The Murder of Juanse: Seven-Month Baby Aborted in Colombia

The Constitutional Court has opened the doors for a genocide. In Colombia, a woman can say she feels sad, and then she has "the right" to kill her child

From 2016 to 2020, Profamilia performed about 56,000 abortions and received a total of about 100 billion pesos from the Colombian health system. (Flickr)

Spanish – I shouldn’t be writing this story. Juanse should have been born and enjoyed the love of his father, a man who fought until the last minute so that his baby, seven months in the womb, would not be killed.

The struggle of a desperate father 

Upon learning that his former partner was attempting to abort, Juan Pablo Medina immediately filed a complaint with the Colombian Attorney General’s Office and a guardianship action, asking for provisional protection measures for his child because the baby’s life was clearly in imminent danger. He also started a media campaign publicizing his case in an attempt to stop the mother’s plans or get practical legal help.

What Juan Pablo asked his ex-partner was to let her baby, seven months in the womb, be born and give it to him; he would take care of the child forever. The young man demanded that his baby not be killed. However, nothing worked, and unfortunately, today, we have to tell this heartbreaking story to try to convince other mothers that killing a child will never be a “solution,” and to demand that the Colombian justice system, as well as the Congress and the government, stop the murder of babies being carried out by institutions like Profamilia.

On January 30, the judge in charge of the guardianship filed by Juanse’s father informed Profamilia, the place where the child was murdered, that the requirement established by the Constitutional Court regarding medical certification of the cause of the abortion was not being fulfilled. Therefore, the judge requested an assessment by the mother’s EPS.

The guardianship judge, then, was not prohibiting the abortion but asked for the filfilment of the requirement to certify the mother’s alleged mental health problems be met before the procedure.

In this case, the pro-family abortionists claim “mental health” as a valid reason for abortion. According to Juan Pablo, the woman’s EPS had refused to certify the “mental health” grounds for abortion. And what Profamilia sends to the judge is an opinion by a gynecologist who claims that the mother is “psychologically affected.”

The website Razón + Fe has published the diagnosis made by the abortion institution about the alleged mental health problems of the mother: “The young woman says that since she found out about the pregnancy, she has experienced a series of emotional changes. She has become depressed, has outbursts of crying, and says that she has often had negative thoughts associated with suicidal ideation (such as throwing herself in front of vehicles, jumping from the third floor, cutting her veins or her stomach), has experienced altered sleep and appetite, lost her focus and concentration, and is isolated. She says that she has changed the way she interacts with people and that she would like to go back to being the cheerful young woman who likes to go out, dance, and socialize, and who is happy.”

Profamilia’s abortionists were so eager to win this battle and murder a baby, seven months in the womb, even though they were only required to have something as easy to obtain as a certificate issued by a specialist, they decided to perform the abortion ignoring the judge’s request in the guardianship ruling.

In the challenge to the guardianship, Profamilia replied to the judge that they had already carried out a psychological evaluation confirming the cause of “mental health.” And that the institution “is obliged to guarantee the provision of voluntary termination of pregnancy services within five working days of the consultation.” Moreover, the abortion facility adds that requesting additional medical certificates constitutes “an obstacle and an administrative barrier” to the “right” to abortion.

Finally, in the challenge made by Profamilia, they state that they “guaranteed the fundamental right to voluntary termination of pregnancy.” This is how Juan Pablo learned that his son had been murdered — reading this sentence in the challenge to a guardianship.

After learning that his efforts were not enough to save the baby’s life, the father has asked the judiciary to have Profamilia clarify the day on which the murder took place, as well as the “fate of the baby’s body.” Juan Pablo would at least want to give his child a Christian burial.

The murderers

The Constitutional Court

In Colombia, as it should be, abortion is a crime; the Penal Code has a provision for abortion as a crime for the mother and for whoever assists her. However, the Constitutional Court in the unfortunate ruling C-355 of 2006, has decided to allow the termination of the life of the baby in three cases: when the life or health of the mother is in danger; when the fetus is malformed and unviable; and when the pregnancy is the result of abuse, rape, incest, embryo transfer, or non-consensual insemination.

