[TW] Center for Reproductive Rights Files Case Revealing the Horrifying Reality of El Salvador's Ban on Abortion
Manuela’s story demonstrates the fatal consequences of El Salvador’s law and why it must change
03.21.12 - (PRESS RELEASE) El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion has resulted in tragic and often fatal consequences for the women living in that country — resulting in the arbitrary imprisonment of women suffering from miscarriages and complications in their pregnancies, according to a petition filed today with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Center for Reproductive Rights and local Salvadoran organization Colectiva de Mujeres para el Desarrollo Local (Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto Ético, Terapéutico y Eugenésico de El Salvador).
Today’s petition was filed on behalf of “Manuela” (a pseudonym) and her family. Manuela was a 33-year-old Salvadoran mother of two who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison after suffering severe complications giving birth. El Salvador has one of the most extreme abortion bans in the world—prohibiting abortion even when necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life and imposing harsh criminal penalties on both women and physicians.
“Women are paying a high price, in many cases with their lives, for El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a global legal organization dedicated to advancing women’s reproductive health. “El Salvador’s laws have turned emergency rooms into crime scenes, forcing pregnant women to live under a dark cloud of suspicion. The international community must come together to demand an end to this cruel treatment of women and make a commitment to safeguard fundamental reproductive rights.”
From the moment Manuela arrived at the hospital seeking emergency health care, slipping in and out of consciousness and hemorrhaging, doctors treated her as if she had attempted an abortion and immediately called the police. She was shackled to her hospital bed and accused of murder.
Manuela was sentenced to 30 years in prison without ever having a chance to meet with her lawyer, without an opportunity to speak in her own defense, and without the right to appeal the decision. Shockingly, the judge overseeing her case said that “her maternal instinct should have prevailed” and “she should have protected her child.”
After several months in prison, it was discovered that the visible tumors Manuela had on her neck for which she sought medical care several times without being accurately diagnosed, was advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma — a disease that likely lead to the severe obstetric emergency she suffered.
Tragically, Manuela did not receive the appropriate treatment for her disease and died in prison in 2010, leaving behind her two young children. Her illness could have been caught earlier if she had received adequate medical attention when she consulted about her tumors in years prior, and if medical officials treating her during her emergency paid any attention to her condition, rather than focusing on reporting her to authorities.
This legal campaign marks the first time an international judicial body will hear the case of a woman imprisoned for seeking medical care due to obstetric emergencies, as a result of a total abortion ban. The case argues that El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion violates a number of human rights, including the right to life, right to personal integrity and liberty, right to humane treatment, and the right to a fair trial and judicial protection.
“Salvadoran women have been unjustly persecuted by their government for far too long,” said Mónica Arango, CRR’s regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean. “We are bringing Manuela’s case before an international human rights body so women won’t suffer the same tragic fate, and El Salvador can finally be held accountable.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights will also issue a report later this year detailing the stories of Salvadoran women affected by the country’s absolute ban on abortion.Abortion was once legal in El Salvador under a narrow set of circumstances, but even these limited exceptions were removed in 1998, as documented by CRR in a report released in 2000. Now El Salvador is among five countries in Latin America and the Caribbean — including Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic, and Chile — where abortion is absolutely prohibited even when the woman’s health or life is at risk. More information about abortion restrictions around the globe is available at CRR’s interactive World Abortion Laws map.
Under current Salvadoran law, anyone who performs an abortion with the woman’s consent, or a woman who self-induces or consents to someone else inducing her abortion, can be imprisoned for up to eight years.
But like Manuela, many women who miscarry or experience emergency obstetric complications are charged with aggravated murder, for which they can be imprisoned for up to 50 years, and subsequently spend decades behind bars.
“Liberalizing restrictive abortion laws, like El Salvador’s, is essential to saving the lives and protecting the health of millions of women across the globe every year,” said Northup. “Study after study has shown there are no positive outcomes to banning abortion outright.”
A recent study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute reinforced the fact that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion. According to the study, the 2008 abortion rate in Latin America—a region where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries—was 32 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, while in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is just 12 per 1,000.
*Pregnant people, not just cis women.
This is what I like to call #ProlifeBeliefsInAction. These are the real life consequences of abortion bans and personhood amendments. When embryos are viewed as having rights of their own lawmakers and doctors are forced to forget that unlike actual people, embryos are inside of someone else; and that person has rights of their own.
