Puerto Rico hearing examines Senate Bill 297 on parental consent and protocols for abortions of girls 15 and under

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Lawmakers on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee heard testimony March 19 on Senate Bill 297, a measure that would establish a protocol for handling abortion cases involving girls 15 years old or younger and require written informed consent from at least one parent or legal custodian before an abortion may be performed in Puerto Rico.

Speakers from the Office of the Procuradora de la Mujer (OPM) and the Department of Public Safety (DSP) told the committee they generally favor elevating existing administrative rules into law but urged several technical and policy changes, including a clarified consent standard and an expedited judicial alternative when parents or custodians are unavailable or in disagreement.

Fabiola Plaza Rivera, an attorney appearing for the OPM, told the committee that her office “favorecemos la aprobación del proyecto del Senado 297, sujeto a la atención de nuestras recomendaciones,” and then outlined recommendations to avoid future legal disputes. The OPM recommended rewriting the bill to state explicitly that the consent of a single parent with patria potestad (parental authority) is sufficient, to add a third judicial pathway when no parent or custodian is available or consents, and to remove an automatic mandatory referral to the Department of the Family in all parental-consent cases unless there is a clear suspicion of abuse.

Plaza and other OPM attorneys cited the Civil Code provisions reflected in the OPM brief — articles the office summarized as saying minors generally lack capacity to consent to medical treatment and that a parent with patria potestad may consent to treatment on a minor’s behalf. OPM also pointed the committee to an amended administrative regulation — Secretary of Health Regulation No. 132, amended Sept. 27, 2024 — that already requires clinics to follow a referral protocol and, in some cases, to obtain parental consent for patients under 15.

Arthur Garfer, secretary of the Department of Public Safety, and Mara Arias Nieves, speaking for DSP, emphasized operational and interagency questions. They said existing police investigative units and specialized sexual‑offense investigators are structured to handle alleged sexual offenses and that any new statute should build clear channels for coordination among the Department of Health, the Department of the Family and the Department of Justice. Garfer’s written remarks, read into the record, also asked that any law preserve patient confidentiality and avoid administrative barriers that would impede emergency medical care.

Both OPM and DSP told the committee they oppose automatic referrals to the Department of the Family when there is no specific reason to suspect abuse, saying routine mandatory referrals could deter parents from consenting and could have the unintended effect of driving minors to unsafe, clandestine alternatives.

Witnesses also flagged technical problems in the bill draft. OPM counsel identified mismatches between the bill’s title and its text (the title mentions age 15 but some lines reference age 18), and noted an apparent drafting error that duplicates penalties language in two separate articles where one should address coercion and the other penalties.

Committee members repeatedly asked the witnesses to provide data and analysis. DSP agreed to check whether its statistics can be provided segmented by victim age and relation to the alleged offender; the committee set a five‑day deadline for participating agencies to supply specific data about referrals, investigations and any directives from the Department of Justice regarding enforcement. Committee members also requested attendance by the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and the Department of the Family at a future hearing.

Several members raised legal context questions, repeatedly asking how the bill would interact with Puerto Rico law and court decisions. Witnesses noted that Puerto Rico’s penal code (Article 98) currently criminalizes abortion except where necessary to save the mother’s life, and that judicial interpretation of that framework (discussed in the hearing as Pueblo v. Duarte and in comparison to U.S. jurisprudence such as Dobbs) is a matter for the Department of Justice and the courts. Both OPM and DSP deferred to the Department of Justice on legal interpretation but said the statute could nevertheless be useful to codify procedures now regulated administratively.

Legislators and witnesses also discussed procedural safeguards raised by other jurisdictions. OPM urged the committee to consider an expedited judicial process like the one cited in Uruguay, where a judge must resolve a petition within three days when parental assent cannot be obtained. DSP and members expressed concern that any judicial pathway must be operationally feasible and not create delays that would increase health risks.

Lawmakers additionally asked about where abortions for minors are performed and whether clinics are complying with Regulation 132. Witnesses said the Department of Health maintains licensing and oversight authority for clinics and hospitals; OPM and DSP said they do not have complete data on the number of licensed termination centers or clinic compliance and asked the committee to summon the Department of Health to provide those records.

The committee did not vote on the measure. At the end of the hearing the chair said the committee will summon the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Department of the Family for a follow‑up hearing, and that the agencies had five days to provide the requested statistics and any directives from the Department of Justice regarding enforcement or investigations tied to recent legal interpretations.

Notes: The hearing record shows the Office of the Procuradora de la Mujer and the Department of Public Safety as the presenting agencies. The Department of Justice, Department of Health and Department of the Family were excused but are expected to appear at a later public hearing. No formal votes or amendments were taken at this session.