Legal abortion in Ecuador: how the Constitutional Court decriminalized abortion in cases of rape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecuador has some of the most punitive laws on abortion in America. Traditionally, Ecuador has allowed abortion in two cases: rape against a woman with a mental disability and threat to a woman’s life or health. However, on 28 April 2021, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador decriminalized abortion in all cases of rape. In Case 34–19-IN/21, the Court determined that Article 150 section 2 of the Ecuadorean Criminal Code (COIP) unconstitutionally discriminated against women without mental disabilities who wanted to interrupt unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape. The implications of the Case 34–19-IN/21 decision are decisive because it advances women’s sexual and reproductive rights in Ecuador. In decriminalizing abortion in all cases of rape, the Court stressed that equality, nondiscrimination and human dignity must be the legislative guidelines of parliaments and also the limits to the punitive power of states. To explain these relevant aspects, this commentary follows a socio-legal approach to contextually explore Case 34–19-IN/21, report on the current situation of decriminalization of abortion in Ecuador and reflect on what could happen after such an important constitutional ruling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".