The rights of Argentine women have been aborted.

The Argentine Senate's rejection, on August 9th, of the approval of the law for "legal, safe, and free abortion" with half the approval already passed on June 14th by the Chamber of Deputies was a conservative and anti-democratic political act with several implications.

First of all, it is clear that there is a dubious democratic representation in a parliament incapable of responding to the voice of the streets, intimidated by the qualitative growth of the multitudinous movement of women and teenagers wearing green scarves, organized throughout the country, in schools and neighborhoods; the internationally recognized “Not One Less” movement in Argentina, which emerged in 2015. At that time, the explosion was against “femicides,” but in recent years, women have moved towards economic demands, gender equality, labor rights, wages, and female political protagonism. It is symptomatic that Macri, who raised the issue of abortion at the beginning of the year, probably with electoral or entertainment calculations, has backed down. The fact is that the social energy of the Argentine feminist movement has surpassed the limits of “feminism,” generating social pressure against all the government's economic adjustments and exposing internal fissures in the “Cambiemos” coalition.

Finally, 38 senators against 31 decided to reject the law legalizing abortion, with the arrogance of the oligarchic forces of politics, of the corrupt "patriarchy," which coincides with the neoliberals of economic adjustment, ignoring a million women in the streets, the gender struggle, and the new rebellious generation of the 21st century. Opponents of the law reduced the debate to the issue of "secular versus confessional state"; of the religiosity of "the life of the embryo" versus "abortion murderers," compromising the entire Catholic Church, as if all Catholics were against the law, and including priests from favela movements who experience firsthand the reality of mothers and impoverished children. Meanwhile, Nazi-fascist movements persecuting liberation theologians campaigned against the law and incited violence against women.

Thus, they aborted the Law, using religion and the usual rhetoric of defending "life," of "two lives." The Law does not interfere with the decision to abort or not, but ensures a woman's right to freely decide about her body, and that, once opting for abortion, her life and health are guaranteed by the State. By rejecting the Law, the Senate penalizes and condemns poor women and Argentine teenagers to continue risking their lives in the clandestine world of illegal and private abortion. As already reiterated, the "Law of legal, safe, and free abortion" would not increase abortions, as alleged by opponents, but would ensure decriminalization, prevention, medication, and safe and free abortion in public structures. Without the law, abortions will continue because they are already a widespread reality in current society. With the law, abortions would not increase, and many lives would be saved; those of poor women, those without resources, enabling them to receive mandatory State care. This did not happen; there wasn't even a modification of the law, as expected, with a decriminalization (not legalization) through changes to the Penal Code, or a reduction in the limit of 14 months to 12 months. The law was simply rejected, denoting a class-based decision rather than a religious one.

The law didn't pass now, but as has been said, the wind will bring this issue back, with the momentum of this movement that shook all of society. "No one can stop the wind." This movement – ​​which intertwined the white scarves of grandmothers and mothers in the Plaza de Mayo with the green scarves of teenage girls, of young couples in solidarity with their girlfriends, victims of economic hardship, breaking silences and complicity, in rain and cold – will return, sooner or later, and the issue of abortion will be law.

It is necessary to add another fundamental ingredient, hidden by the media, to this historical journey: the comprehensive discourse of Senator and former President Cristina Kirchner. With such a level of unquestionable political leadership in the country, there is hope that the battle for women is not lost and that the issue of legal abortion will have a chance to be revisited in the 2019 election campaign. That is, if there is no referendum beforehand. A survey by CEOP (Center for Public Opinion Studies), which took 1185 cases, when asked if, in the event of a popular consultation, they would vote for or against the legalization of abortion, 48,8% were in favor and 39,4% were against.

Cristina Kirchner's speech

Cristina Kirchner's speech in the Senate, around 2 a.m. on August 9th, as leader of the Citizen Unity bloc, was the most anticipated, following other speeches from blocs in favor of the law, such as that of Pino Solanas, which was very significant prior to the final vote. Below are some of Cristina Kirchner's words:

"I have always voted for life. And I have governed for and with life."

"In homage to the lives that had been taken from thousands of young people and pregnant women, from children deprived of their identity, from babies appropriated (referring to the crimes of the dictatorship). I voted for life when we voted for humanized childbirth in 2004, for the comprehensive protection of adolescent girls and boys in 2005, for comprehensive sex education, tubal ligation, and vasectomy as contraceptive methods, around 2006. And when I was already president, for patient rights; the comprehensive protection law for prevention, sanctioning the eradication of violence against women; then, equal marriage was sanctioned; in 2012 with gender identity, with the modification of the penal code to include the figure of femicide; in 2013, assisted reproduction techniques; the civil and commercial code. We carried forward health policies that were models, such as the 'Nascer' plan, the national vaccination calendar (19 vaccines) free of charge, emergency contraception, and the regime for contraceptive interventions." Surgical procedures, an operational plan for reducing infant mortality, a policy for children; the Universal Child Allowance, one of the most important creations to defend life because there is not one life, two lives, or three lives. There is only one life and it must always be defended. Also, when we distribute medication for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Between 2003 and 2015, resources for this purpose increased by 1046%. ...when now there is a shortage of free contraceptives in the face of demand in public structures. We believe that we must agree on matters of prevention and care for women and on the policies that are the State's obligation.”

“It is not easy to address a topic of this nature, but it is an obligation to do so, starting from the understanding that, far beyond our respectable beliefs and convictions, ...the most serious thing tonight is that one may agree or disagree, one may propose a modification, but we are rejecting a project without proposing anything alternative. And the situation will remain the same. If I were certain that by voting negatively or rejecting the partial sanction coming from the Chamber of Deputies, there would be no more abortions in the Argentine Republic, I would have no doubt in raising my hand. But the problem is that this body will vote against the partial sanction and we will continue to have abortions in Argentina. So, it is not just a problem of convictions or beliefs, but of our response as legislators to a problem that exists.”

“We will have to incorporate the feminist question into the national and popular Citizen Unity movement. For decades, Peronism was National, Popular, Democratic, and now Feminist. Because within the exploitation of workers, of capital over labor, there is also a sub-category of exploitation; a worker is exploited, but a working woman is more exploited because she earns less and works more.”         

“The issue of women is not just about the IVE. In Kirchner's government, we recognized the role of women, the domestic work of housewives, and retirement benefits. This also reinforces power. Eva Perón wanted to enact the labor agreement for domestic workers as law; we achieved that later.”

“Life must be defended in every aspect and at all times. One cannot speak of defending life when investments in education and health continue to decrease. When more and more people are facing greater problems with food security because some are struggling to pay their bills. Because that is also part of living. It is impossible to live without resources, or with those resources constantly diminishing. We must be very careful when, based on this, we want to say that some defend life and others do not. I have always defended life. I defend life every time I vote for economic policies; that is, so that people are not in worse conditions. I have always voted here for life when I oppose policies of social restriction, of disregard for rights, of the precariousness of rights; reducing rights is voting against life, because we ruin people's lives by not giving them good health, good wages, and work; when money is insufficient, when entire families are sleeping on the streets.”

"We have to give an answer. Today we are not giving any answer. We are lowering the curtain. We are rejecting it. We have to propose an alternative."

"The rights that people have. They want rights." See the full speech. Full video