Archive for the ‘Legal Abortion in Mexico’ Category

Background on abortion in Latin America

Monday, April 23rd, 2007

New York Times,December 3, 2005
Push to Loosen Abortion Laws in Latin America By JUAN FORERO

PAMPLONA, Colombia - In this tradition-bound Roman Catholic town one day in April, two young women did what many here consider unthinkable: pregnant and scared, they took a cheap ulcer medication known to induce abortions. When the drug left them bleeding, they were treated at a local emergency room - then promptly arrested.

Insisting that abortion was rare, Pamplona’s conservative leaders thought the case was over. Instead, the episode reverberated throughout Colombia and helped to galvanize a national movement to roll back laws that make abortion illegal, even to save a mother’s life.

Latin America holds some of the world’s most stringent abortion laws, yet it still has the developing world’s highest rate of abortions - a rate that is far higher even than in Western Europe, where abortion is widely and legally available.

Increasingly, however, women’s rights groups are mounting challenges in courts and on the streets to liberalize laws that in some countries ban abortion under any circumstances. At least one major case with implications for the entire region could be decided in December.

So far, no country has dropped its ban. But the effort, spurred by the high mortality rate among Latin American women who undergo clandestine abortions, has begun to loosen once ironclad restrictions and opened the door to more change.

Although it may seem small by United States standards, it is a seismic shift for a region where abortion is readily available only in Cuba and a few other Caribbean nations. “There is a real trend for change, particularly in South America,” said Marianne Mollman, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, which supports efforts to decriminalize abortion in Latin America. “I think it’s the end of the realization that the criminalization of abortion doesn’t lead to less abortion, but that it leads to a lot of preventable problems.”

In Brazil, the world’s largest Roman Catholic country, women’s groups successfully pushed for new regulations this year that permit a rape victim to get an abortion without providing a police report to doctors, as was required. The government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva also formed a commission this year that called for legalizing abortion up to the third month of pregnancy. Congress is debating the plan.

In Uruguay, the Senate came three votes shy last year from legalizing abortion, setting the stage for future efforts by abortion rights advocates, while Argentina’s Congress is debating about a half dozen bills to legalize abortion in some instances.

Women’s rights groups from New York to Buenos Aires are also closely watching the outcome of a lawsuit filed by a Colombian lawyer, Mónica Roa, with the nation’s highest court. It seeks to legalize abortion when a mother’s life is in danger, when the fetus is expected to die of abnormalities or when the pregnancy resulted from rape.

The central argument in the case - one that could set precedent - is that Colombia’s anti-abortion laws violate its international treaty obligations, which require the nation to ensure a woman’s right to life and health.

The abortion rights movement in Latin American has come as women throughout the region are having fewer children and benefiting from once improbable opportunities in the workplace and politics. Social mores are also changing. Largely gone, for example, is the social stigma unwed mothers once faced, as well as laws that offered few legal protections for women. Also, divorce is now legal across Latin America.

Emboldened, women’s groups that advocate the legalization of abortion have taken to the streets of Buenos Aires; Santiago, Chile; and the Colombian capital, Bogotá, with some marchers publicly admitting they had had abortions.

Regional health officials increasingly argue that tough laws have done little to slow abortions. The rate of abortions in Latin America is 37 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, the highest outside Eastern Europe, according to United Nations figures. Four million abortions, most of them illegal, take place in Latin America annually, the United Nations reports, and up to 5,000 women are believed to die each year from complications from abortions.

In an interview, a doctor in Medellín, Colombia, said that while he offered safe, if secret, abortions, many abortionists did not.

“In this profession, we see all kinds of things, like people using witchcraft, to whatever pills they can get their hands on,” said the doctor, who charges about $45 to carry out abortions in women’s homes. He spoke on condition that his name not be used, because performing an abortion in Colombia can lead to a prison term of more than four years.

“They open themselves up to incredible risks, from losing their reproductive systems or, through complications, their lives,” the doctor said.

Such arguments have done little to sway an anti-abortion movement that is largely led by influential leaders of the Roman Catholic Church.

