The Constitutional Court faced a decision on an amparo petition filed by a pregnant woman who faced high-risk childbirth and her husband, who hoped to give birth at home rather than in a hospital. Health authorities had warned of serious risks to the fetus, such as fetal hypoxia and possible intrauterine death given the late stage of pregnancy, even though the midwife involved was pregnant herself. Due to these concerns, health officials reported the case to the Court of Duty, which then ordered the pregnant woman to deliver in a hospital in Asturia after a cesarean section was performed in an ambulance due to complications during labor.
The couple argued that forcing the expectant mother to go to the hospital by ambulance and deliver there was unsupported by any legal provision. They asserted that she had not been granted a hearing to contest the measure or to indicate that her position would be considered, and they claimed there were insufficient reasons behind the decision. Their premise was that the coercive order lacked a solid legal basis and due process.
The Court’s explanation, while defending the constitutional guarantees, was not unanimous. The Turkish Prosecutor’s Office contended that the nasciturrus, or unborn child, possesses protected status and that the place and manner of birth should be determined by the pregnant woman’s own will. Three magistrates dissented, arguing that the amparo should be upheld and that the order for forced transfer and detention, as well as the absence of a hearing, represented an overreach of state authority.
In the majority decision, there was consensus on certain points but disagreement on others. One magistrate held that the pregnant woman’s spouse lacked standing to seek amparo protection, while another, invoking the 2010 Abortion Law, suggested that the decision rested on a normative basis because a legal obligation to protect life exists in formation, thereby justifying the court’s approach under certain conditions.
Nevertheless, the three dissenting judges warned of serious interference by public officials and criticized the proceedings for lacking a gender perspective. The opportunity to balance the rights at stake—on one side, the physical freedom and privacy guaranteed by constitutionally protected rights, and on the other, the life and health of the unborn child—was central to the debate. The case highlighted the tension between personal autonomy and state responsibility to protect vulnerable life during pregnancy.
Throughout the deliberations, the Court underscored the need to harmonize fundamental freedoms. The discussion touched on physical freedom as guaranteed by constitutional article 17.1 and the right to personal and family privacy in article 18.1, which the appellant cited as part of amparo. Conversely, the unborn child’s right to life and physical and moral integrity, rooted in article 15, was presented as a core constitutional consideration. The Court recognized its duty to safeguard life while also insisting that public power should act within a framework of proportionality and due process, particularly in urgent situations where a rapid decision might be required. The court signaled that a hearing should be provided to the parties whenever possible, even though urgent circumstances sometimes justify abbreviated procedures. In the end, the Court found the challenged decision constitutionally legitimate within the proportionality framework, acknowledging that the matter involved competing constitutional values and that context mattered for the overall assessment. The decision echoed a past Strasbourg Court stance, noting concerns about home births in high-risk situations and the associated risks to both mother and fetus when proper medical care is not available. This emphasis on proportionality and context reflects a broader jurisprudential approach to balancing individual rights with public health considerations in cases involving pregnancy and mater emocional risk. The court’s ruling thus framed the protection of life and health within a constitutional lens while acknowledging the need to review and, where appropriate, adjust legal mechanisms to ensure fair process and gender-sensitive considerations in similar cases.