Abstract
Important legal and political battles behind the legalization and distribution of Emergency Contraception1 (EC) in Chile took place between 2000 and 2010 under the presidencies of Ricardo Lagos and Michele Bachelet. The distribution of EC and its ensuing judicialization had the unexpected effect of reopening the long postponed debate in Chilean society about the right to abortion. In 2006, the case was brought to the Constitutional Tribunal (TC) challenging President Bachelet’s decision to distribute EC via the national health system. After a series of judicial and political battles the executive succeeded in its aim to promote EC as a form of contraception.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beca Frei, J. P. (2008). “Algunas consideraciones respecto del fallo del Tribunal Constitucional chileno relativo a la distribución de la ‘píldora del día después’,” ARS Médica, 17(17).
Bordalí Salamanca, A. and Zuñiga Añazco, Y. (2009). “Análisis del Fallo del Tribunal Constitucional sobre la píldora del día después,” Anuario de Derechos Humanos, 5: 173–182.
Carroll, R. and Tiede, L. (2012). “Ideological Voting on Chile’s Constitutional Tribunal: Dissent Coalitions in the Adjudication of Rights,” Journal of Human Rights, 11(1): 85–105.
Casas Becerra, L. (2004). “La batalla de la Píldora. El acceso a la anticoncepción de emergencia en América Latina,” Revista Derecho y Humanidades, 10: 183–208.
Casas Becerra, L. (2008). La saga de la anticoncepción de emergencia en Chile: avances y desafíos, Santiago de Chile: FLACSO-CHILE.
Casas, L. (2007). “Alegato ante el Tribunal Constitucional. Requerimiento de Inconstitucionalidad,” Rol 740–07, pp. 1–14.
Chappell, L. (2013). “Conflicting Institutions and the Search for Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court,” Political Research Quarterly, 67(1): 183–196.
Couso, J. (2010). “The Transformation of Constitutional Discourse and the Judicialization of Politics in Latin America.” In J. A. Couso, A. Huneeus, and R. Sieder (Eds.), Cultures of Legality: Judicialization and Political Activism in Latin America (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couso, J. (2011). “Models of Democracy and Models of Constitutionalism: The Case of Chile’s Constitutional Court, 1970–2010,” Texas Law Review, 89(7): 1517–1536.
Couso, J. A. (2004). “The Politics of Judicial Review in Chile in the Era of Democratic Transition, 1990–2002.” In S. Gloppen, R. Gargarella, and E. Skaar (Eds.), Democratization and the Judiciary: The Accountability Function of Courts in New Democracies (pp. 70–91). London: Frank Cass.
Couso, J. A. (2005). “The Judicialization of Chilean Politics: The Rights Revolution That Never Was.” In R. Sieder, L. Schjolden, and A. Angell (Eds.), The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America (pp. 105–130). Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Couso Salas, J. and Coddou MacManus, A. (2010). “La naturaleza jurídica de la acción de inaplicabilidad en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional: un desafío pendiente,” Estudios Constitucionales, 8(2): 389–430.
Díaz, S. and Schiappacasse Faúndes, V. (2012). “Chile: One Step Forward, One Step Back.” In A. M. Foster and A. L. L. Wynn (Eds.), Emergency Contraception: The Story of a Global Reproductive Health Technology (pp. 107–122). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dides Castillo, C. (2006). Voces en Emergencia: El discurso conservador y la píldora del día después, Santiago, Chile: FLACSO.
Domingo, P. (2005). “Judicialization of Politics: The Changing Political Role of the Judiciary in Mexico.” In S. E. Eckstein and T. P. Wickham-Crowley (Eds.), The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America (pp. 21–46). New York and Basingstoke: University of California Press.
Epp, C. R. (1998). The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Franceschet, S. and Piscopo, J. M. (2012). “Federalism, Decentralization, and Reproductive Rights in Argentina and Chile,” Publius, 43(1): 129–150.
Fuentes, C. A. (2006). “Democracia en Chile: Instituciones, Representación, y Exclusión.” In XXVI Congreso Internacional de la Asociación de Estudios Latinoamericanos, LASA 2006, March 15–18, 2006, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Guzmán, V. and Seibert, U. (2010). The Churches and Gender Equality in Chile: Religious Impact on Sex Education Policies and on the Introduction of Emergency Contraception. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) and Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
Guzmán, V., Seibert, U., and Staab, S. (2010). “Democracy in the Country but Not in the Home? Religion, Politics and Women’s Rights in Chile,” Third World Quarterly, 31(6): 971–988.
Haas, L. (2010). Feminist Policymaking in Chile. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Heiss, C. and Navia, P. (2007). “You Win Some, You Lose Some: Constitutional Reforms in Chile’s Transition to Democracy,” Latin American Politics and Society, 49(3): 163–190.