So what the Constitutional Court did was to make exceptions to the crime. But the truth is that since we are talking about a law, the right thing would be for Congress to modify that law and not the Constitutional Court because, in principle, a high court should not change laws; that is the responsibility of the legislature. As some lawyers claim, the Court is supplanting Congress.

So far, even though the terrible sentence we are talking about is from 2006, Congress has not wanted to deal with it. It seems to be too controversial, and they don’t want to get into it. So at the moment, on behalf of the Constitutional Court – which should not be the case – abortion is allowed in the three cases we mentioned. As there is no regulation about it because Congress has not acted on it, in those cases, women can have an abortion up to the 9th month if they want to.

The Constitutional Court has opened the doors for a genocide. In Colombia, a woman can say she feels sad and no longer feels like “socializing” – as Juanse’s mother said – and then she has “the right” to kill her child.


Needless to say, there is no reason an institution that performs abortions be called “Profamilia;” they do exactly the opposite. That’s how cynical and dirty they are.

They have made the murder of the most vulnerable a business and disguise their enterprise of death by talking about supposed “rights” of women. According to La FM, in four years, from 2016 to 2020, Profamilia performed nearly 56,000 ” terminations of pregnancy” and received a total of almost 100 billion pesos (29.5 million USD) from the Colombian health system.

But besides the fact that it is a business, with Juanse’s case, it became absolutely clear that they do not have an ounce of decency and are willing to do anything. In Colombia, it is an open secret that to have an abortion, one only has to say that one is depressed, and immediately Profamilia does its diligent “work,” but now it has been made clear to the whole country and documented: they do abortions as easily as pulling teeth.

Activists and celebrities

“… I did it, driven by my rebelliousness and my ambition to be myself, ready to pay the emotional price that life would charge me for my freedom,” wrote actress Margarita Rosa de Francisco in a column in which she confessed to having had an abortion, but not with pity, instead she seems proud of what she did. In fact, she presents abortion as a sign that a woman is free and courageous.

How many young women that day, when they read it and had it as a reference for something, believed the story that being free has anything to do with abortions? How many thought that an “empowered” woman kills her child if she wants to? And how many, now, after having an abortion because they were told there were no consequences and nothing would happen, lead a life tormented by the guilt of having killed their baby?

After that pitiful column, the boisterous feminist Florence Thomas wrote a piece encouraging famous and recognized women to follow Margarita Rosa’s example: “Hopefully, we will begin to hear dozens of stories that will help destigmatize voluntary termination of pregnancy,” Thomas says with an audacity that beats De Francisco’s.

These women want to make abortion look normal and are even proud because it is “freedom.” They completely deny the obvious negative consequences for a woman of killing her baby in the womb.

Educating women to make the right choices about having sex is not an option for these death activists; what they want is to be murder activists. What Margarita Rosa did was confess to a crime, killing your baby because “you want to be free” is a crime.

And these women incite and commit murder.

It’s time to act

This situation has gotten out of hand. Juan Pablo Medina did everything in his power to stop the murder of his son, seven months in the womb.

Congress does not want to legislate on this issue. The Constitutional Court that has opened the door to genocide, and Profamilia has become the mastermind of so many deaths that they must answer to the baby’s father and to Colombian society, which is not depraved, is largely sane, and understands the obvious: we cannot legalize the killing of babies in their mothers’ wombs.

We Colombians can no longer remain silent in the face of such an atrocity. We are talking about 56,000 aborted children in Profamilia alone in four years!

There is no such thing as “voluntary termination.” We are talking about murders. The organization should not be called Profamilia but Pro-murder. There is no such thing as a mother’s right to kill her child. The “right to decide” has to be exercised at the moment they have sex, not when there is already a human being in the womb.

I conclude this article by making the words of Juanse’s father  my own:

“I want to invite you not to allow any more Juanses in Colombia! No child should be aborted, and the loss of my child cannot be in vain. These types of actions carried out by Profamilia are an example of the abuse of the Constitutional Court’s decisions on expanding abortion further and further.”

Subscribe free to our daily newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special reports delivered directly to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time