In Colombia, José Galat, the Catholic rector of the Gran Colombia University, has collected two million signatures against efforts to legalize abortion and has paid for full-page newspaper advertisements criticizing abortion rights advocates.

“If there is life, then it has all the rights and a mother cannot apply the death penalty,” he said.

Public opinion polls and studies show that Latin Americans do not support the full legalization of abortion. But detailed surveys conducted in 2003 in Mexico, Colombia and Bolivia showed that a majority of Catholic respondents believed abortion should be permitted to save a mother’s life, when doctors believe the fetus will not survive or when the pregnancy is the result of a rape.

Abortion rights advocates point to a Nov. 17 decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which ruled that Peru had failed to comply with its obligations under an international rights treaty and violated the rights of a young woman by denying her access to an abortion in 2001. The decision may have wide repercussions in future cases.

The young woman had sought an abortion when she was 17 after doctors determined that her fetus was severely malformed. But a hospital in Lima, the capital, denied her request, though abortion is legal under such circumstances in Peru. The woman was forced to have the baby, who died four days later.

“I hope that this does not happen to another young person,” the woman, Karen, now 21, said in a telephone interview. “I feel very satisfied because this was a long fight.”

Like much of Latin America, the people here in Pamplona have, until recently, talked little of the abortions that have taken place behind the town’s tranquil, buttoned-down facade. Yet, 68 students, most of them from the University of Pamplona, sought emergency treatment at the local public hospital last year after having abortions, hospital records showed.

Several students said that they had a liberal attitude toward sex. Condoms are readily available, and the so-called morning-after pill is sold over the counter in pharmacies.

Still, sex education focuses more on anatomy than behavior, and church and university officials preach abstinence. Shamed by the thought of having children without being married, many young women try to induce abortions by taking a drug called Cytotec, which is made for ulcers but also dilates the cervix.

Pharmacies in Pamplona are barred from selling the drug, but students can purchase it in cities nearby. It was Cytotec that the two young women took in April that left them bleeding and, ultimately, under arrest. But there have been others, court records showed.

Under questioning from prosecutors, all admitted their guilt and received suspended sentences.

“I didn’t know what to do,” said one young woman, who had an abortion in February, explaining her confusion to a local prosecutor. “I’m sorry. I ask God for forgiveness and to give me another chance. I’ll never do it again.”

Mónica Trujillo contributed reporting from Bogotá for this article.

Share and Tag: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Furl
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • YahooMyWeb

The abortion debate in Mexico grows

Monday, April 23rd, 2007

From La Opinion, LA’s Spanish-language daily… Crece debate por aborto en México
A loose translation of the lead:
“The denouncements between the Catholic Church and the DF Legislative Assembly became accusations with first and last names when deputy Cirigo accused archdiocesan spokesman Valdemar of being the intellectual author of death threats for supporting depenalization.
“If something happens to us (the legislators), it’s the cleric’s fault,” said Cirigo, one of the sponsors of the legislative order that will be voted on tomorrow Tuesday and would permit women to abort in the first 12 weeks of gestation, if approved, and require doctors at public hospitals in DF to offer the service.”

Legisladores del Distrito Federal votarán mañana para decidir si se despenaliza o no
Gardenia Mendoza Aguilar
Corresponsal de La Opinión
23 de abril de 2007

MÉXICO, D.F.— Los descalificativos entre la Iglesia Católica y legisladores de la Asamblea Legislativa del Distrito Federal (ALDF) pasaron a ser acusaciones con nombre y apellido cuando el diputado Víctor Hugo Círigo, acusó al vocero de la Arquidiócesis de México, Hugo Valdemar, de ser el autor intelectual de amenazas de muerte en su contra por apoyar la despenalización del legrado.

“Si algo nos pasa [a los legisladores], culpo al clero”, sentenció Círigo, uno de los impulsores del dictamen que será votado mañana martes y que permitirá a las mujeres abortar en las primeras 12 semanas de gestación, si así lo decide, y obliga a los médicos de los hospitales públicos de la Ciudad de México a dar el servicio.

La propuesta de ley —que cuenta con la aprobación de la mayoría en la ALDF— sustituye las anteriores causales del aborto que sólo lo autorizaban en caso de violación o malformación genética. Además, coloca al DF como punta de lanza para que el aborto sea despenalizado en otros estados.

El cardenal Norberto Rivera pidió durante una misa dominical a todos los sacerdotes y obispos defender a la familia ante lo que consideró un “crimen abominable”. Y de ese modo dio luz verde a todos los “defensores de la vida” a manifestar el rechazo por diversas vías.

Rivera fue respaldado la semana pasada por el papa Benedicto XVI, quien llamó a luchar por el derecho del niño por nacer.

Rivera se alió con su otrora enemigo David Romo, arzobispo de la iglesia de la Santa Muerte, para establecer un frente común de propaganda “en defensa de la vida”. Ambos dejaron para el futuro “arreglar sus diferencias ideológicas”.

Por su parte, el comediante Roberto Gómez Bolaños (”Chespirito”) entró a la polémica y aparece, desde hace dos semanas, en el Canal 2 de la televisora Televisa, con un mensaje en contra de la despenalización del aborto.

“Hola, soy su amigo ‘Chespirito’, cuando estaba yo en el vientre de mi madre, ella sufrió un accidente que la puso al borde de la muerte, el médico le dijo: ‘Tendrás que abortar’, y ella respondió: ‘¿Abortar yo? ¡Jamás!’. Es decir, defendió la vida, ¡mi vida!, y gracias a ello estoy aquí”, expresa el actor mexicano.

Al final del spot hay un mensaje: “Abortemos la ley, no la vida”: www.denmechance.org es la página de internet de una organización que supuestamente es patrocinada por algunos empresarios de la Confederación Patronal de la República Mexicana (Coparmex), el Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) y la Iglesia Católica.

La campaña de “denmechance” pasó inmediatamente de comerciales en televisión a las calles. En diversos puntos de la Ciudad de México se montaron estructuras metálicas de aproximadamente cinco metros de largo por dos metros y medio de ancho con frases como “A un hijo se le defiende con la vida”, “Sé un héroe para tu hijo, sálvale la vida” y “No matarás significa no abortarás”.

Para contrarrestar la campaña de “Chespirito” y “denmechance”, diputados de Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD), Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), Alternativa, Partido del Trabajo y Convergencia prepararon también un anuncio televisivo en el que aparece Paulina, una muchacha que explica que fue violada en 1999, a los 13 años, y el gobierno la obligó a tener el bebé.

“Soy Paulina. Mi caso se conoció en todo México. Cuando tenía 13 años quedé embarazada. Mi vida se cortó, fui una niña madre”, reclama en el anuncio.

En ese contexto, el pasado 10 de abril acudió iracundo a la ALDF, el líder de la Asociación Provida, Jorge Serrano Limón, acompañado de una mujer embarazada de 10 semanas y dos médicos para hacer una ecografía ante legisladores y demostrar de esa forma que el feto ya está totalmente formado. “No es una bola de carne, como se hace creer”.

En la entrada del recinto, Serrano y su comitiva fueron recibidos con improperios y una lluvia de tangas que se agitaban a su paso. Eran los reclamos de mujeres Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir (CDD) y de la Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH), que aseguran haber recibido amenazas de muerte a través del correo electrónico por apoyar el aborto.

María Consuelo Mejía, directora de CDD, considera que estas amenazas “son resultado de la campaña de odio de la jerarquía conservadora” y agrega que, del total de las mujeres que aborta en México, 88% son católicas.

En la capital están desprotegidas cerca de 77 mujeres que diariamente acuden desangradas a los hospitales del Gobierno del Distrito Federal a concluir abortos mal practicados, según la Secretaría de Salud local y otras tantas que lo hacen en la clandestinidad.

Cifras de organismos civiles, como el Instituto Alan Guttmancher, señalan que en el país hay anualmente 533 mil abortos provocados.

El PAN ha propuesto como una alternativa para no legalizar el legrado la habilitación de depósitos de bebés para que las madres que no deseen a sus hijos los abandonen ahí, en lugar de la calle, como ahora sucede. Pero los defensores del aborto consideran que eso incrementaría la irresponsabilidad.

“Esto no es de Dios, es un asunto de salud pública”, resumió el ombudsman capitalino, Emilio Álvarez Icaza.

El día de ayer, marchas en contra y a favor del aborto tuvieron lugar en la capital mexicana

Alrededor de 500 personas, según la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública del Distrito Federal, protagonizaron una marcha en contra del aborto que recorrió varias calles céntricas, como el emblemático paseo de la Reforma, y se concentraron en el Zócalo de la ciudad frente a la Catedral Metropolitana.

Esta marcha partió del Monumento a la Madre y fue convocada, entre otros, por la Iglesia católica, la Unión Nacional de Padres de Familia y la organización no gubernamental Provida.

En un punto de su recorrido, los manifestantes se desviaron para evitar encontrarse con un grupo contrario de unas 300 personas que se expresaban a favor del polémico proyecto de ley que pretende despenalizar el aborto en la ciudad.

Share and Tag: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Furl
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • YahooMyWeb

US Abortion ban and the path of Mexico’s abortion bill

Friday, April 20th, 2007

Following the connection between these two bills will definitely make for a good story. I think we need to start thinking about how we would tell the story from the US side and draw a parallel with the Mexico side.

Post what you think. For link to WeNews story go here.

Abortion Ban Spurs ‘Free Choice’ Move in Congress

By Allison Stevens - WeNews correspondent

WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)–The day after the Supreme Court upheld a controversial abortion ban, pro-choice politicians mounted a counteroffensive from the legislative branch of government across the street.

Democrats Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York–two leading supporters of abortion rights in the U.S. Congress–reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify in federal law the rights established in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that found abortion was part of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.

“We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman’s constitutional right to choose,” said Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “This Supreme Court may have gone out of the business of protecting women’s rights; it is time that Congress stand up to the challenge.”

If passed, the Freedom of Choice Act would likely lead to court challenges that could overturn the ban upheld Wednesday. The federal ban okayed by the high court Wednesday does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman, a precedent laid out in Roe v. Wade.

The Democrat’s bill would also bar government at any level from passing laws that outlaw abortion before the fetus is viable or after viability if the woman’s health or life is endangered. It is unclear how the law would apply to future or past restrictions on access to abortion.

Supporters say the legislation will help inoculate women from a wave of new restrictions to abortion that is expected to follow Wednesday’s court decision. Advocates on both sides of the issue agree that the court’s ruling gives a green light to further chip away at reproductive rights and could even embolden efforts to ban abortion altogether.

Response to Court Ruling

At a press conference in the Capitol Building Thursday, pro-choice activists rallied around the Democrat’s bill as a way to counter Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision.

“Pro-choice leaders like Sen. Boxer, Rep. Nadler and the bill’s other cosponsors understand that government should not interfere in personal, private medical decisions,” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading reproductive rights advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said at the news conference. “We applaud their efforts to stop anti-choice attacks and protect a woman’s right to choose by introducing the Freedom of Choice Act.”

Seven states have passed their own versions of the Freedom of Choice Act, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America. They are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.

At the federal level prospects are cloudy for the bill, which has been introduced in previous Congresses but has failed to win passage.

For starters, strongly anti-choice President Bush would almost certainly veto any legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade into federal law.

Meanwhile, even though Congress is now controlled by the Democrats, pro-choice activists cannot count every member of the majority party as an ally.

Slim Majority

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Mormon from Nevada, opposes abortion in most cases. And Democrats, with their slim majority of 51 seats, lack the 60 votes needed to override a likely filibuster.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California is a solid supporter of abortion rights, and a spokesperson confirmed her support of the Freedom of Choice Act shortly after it was introduced.

But she presides over a chamber that opposes abortion, said Ted Miller, a spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice America. Miller says 219 House members oppose abortion, out of a total membership of 435.

The bill might be able to go farther than it has in the past, a reproductive rights advocate said, but couldn’t predict if it stood a chance of passage. The advocate spoke on the condition of anonymity because she did not want to publicly assess the bill’s chances of success.

Some members of Congress, however, may make this is a priority now that the Supreme Court has demonstrated what many court-watchers see as an ideologically hostile bent on abortion-related issues.

In its ruling on Wednesday the Supreme Court said it was upholding a ban on a procedure that it identified as intact dilation and evacuation even though the law made no exception for women who might require that particular procedure for health reasons.

Offensive Switch

The legislative counteroffensive marks a new era in Congress in which pro-choice lawmakers are taking the offensive, a contrast to the past dozen years, when Republicans held the reigns of power and presided over a series of legislative efforts to restrict access to abortion.

The ban upheld by the court on Wednesday sailed through Congress in October 2003. With the court ruling to uphold it, the law is expected to take effect within the next month.

The House backed the measure 281-142; the Senate 64-34. In both chambers a considerable number of Democrats voted for the bill and Bush signed it into law that November. Until Wednesday, it was held back by legal challenges to its lack of a health exception for the woman.

Under the law, a woman would still be able to access certain kinds of second trimester abortions but would not necessarily be able to have the banned procedure, even if her doctor considered it the safest and best for her individual circumstances. Doctors found guilty of breaking the law could face up to two years in prison.

Wednesday’s ruling was the court’s first major decision on the issue of abortion since the 2006 retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, the whose support for limited abortion rights made her the court’s swing vote on the issue.

Two George W. Bush appointees–John Roberts and Samuel Alito–have joined the court since O’Connor’s retirement and the death of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who consistently voted against reproductive choice.

“Justice O’Connor retired and President Bush and a Republican Senate replaced her with a reliably anti-choice vote on the Supreme Court,” Nadler said. “It is clear today that the far-right’s campaign to pack the Supreme Court has succeeded and that women and their families will be the losers.”

Allison Stevens is Washington bureau chief at Women’s eNews.

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org .

For more information:

“Court’s Abortion Ruling Undercuts Roe”: - http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3139

NARAL Pro-Choice America: - http://www.naral.org/

Note: Women’s eNews is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites and the contents of Web pages we link to may change without notice.

Share and Tag: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Furl
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • YahooMyWeb

Catholic Church Collecting Signatures for Referendum on Mexico City Bill

Thursday, April 19th, 2007

This is where it all begins. Now you knew this one wasn’t just going to slide on through right?

Daily Women’s Health Policy
International News | Catholic Church Collecting Signatures for Referendum on Mexico City Bill That Would Allow Abortion During First Three Months’ Gestation
[Apr 19, 2007]

The Roman Catholic Church has gathered about 32,000 of the 36,900 signatures needed to request a referendum on a Mexico City bill that would allow pregnant women to obtain a legal abortion during the first three months’ gestation, Reuters reports (Reuters, 4/17). Under current Mexican law, abortion only is permitted if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered or if the woman has been raped. Lawmakers from Mexico’s Party of the Democratic Revolution in March proposed the measure in the city’s Legislature. The party holds Mexico City’s mayorship and the majority in the city’s Legislature. The Mexico City Legislature is expected to approve the legislation, despite opposition from the church. Marcelino Hernandez, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Mexico, recently said that if the proposed bill passes, any lawmaker who voted in favor of the measure would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church when the first abortion is performed under the law (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/17). According to Reuters, the city’s government is under no obligation to comply with the request for a referendum, but it would “generate public pressure” and delay the vote on the bill by at least three months. Assembly head Victor Hugo Cirigo said the city government would review any petition, but he was certain the vote will occur on April 24. Church spokesperson Armando Martinez said, “In the end, the assembly is going to have the last word on this, with or without a referendum,” adding, “But the difference is that with a referendum, they would be listening to the people.” Martinez said the church soon will present its demand for the referendum to the assembly. He added that if lawmakers ignore the petition, the church will take the issue to court. The earliest a referendum could take place would be July, Reuters reports (Reuters, 4/17).

Share and Tag: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Furl
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • YahooMyWeb