With personhood amendments we see all pregnant people as suspicious and guilty until proven innocent when it comes to any “irresponsible” behavior and even a miscarriage. Their own lives and health become secondary to protecting a non-autonomous, non-sentient, non-viable embryo or fetus from the person it’s inside of. Suddenly pregnant people experiencing natural occurrences like miscarriage or wanting to act in their own health’s best interest are contextualized as an actual threat.
These laws obfuscate the fact that pregnancy creates a vulnerable state for people and that no pregnancy is guaranteed to go to term without complications. So when things go horribly wrong, as they’re apt to, it’s deemed a criminal failure on the part of the pregnant person and not the unfortunate and unpredictable occurrence that it is. These laws, in effect, turn pregnant people into a special class of people whose right to bodily integrity is called into question or suspended altogether, leading to discrimination and human rights violations.
Further proof that both the fetus focus fallacy and “prolife” policies kill and vilify pregnant people.
Millions of European Women [People] Struggle to Access Contraception
Members of European Parliament Host Roundtable on Human Rights Violations, Gender Discrimination
…
It stands to reason that if we ensure contraception is both readily available and easily affordable for sexually active women of all ages, the need for abortion may decrease as a result. That would be a laudable accomplishment and an indication of social progress for an America otherwise plagued by anti-feminist, religious conservatism known for shaming women’s sexuality.
Nevertheless, even in the face of such (hypothetical) strides, we must remember that extenuating circumstances like health, contraceptive failure, and rape mean that abortion will always be a normal, necessary, and reasonable choice for many women. As such, we must avoid stigmatizing it in any way. No woman benefits from even the vaguest insinuation that abortion is an immoral or objectionable option. That’s the weak argument made by misogynistic, forced-birth advocates, and it has no place in a dialogue about reproductive freedom. Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about having one.
Similarly, I’ve heard reproductive rights activists claim that “no one likes abortion,” in an attempt to find common ground with anti-choicers. While it may be true that no one likes the physical act of having an abortion (any more than she may like her yearly mammogram, life-saving chemotherapy, or temporarily uncomfortable dental surgery), a great many women like abortion itself. They like knowing that an unwanted pregnancy does not have to yield an unwanted child. They like knowing that their mental and physical health take precedence over an embryo. They like knowing that they own their bodies. Many medical procedures are physically unpleasant, but that doesn’t lessen how grateful we are to have them available when we need them.
Suggesting that abortion be “safe, legal, and rare,” and crowing that “no one likes abortion,” accomplishes nothing for women’s rights. Pandering to the anti-choice movement by implying that we all find termination distasteful only fuels the fire against it. What good is common ground if it must be achieved at the expense of women who have had or will have abortions? Those women need advocates like us more than we need support from anti-abortionists. Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What’s not to love?
—
I Love Abortion: Implying Otherwise Accomplishes Nothing for Women’s Rights
*pregnant people, not just cis women.
I particularly like:
“No woman benefits from even the vaguest insinuation that abortion is an immoral or objectionable option. That’s the weak argument made by misogynistic, forced-birth advocates, and it has no place in a dialogue about reproductive freedom.”
“They like knowing that an unwanted pregnancy does not have to yield an unwanted child. They like knowing that their mental and physical health take precedence over an embryo. They like knowing that they own their bodies. Many medical procedures are physically unpleasant, but that doesn’t lessen how grateful we are to have them available when we need them.”
I love abortion, too; without shame, reservations, or qualifiers. I’ve heard people proclaim that it breaks their heart abortion was ever “invented” as if medical procedures themselves (or their ancient precursors) are something to get distraught over. Honestly, abortion was conceived of by desperate pregnant people longing to have some semblance of control over their lives and biological destinies, at a time when these things were almost complete mysteries to them. The fact that we’ve advanced enough to invent a safe and simple out-patient procedure [the first out-patient procedure to be widely performed] that results in little to no side effects, is a beautiful thing. I regret nothing.
obviously.
How can a mother’s right to refuse carrying a baby for 9 months be more important than the baby’s right to have his/her existance, the baby’s whole lifetime?
Using freedom to justify abortion is fucking nonsense. The mothers’ claim to have the freedom to get an abortion is definitely wrong since it takes away an innocent person’s right to live.
Bodily integrity is one of the most important rights we have, so maybe you should look into some actual human rights treaties on the subject. Here, I compiled a bunch.
Actual people with rights under the Constitution will always take precedence over non-sentient, non-autonomous embryos who are only potential persons and are residing inside someone else. We do have the right to bodily integrity and the right to bodily autonomy as well as the right to privacy. There is no such thing as a right to someone else’s body. Consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy. And reproductive rights violations are considered torture in some cases and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in many more.
