Bishops of Mexico say "No woman should be forced to make the dramatic decision to resort to the practice of abortion, a situation that in a large number of cases leaves a profound sequel of pain."

In Mexico, the Catholic Bishops have reacted to decisions by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), who ruled on the 9th of September, 2021, in favor of abortion from conception in the Constitution of the Mexican state of Sinaloa. During this past week, the court ruled twice in favor of abortion .

A public pro-life protest will be held outside the Supreme Court on Monday, September 13, 2021. 

On CitizenGO, over 60,000 people have signed a campaign expressing their disapproval of abortion and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

FULL TEXT Release from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico:





«Before forming you in the womb, I knew you; Before you came out of the womb, I had consecrated you, I had made you a prophet to the nations "(Jeremiah 1,5) 


Mexico City, September 8, 2021.

Prot. No. 71/21


Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary


Yesterday, September 7, 2021, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled on the unconstitutionality of articles 196 and 224, section II of the Penal Code of the State of Coahuila, extending the invalidity to portions of articles 198 and 199 of the same order. 

In sum, the Court held –among other things– that the definition of the crime of “ self-procured or consensual” abortion is unconstitutional, which established a penalty of 1 to 3 years for the woman who voluntarily performed her abortion or whoever made her have an abortion with it. consent of that. In the same sense, it extended the invalidity to the sanction established for health personnel who attend a voluntary abortion, as well as to the penalty for abortion performed within 12 weeks of gestation in the event of rape or artificial insemination or improper implantation. .

The Bishops of Mexico, having studied the content of this resolution and the arguments presented by various ministers in the public discussion sessions held on September 6 and 7, we believe that the problems faced by women and the legal status of the unborn child are a complex issue with anthropological, scientific, philosophical and ethical edges that cannot be reduced to a resolution in a judicial matter. 

With pain and dismay, we consider that it is essential that all social actors - outside a climate of ideological polarization and without attachment to political positions - engage in a new and deep reflection that allows us to find a common way of solving a multidimensional problem and multifactorial like the one at hand. 

At this juncture of the highest importance, we want to offer some lines of reflection that serve to guide the conscience of all the faithful and people of good will.


The Church, as Mother , knows what goes through the hearts of women who fight against all forms of discrimination and violence, especially those who are victims of criminal acts or who are in a situation of vulnerability, helplessness or abandonment.  

No woman should be forced to make the dramatic decision to resort to the practice of abortion, a situation that in a large number of cases leaves a profound sequel of pain. In this sense, we are aware that prison is not a solution to the problems faced by women who have an abortion and rather can lead to their re-victimization. 

Thus, the Church endorses a determined and active commitment to those initiatives, programs and projects that seek to offer the necessary means for women to build a dignified life project, in accordance with their legitimate aspirations and to become actively involved in all spaces.

On the other hand, the Church, Mother of all human beings , including those already conceived but not yet born , must also protect - by all lawful means - her fundamental dignity as God's creation (cf. Ps 139,14-18 ) and ensure that their right to life is not conditioned, discriminated against or subject to the will or decision of a third party. This path does not constitute an alternative solution either. 

The mother's heart suffers deeply when her children are hurt, violated or carry the weight of a painful and difficult situation. For her part, the mother who witnesses the death of a child , especially when the child is small and vulnerable, also experiences unspeakable pain.  

With this sentiment, we deeply regret that in the face of the apparent dilemma about not criminalizing the woman who aborts and preserving the life of the unborn child, the Court has chosen to rule out the second, without seeking the safeguard of both . 

Within the framework of our social and democratic State of Law, the human right to life is recognized and guaranteed in our Constitution and in the most important International Treaties on Human Rights, which cannot be restricted to the person conceived, even unborn, from conception to natural death (Cf. EV, 2).  

In this sense, beyond the legal consequences of the merits of the judgment, the Court's resolution makes a dangerous and disproportionate contrast between the content and limits of what it calls “the right of women to decide” versus “the constitutional protection of the unborn ” .

Without attempting to exhaust the content of the matter, it is delicate that the same approved project recognizes that there is no express constitutional or conventional reference to the so-called “woman's right to decide”, but that “the substratum of this prerogative is constituted by human dignity, autonomy, the free development of personality, the right to private life, legal equality, the right to health (psychological and physical) and reproductive freedom ”. 

It is not admissible that the joint analysis of these concepts leads to the conclusion that there is a "fundamental right" of women "to decide" and that this consists "of the possibility of freely accessing a procedure for the safe termination of pregnancy", under the protection of articles 1 and 4 of the Constitution.  

If the substratum of this so-called “right to decide” is found in these principles, under what logical reason is the unborn child unknown What objective elements exist to restrict these rights to the conceived unborn and, consequently, withdraw the protection of the State?  

We note with serious concern that the reasoning used is based on interpretation parameters that - under the appearance of progressiveness - translate into the " constitutionalization of the right to decide " - as the draft resolution indicates - ignoring other legal rights of the same hierarchy, whose intrinsic value is independent of the religious beliefs or convictions of each person.  

It is not congruent that –in the same resolution– an exhaustive discursive exercise and an extensive interpretation is carried out to address the so-called “right to decide” and a restrictive vision of the human right to life is applied, expressly recognized in International Treaties, as well as the biological, anthropological and legal status of the unborn child and the protection it deserves, arguing that “… there is no unanimity in the ethical, moral, philosophical, scientific and legal criteria on the moment from which human life begins and the moment from which it must be protected by the State, supporting assertions found among themselves ... ”. 

Among others, it is not considered as a valid argument that within the "internal and external borders" of the so-called "right to decide" it is concluded that the "right of the woman to decide" can only include the procedure of "interruption of pregnancy within of a brief period close to the beginning of the gestation process . " It is obligatory to ask, what is the constitutional or conventional foundation that allows to sustain this last assertion?

The ambiguity of the approach unfailingly implies discrimination against the human being by reason of its stage of gestation, placing the unborn child as if it were a legal asset that can be disposed of if it is in a “short period close to the beginning of the gestation process. ”And leaving to the discretion of a third party, whether he continues to live or not. 




We live in a time of great social challenges and, as Pope Francis said, of “broader social pathologies such as the distorted vision of the person, a look that ignores their dignity […] that fosters a culture of waste” (General Audience, August 12, 2020). This requires us to walk together for the common good, human dignity and the fundamental rights of all people, whatever their condition.  

The matter of the debate held in the Supreme Court in recent days deserves a renewed commitment from all political actors, the academic community, churches and civil organizations to guarantee the protection of women in all circumstances, gestating  or not, while respecting the human right to life of both the mother and the unborn child. 

For this, the Episcopal Dimension of Life, will offer in the course of the next days and weeks, some subsidies that offer technical criteria for the analysis and construction of proposals and actions.  

We raise our permanent prayer for all those people who work daily in the defense of women and the rights of the unborn child , asking the Blessed Virgin of Guadalupe to intercede before God so that she continues to encourage them in their work. 


+ Bishop Rogelio Cabrera López

President of the CEM


+ Bishop Alfonso Gerardo Miranda Guardiola

Secretary General of the CEM


+ Bishop Jesús José Herrera

Responsible for the Episcopal Dimension of Life


1. Septiembre% 20de% 202021% 20-%20Versi% C3%  B3n % 20definitiva.pdf

2. Septiembre% 20de% 202021% 20-% 20Versi% C3%  B3n % 20definitiva.pdf

3.   "Conceived but not born, as a phase of internal human life or in formation." Definition of the Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Legal Spanish, Royal Academy of the Spanish Language. Internet source: 

FULL TEXT Release: