time limit for accessing abortion in cases of sexual violence, other laws—such as the LGV and NOM-046—do not establish time limits for performing abortions in circumstances such as Jessica’s. Thus, the Supreme Court clarified that establishing a single, general time limit for terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape constitutes a form of violence against women and other pregnant people, as it disregards their human dignity and affects their psychological health. Furthermore, such time limits violate the rights of persons with disabilities, as they fail to take into account cases in which individuals may not even be aware that they are pregnant and, for this reason, do not seek health services within the established time frame.
The SCJN therefore declared Article 181 of the Chiapas Criminal Code unconstitutional, insofar as it established that abortion could only be performed during the first ninety days of gestation in cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape. The Court held that this provision violated the rights to equality and non-discrimination, to a life free of violence, and to health. This ruling set a precedent for cases in which access to abortion is denied in situations of sexual violence because a specific gestation limit has been exceeded.
The SCJN has remained firm in these criteria and reiterated them when it ruled on the Coahuila case in 2021 and, in 2022, when it ruled on the case of Carlota, in Hidalgo. In the latter case—also accompanied by GIRE—an amparo lawsuit was filed because Carlota was denied access to abortion despite the fact that her pregnancy resulted from rape. In 2015—the year in which she was a victim of rape, when she was 16 years old—the Hidalgo Criminal Code required girls, adolescents, or women in such circumstances to report their rape before even knowing they were pregnant. In line with the cases of Marimar, Fernanda, and Jessica, the Court protected the right to abortion when a pregnancy is the result of rape, with no requirements other than a written request.