Pregnant people have every right to refuse 9 months of pregnancy because it’s something that will permanently change them. It’s not some inconvenient walk in the park. What’s “fucking nonsense” is your complete disregard for actual people’s fundamental human rights in favor of an embryo, which isn’t innocent by the way.
Oh, and trans* people exist.
Obviously.
(Source: mofo-escapist)
Every day 12 women leave Ireland to access abortion services in the UK. Who are these women and girls? You might be surprised. Women who have abortions come from all walks and all stages of life. They are women you know.
Abortion in Ireland is a new video developed by the Irish Family Planning Association as part of an initiative to facilitate an open, honest dialogue on abortion and to dispel myths that stigmatise women who seek abortion services. The video provides accurate factual information on abortion in Ireland.
The IFPA produced this resource because we want to change the way people talk and think about abortion in Ireland—we think discussions on abortion should be informed by facts. We believe that for too long abortion has been left in the shadows and the women who have had abortions have been stigmatised. This animation is intended as a contribution to changing opinions, informing discussions and breaking the stigma.
Join us in the change and pass on this video to others to ensure the debate about abortion in Ireland is informed by facts, not misinformation.
More:
- Statistics
- Legal Timeline
- Abortion & Human Rights
- Resources
- The Irish Journey
- ABC v Ireland
- Public Opinion
*Pregnant people, not just cis women.
Catholic midwives lose abortion 'conscientious objection' case
An excerpt:
Two Roman Catholic midwives have lost a legal battle to avoid taking part in abortion procedures because of their “conscientious objections”.
Midwifery sisters Mary Doogan, 57, and Concepta Wood, 51, said being forced to supervise staff taking part in abortions violated their human rights.
The women had sought to challenge NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on the issue.
But a judge at the Court of Session ruled the midwives did not have direct involvement in terminating pregnancies.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde welcomed the judgement and said the ruling had recognised efforts to accommodate the members of staff.
At the court in Edinburgh, Lady Smith said Ms Doogan, from Garrowhill in Glasgow, and Mrs Wood, from Clarkston in East Renfrewshire, were Roman Catholics and objected on religious grounds to participating in abortions.
Lady Smith said: “Nothing they have to do as part of their duties terminates a woman’s pregnancy.
“They are sufficiently removed from direct involvement as, it seems to me, to afford appropriate respect for and accommodation of their beliefs.”
_________________________________________
“…being forced to supervise staff taking part in abortions violated their human rights.”
violated their human rights
violated their human rights
violated their human rights
Omfg. This is exactly what we should have done in the States with those antichoice nurses. Get a clue or gtfo of the profession.
Sweden Drops Law Forcing Sterilization of Trans People
02.29.12 - In a major reversal, this month the Swedish government announced plans to repeal an archaic law forcing transgender people to undergo sterilization before legally changing their gender. The announcement comes after several years of LGBT and human rights organizations around the world, including the Center for Reproductive Rights, putting pressure on the government to repeal the law and stand up for the sexual and reproductive rights of all people in the country, including transgender people.
According to the law, passed in 1972, Swedish citizens seeking a sex-change operation are required to be over 18-years-old, unmarried and sterilized. Last year, there were efforts to change the legislation, but the Christian Democratic Party, a small part of the conservative governing coalition, succeeded in blocking the change, arguing that the issue is complex and needed to be examined further.
Human rights activists argued that essentially blackmailing or giving transgender people an ultimatum that either they must be sterilized or the government will not recognize their true gender identity is not only cruel, but as a legal matter, a flagrant breach of fundamental rights. Finally this month, the Christian Democrats announced that they agree to abolish the policy on forced sterilizations. There is also agreement that the requirement for unmarried status will be dropped.
The legislation is unusual as Sweden has often been a champion for human rights internationally-including the principle that every person should be able to decide over his or her body, sexuality, and reproduction.
Similar laws exist in Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, and many other countries across the globe.
There is a country where the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder by a partner. In this same country, more than a million women were raped in 2008 and women are much more likely to live in poverty than men. Local laws don’t protect their right to bodily freedom and integrity; some rape laws even state that once a woman initially consents to sex, she doesn’t have the right to change her mind.
You may have caught on by now — yes, I’m talking about the United States.
