Changing Women's Lives in Columbia

Late last week I attended a lecture at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy ( http://www.reproductiverights.org/) about how abortion law in Columbia was changed from a harsh, no-exceptions rule enshrined in the constitution to a law permitting abortion in the first trimester under certain circumstances. Monica Roa, the young Colombian attorney who argued the case, presented on how the law was changed.

Perhaps the major reason that the case in Columbia brought forth by Women's Link Worldwide was successful in changing the Colombian law was that international law is recognized in the Colombian constitution. Let me repeat that again: international law is recognized in their constitution. This means that any declaration on human rights that the Colombian government recognized gives the rights enshrined in that treaty full constitutional weight. The constitution in Columbia is recognized as a living document. This is apparently also the case in South Africa's exceedingly progressive constitution, and in those of other states who have rewritten their constitutions during the 1990's.

Colombia has ratified all of the major international treaties, including the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social
Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention
Against Torture, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In addition, Colombia is a party to the American Convention on Human Rights and had been censured by the Commission for the health and life risks to women caused by its restrictive abortion laws
(source: amicus brief, Harvard Law School Advocates for Human Rights, http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf/sp_proj_laicia_amicus_Harvard.pdf).

I was thinking about this case this morning as I tried to finish up yesterday's New York Times. What brought it to mind again was Linda Greenhouse's article "For the Chief Justice, a Dissent and a Line in the Sand" where wrote about the recent decision from the Court in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/weekinreview/08greenhouse.html?ref=weekinreview). Apparently Chief Justice Roberts was outraged that the case was even allowed to proceed (not the mention that the verdict was handed down in Massachusetts' favor) because he believes the case did not meet the criteria for standing as the plaintiff had no actual injury, proof of injury caused by the defendant, and no proof that any injury could be redressed by the defendant. Compare that to the case mentioned above in Columbia, where the country's constitution allows any regular Jane to bring a case before the Constitutional Court if she believes a law is unconstitutional. No injured plaintiff needed.

Imagine how many years earlier we could have had a decision in Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education, or Loving v. Virginia, if laws that were unconstitutional didn't require an injured party willing to testify against them.

You can find out more about the amazing work of Women's Link Worldwide here:
http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/whoweare.html