The local daily La Tercera in today's edition publishes that the legal arguments used to impugned the distribution of the morning after pill were taken from a legal opinion written by Constitutional Court judge Raul Bertelsen a few years earlier. Bertelsen wrote a legal opinion against the morning after pill, birth control pills and IUDs that these methods prevent the implantation of an egg in a woman's uterus.
That opinion was taken word by word, according to La Tercera, in the constitutional challenge against the distribution of the morning after pill and all other forms of contraceptives. Lead lawyer Jorge Reyes says he used the opinion in proper legal form. But Reyes failed to cite the legal opinion in the challenge.
But Bertelsen now becomes the issue because he ruled in a Constitutional challenge knowing that his opinion was part of the legal writ filed by those opposing the distribution of birth control methods and emergency contraceptives.
Members of Congress who oppose the 5-4 decision to ban the distribution of the emergency contraceptive want the Court to quash its decision and demand judge Bertelsen to step aside on this particular case. The same position, say the Congressmen, should extend to Jose Luis Cea who issued a press release outlining the Courts decision and Mario Fernandez who is on record saying that when it comes to moral opinions he defers to the opinion of his Catholic Church Bishop.
Women's and pro choice groups are accusing judge Bertelsen of not only conflict of interest, but of prevarication. This means that a judge acted as part and jury in a legal case subverting the principle of equality before the law.