—
Jessica Valenti, in “Equality begins at home: U.S. lags pathetically behind other nations in some basic rights for women.” (via azelie)
Also: “For all of our rhetoric about respecting mothers and parenthood, the United States is the only industrialized nation without paid maternity leave, putting families and children at severe economic risk. Some families pay as much as half their income toward child care costs.”
(via foulmouthedliberty)
*pregnant people.
(Source: thedailyfeed, via foulmouthedliberty)
The pro-choice camp claims a position that offers more choices for women making decisions about their reproductive lives. A variety of scholars and activists have critiqued the choice paradigm because it rests on essentially individualist, consumerist notions of “free” choice that do not take into consideration all the social, economic, and political conditions that frame the so-called choices that women are forced to make. Solinger further contends that in the 1960s and 1970s, abortion rights advocates initially used the term “rights” rather than choice; rights are understood as those benefits owed to all
those who are human regardless of access to special resources. By contrast, argues Solinger, the concept of choice is connected to possession of resources, thus creating a hierarchy among women based on who is capable of making legitimate choices. Consequently, since under a capitalist system, those with resources are granted more choices, it is not inconsistent to withdraw reproductive rights choices from poor women through legislation such as the Hyde Amendment (which restricts federal funding for abortion) or family caps for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) recipients.
—
Excerpt from “Beyond Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice” by Andrea Smith.
*Pregnant people, not just women. I removed citations due to clutter, but they’re in the original pdf at link.
Why do people use the “we were born like this” argument against homo/trans/ace/etcphobia? It’s not really a very good argument… I mean, it is, I suppose, but it’s not the argument you should be using.
Not the main one, anyway.
Why not? Well, let’s make an analogy comparing the lgbt issues debate to a courthouse.
If you were the judge in, say, a murder or battery case, what would you think if the defense’s main argument was that the accused couldn’t help it? That they were born that way and can’t help but go along with their nature?
Yup, that’s basically pleading insanity. You’re not going to do that if you’re innocent, so basically you’re admitting guilt.
And thus admitting that the thing you’re being accused of is a bad thing.
——
Yes, I do believe most issues and identities associated with lgbtqiaa etc issues are inborn. I am a grey-asexual homoromantic transwoman. I did not decide to be trans, nor did I decide to not be interested in sex much, or like women.
So yes, the born this way argument, to me, rings true.
But it’s just not the proper argument to use. It should be used in conjunction with other major arguments.
I totally understand what you’re getting at, and I think some people do fall into this trope either because it rings true to them personally or they’re defensive due to the rabid heterosexism that is infecting our country (and the world) and is actively trying to take our rights away. But I would also posit that it’s not usually the main thrust of our argument, which I see as equal rights and human rights based on the right to equal treatment, it’s all consensual and not really anyone’s business. It’s rather a mere rebuttal to a common heterosexist argument: that because only heterosexual intercourse leads to procreation that it must be the only “natural” way to be and therefore is the only moral option. This is committing the naturalistic fallacy, and can easily be refuted by saying “look at all the other species of animals out in nature who show homosexual tendencies” (not that they have a gay sexuality because that’s socially constructed, but natural same-sex tendencies). So I tend to see “born this way” as less the claim “being gay is natural therefore I should be able to be gay” and more the rebuttal “you have no reasonable way to claim I don’t deserve rights because I’m unnatural, because actually I’m not.” So…less of an actual claim and more of a rebuttal to a fallacious heterosexist argument. Does that make any sense?
Know Your Rights: Essential Resources
RACIAL JUSTICE
When Traveling »
What To Do If You’re Stopped By Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI »
RELIGION AND BELIEF
ACLU of Texas Announces Bible Curriculum “Know Your Rights” FAQ Sheet »
WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Know Your Housing Rights: For Survivors of Domestic Violence »
Sexual Assault and Campus Housing »
Title IX and Sexual Assault - Your College’s Responsibilities »
Health and Safety in New York Nail Salons — Chemicals and the Law »
CRIMINAL LAW REFORM and IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS
What To Do If You’re Stopped By Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI »
SPEECH, PRIVACY AND TECHNOLOGY
Photographers »
Naked Scans or Groping? Rights at the Airport »
When Traveling »
LGBT RIGHTS
Speaking Out With Your T-Shirt »
Transgender People and the Law »
HIV & Your Civil Rights: In the Workplace » (PDF version)
Know Your Rights! A Quick Guide for LGBT High School Students » (Wallet Card)
NATIONAL SECURITY
When Encountering Law Enforcement »
PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
Assault and Excessive Force »
Disciplinary Sanctions and Punishment »
Environmental Hazards and Toxic Materials »
Freedom of Religion »
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 »
Legal Rights of Disabled Prisoners »
Medical, Dental and Mental Health Care »
Pregnancy-Related Health Care in Prison or Jail »
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) »
Privileged and Non-Privileged Mail »
Publications Sent by Mail »
Restrictions on Visitation »
STATE-SPECIFIC RESOURCES
Michigan Civil Rights Groups Announce “Know Your Rights” Hotline for Targets of Dragnet Investigation » (ACLU of Michigan)
Visit http://www.ipas.org/fiveportraits to read about how safe abortion saves women’s lives.