Hilbink, L. (2003). “An Exception to Chilean Exceptionalism? The Historical Role of Chile’s Judiciary.” In S. E. Eckstein and T. P. Wickham-Crowley (Eds.), In What Justice? Whose Justice? Fighting for Fairness in Latin America (p. 360). Berkeley and London: University of California Press.
Hurtado, J. and Dides, C. (2004). “The Debate on Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Chile: Spearation of Church and State?” In C. Dides (Ed.), South-South Dialogue on Religion and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: Status Reports on Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Peru (pp. 61–84). Santiago de Chile: Christian Humanism University Academy.
Kantola, J. (2014). “The Paradoxical Gendered Consequences of the EU Policy on Multiple Discrimination: The Nordic Case,” European Integration Online Papers, 18: 1–19.
Krook, L. and MacKay, F. (Eds.). (2011). Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lovenduski, J. (2011). “Foreword.” In L. Krook and F. Mackay (Eds.), Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism (pp. vii–xi). New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mac-clure, L. (2011). “Tribunal Constitucional y los derechos: La discusión pendiente.” In CEP, CIEPLAN, Proyectamérica and Libertad y Desarrollo (Eds.), Frente a la mayoria: Leyes supramayoritarias y Tribunal Constitutional en Chile (pp. 169–275). Santiago de Chile: PNUD.
Mackay, F., Kenny, M. and Chappell, L. (2011). “New Institutionalism through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism?” International Political Science Review, 31(5): 573–588.
El Mercurio (2008). “Diputados RN y UDI discrepan por decisión del TC sobre la píldora.” Online. http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacio-nal/2008/04/05/299303/diputados-rn-y-udi-discrepan-por-decision-del-tc-sobre-la-pildora.html April 5, 2008.
El Mercurio Online (2008). “Oficial: Tribunal Constitucional prohibe entrega de la píldora del día después.” EMOL. April 4, 2008.
Muñoz León, F. (2014). “Morning-After Decisions: Legal Mobilization Against Emergency Contraception in Chile,” Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, 21: 123–175.
La Nación. (2008). “Píldora: Senadores de la Concertación piden inhabilidad de ministros del TC.” La Nación. April 14, 2008.
La Nación. (2006). “Píldora del dia después para todas las mujeres.” La Nación. March 24, 2006.
Nogueira Alcalá, H. (2008). “Análisis de la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional chileno sobre el Decreto Supremo que regula la dis-tribución de la píldora del día después (levonorgestrel 0.75 mg),” Estudios Constitucionales, 6(1): 361–372.
Scribner, D. L. (2010). “The Judicialization of (Separation of Powers) Politics: Lessons from Chile,” Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2(3): 71–97.
La Segunda. (2009). “Contraloría prohíbe que municipios distribuyan ‘píldora del día después’.” La Segunda. June 18, 2009.
La Segunda. (2008). “Presidenta pidió a ministros buscar opciones para revertir fallo del TC sobre píldora.” La Segunda. April 7, 2008.
Sieder, R., Schjolden, L. and Angell, A. (2005). “Introduction.” In R. Sieder, L. Schjolden, and A. Angell (Eds.), The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America (pp. 1–20). Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Solinas, M.T. 2007. “Alianza: Decreto supremo para distribuir la píldora representa una ‘ideología del capricho’.” El Mercurio. January 13, 2007.
Tribunal Constitucional. (n.d.). Artículo19—LEY ORGÁNICA CONSTITUCIONAL DEL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL-LEY N°17.999.
Tribunal Constitucional. (2007). “Expediente sobre Implicancia en caso Requerimiento de Inconstitucionalidad del Decreto Supremo No 48 del Ministerio de Salud. Rol 740,” pp. 747–750.
Tribunal Constitucional. (2010). ROL No 740–2007. In Jurisprudencia constitucional: Sentencias pronunciadas entre 2006 y 2008, Roles Nos 691–780. Santiago de Chile: Tribunal Constitucional de Chile, pp. 265–441.
Waylen, G. (2006). “Constitutional Engineering: What Opportunities for the Enhancement of Gender Rights?” Third World Quarterly, 27(7): 1209–1221.
Waylen, G. (2014). “Informal Institutions, Institutional Change, and Gender Equality,” Political Research Quarterly, 67(1): 212–223.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 Carmen Sepúlveda-Zelaya
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sepúlveda-Zelaya, C. (2016). Formal and Informal Institutional Challenges to Women’s Reproductive Rights: Emergency Contraception and the Constitutional Tribunal in Chile. In: Waylen, G. (eds) Gender, Institutions, and Change in Bachelet’s Chile. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137501981_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137501981_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-69935-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-50198-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)