Authorized statement regarding Senate Bill 923 and proposed amendments to Article 92 of the Puerto Rico Penal Code

Authorized statement by Annette Martínez Orabona, executive director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico, regarding Senate Bill 923, which seeks to amend Article 92 of the Puerto Rico Penal Code, defining “murder,” to redefine “human being” as the “conceived at any stage of gestation”:

“Although Senate Bill 923 was amended as part of its expedited process in the Legislature to specify that the change in the definition of ‘human being’ in our Penal Code applies in contexts that should not alter the right to abortion in Puerto Rico, the ACLU of Puerto Rico maintains its opposition to this measure and urges Governor Jenniffer González Colón to veto the bill, because the bill did not receive adequate discussion or the participation of all affected parties.

The Senate, as has become customary since last year, approved the measure on an expedited basis without public hearings. The House of Representatives followed the same course, adding amendments in a rushed manner. This process not only restricts the participatory rights that frame democracy, but also leaves us without a legislative record or history that officially captures those statements. In other words, if this measure must later be interpreted in court, the proper course would be for the legislative history to clearly reflect that this bill has nothing to do with abortion. The legislative leadership failed to fulfill that responsibility and duty to the people.

The ACLU of Puerto Rico seeks to safeguard the human rights and civil liberties guaranteed by our legal system. Although Senate Bill 923 seeks, according to its statement of motives, to maintain consistency between civil and criminal provisions, its real effect has been to create uncertainty and confusion. Shortly after introducing it, the governor expressed her intention to withdraw the measure because she understood that she had introduced it by mistake, since, as she stated, the intended purpose was already covered by the law it was meant to harmonize. However, she chose to leave it before the Legislative Assembly, which gave the bill inadequate treatment. The governor now has before her sufficient grounds, including her own public record, to veto this bill.”