To make a donation to Ipas, go to http://www.ipas.org/donate.
Every year, 21 million women worldwide risk their lives with an unsafe abortion. Ipas is working to solve this problem. Ipas believes that no woman should have to risk her life or health because she lacks safe reproductive-health choices; learn more on http://www.ipas.org.
The photographs used in this video are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply any particular attitudes, behaviors, or actions on the part of any person who appears in the photographs. Unless otherwise noted, photos in this video are copyrighted by Richard Lord, Thinkstock or Ipas. For more detailed information, please see http://www.ipas.org/fiveportraits.
[pregnant people, not just women]
Legitimate question re: American Politics
You guys seem pretty proud to be the UNITED States of America, but I find that a lot of people fight for “state rights” rather than federal laws.
Why is this?
If something is wrong according to the law — shouldn’t it be wrong everywhere?
How are the states “united” if each state is working under a different system of values, ethics, and laws?
#thingsthisCanadiangirldoesn’tunderstand
All very good questions. Frankly, I think state’s rights allow for too much bickering and it’s just begging for human rights violations. One of the reasons (not the only one of course!) I think European countries can be so progressive in many areas we aren’t is because once something is decided it takes effect throughout the country. That way all people are afforded the same rights regardless of where they live. In the US we have progressive states, but the people that live in “not-so-progressive” places are considered shit out of luck and it’s ridiculous. Especially on issues that are fundamental human rights. I don’t think we should be voting on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and health insurance on the state level. The country needs to get with the program and make federal laws that allow all US citizens the same rights. Maybe that’s just me…
You don’t have rights until you’re no longer using my body to sustain yourself. Sorry, little fetus.
(Also — let’s be accurate, yeah? Very, very few abortions happen when a fetus is this far along in development. But I understand that zygotes don’t really carry the same emotional punch as using photos of almost-term fetuses does. So carry on, we know that you falsify most of your information anyways.)
- What is with the scare quotes around logic? Our logic makes sense and is based on science, human rights, bioethics, the Constitution, and legal precedent; yours is ridiculous and fallacious.
- I see you’re moving away from black and white absolutist propaganda (very reminiscent of your thinking) to co-opting pink, feminist symbols, and the language of human rights. Except, there’s no such thing as an antichoice feminist and reproductive rights are human rights, that includes abortion.
- If an embryo had rights (it doesn’t) where did they get special rights that no one else has that enables them to trump the rights of the person they’re inside of?
(Source: inchristhopeisfound)
in-her-hips-theres-revolutions:
The first of all Rights is the Right to Life
But with its existance in a womb without the uterus-owner’s consent, the fetus is violating their human rights.
Let’s go through some of those rights:
- Freedom from torture (Forced pregnancy is torture.)
- Freedom from slavery (Forced pregnancy is slavery.)
- The right to legal and safe abortion (part of Reproductive Rights) (Forced pregnancy is a violation of this, obviously.)
The fetus, a non-person, who is not sentient and not physically autonomous does not have the right to infringe on these other rights.
If you’re not born, you don’t have rights. It’s stated clearly in the International Declaration of Human Rights that all people are BORN free and of equal rights/dignity etc, not before. THAT’S the first of all human rights, actually.
Seriously. How deluded do you have to be to think you can co-opt human rights and think you have any business applying them to embryos? 78.9% of the time it’s an embryo, not a fetus, that is so far from personhood, sentience, or moral significance it’s not even funny. You cannot trample the rights of people in an effort to give rights to something which has never been granted them before, and whose very existence conflicts with the rights of the person it’s inside of if not there consensually. We know by looking at 20 different human rights treaties, conventions, and conference documents that reproductive rights are human rights. We know that reproductive rights violations constitute torture in some cases and cruel, unusual, or inhuman and degrading treatment in many more. And your Pope is hardly the person to be taking human rights advice from. Oops.
(Source: kandacelee, via inherhipstheresrevolutions)
