Abortion and Human Rights  

     Abortion is an issue that often dominates our politics, in the United States and around the world. Activists use this issue that to impose a theological viewpoint on politics, as the anti-abortion forces of the Catholic Church and Protestant Evangelical Churches have allied with rightwing political forces to attack women’s rights and all human rights in the name of the unborn. 

     The imposition is, for me, the issue. The tactics of those who believe that human life begins at conception have been to organize to marshal the resources of the State to impose their beliefs on society. In the United States, the relentless pressure to criminalize abortion is a crucial issue during every election. In Latin America, where the societal strength of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Fundamentalists is even greater, the pressure is immediate and deadly. In El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras, for example, abortion is illegal, criminal and prosecuted with deadly consequences for women. 

     Here is a recent report from the Nicaragua Network - a great website for Nicaragua, Central America news with a global perspective, about the situation in Nicaragua: 

     “By a vote of 66-3, on Sept. 13, 2007, the National Assembly defeated an amendment to the Penal Code which would have decriminalized therapeutic abortion (criminalized in 2006 after over 100 years of legality) if three medical specialists agreed it was necessary to save the life of the mother. Only the three deputies of the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) voted in favor of saving the life of the mother. Twenty-seven Sandinista deputies voted with the right-wing parties while 11 stayed away from the proceedings. During the debate, human and women's rights protesters shouted so loudly that it was difficult to hear the deputies. Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) Deputies Wilfredo Navarro and Freddy Torres described the protesters as lesbians and murderers. The members of the FSLN bench were completely silent during the debate. The two voices which led the argument in favor of saving women's lives were MRS Deputies Monica Baltodano and Victor Hugo Tinoco. 

     The vote came as a surprise and great disappointment to women's rights activists and medical associations which had been consulted by the National Assembly Justice Committee. A week prior to the debate in the legislative branch, the Justice Committee issued a favorable report on the amendment. A list of medical circumstances, including ectopic pregnancy [where the embryo develops outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes], under which a therapeutic abortion would be permitted, was issued by the committee. But the full Assembly did not listen when it came time to vote. Ligia Altamirano, a gynecologist and member of the Nicaraguan Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said that this legislature's decision will "deepen the chaos within the health service [where] doctors have doubts about whether to treat" women with complications relating to their pregnancies. "There are over 20 medical associations within Nicaragua which have stated opposition to the abortion ban" said Altamirano, "but [the deputies] didn't listen." 

     Doctor Leonel Argüello, member of one of the medical associations which was consulted by the Justice Committee said on Sept. 13, "Today, the death penalty has been reintroduced in Nicaragua." According to Argüello, an average of 1,000 women a year will die as a result of the abortion ban. Ana Maria Pizarro, representative of the Autonomous Women's Movement, said the FSLN deputies have "betrayed the memory of Carlos Fonseca and Carlos Nuñez Tellez who fought for a secular state and for women's rights." Over twenty women's rights groups announced plans to carry out national and international protest campaigns with the aim of forcing the reintroduction of therapeutic abortion in Nicaragua.

      According to Justice Committee chair Jose Pallais the Catholic Church hierarchy had approved the committee's list of medical circumstances under which a therapeutic abortion should be permitted. In public, however, no church representative confirmed this approval while Bishop of Esteli Abelardo Mata had publicly called on the deputies to maintain the abortion ban. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue in a few weeks. 

     Last year, on October 26, 2006, ten days before the 2006 presidential elections, the Assembly first approved the measure that would remove from the country's penal code the article permitting abortion when the life or health of a woman was in danger. The action was in answer to demands from the Catholic Church and some Protestant churches and was supported by three of the four major candidates for president in the elections that were to be held on November 5th. 

     With the elimination of the century-old measure allowing therapeutic abortion, women who have an abortion can be sentenced to one to two years in jail and doctors or midwives who perform abortions can be sentenced to one to three years in jail. Nicaragua joined El Salvador and Chile as the only countries in the region that made all abortions illegal. Passage of the measure was directly related to the presidential elections where the Sandinista Party (FSLN) candidate Daniel Ortega (who won the election), the Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) candidate Jose Rizo, and the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN) candidate Eduardo Montealegre, all supported the measure to do away with therapeutic abortion. Only the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) candidate Edmundo Jarquin opposed it. 

     In the year that the ban has been in effect, cases of the death of women denied treatment altogether or denied treatment until it was too late have been documented. Human Rights Watch documented the following case in its recently released Over Their Dead Bodies: Denial of Access to Emergency Obstetric Care and Therapeutic Abortion in Nicaragua: A medical doctor at a large public hospital in Managua, however, testified to one case: "Here [at this hospital] we have had women who have died.... For example, [name withheld] came here and had an ultrasound. It was clear that she needed a therapeutic abortion. No one wanted to carry out the abortion because the fetus was still alive. The woman was here two days without treatment until she expulsed the fetus on her own. And by then she was already in septic shock and died five days later. That was in March 2007." The Nicaraguan Health Ministry in December 2006 issued "Norms and Protocols for Treatment of Obstetric Emergencies," which included mandatory protocols for emergency obstetric care. These guidelines cover obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancy, and if fully implemented could overcome many negative consequences of the abortion ban. However, it appears that the guidelines often are not followed because of fear of prosecution.”(from the Nicaragua Network Hotline, 11/16/2007)"

     In Guatemala, Article 3 of the Constitution grants the right to life from the point of conception. There are ongoing efforts in the legislature to pass laws to protect the life of the mother, and to expand abortion rights in cases of rape and incest, but they have been rejected by the President and the Courts. In Honduras, abortion is illegal and both the woman who seeks the abortion and her physician are subject to severe criminal penalties. Members of a UN committee have told Honduran officials that their country's law against abortion is a "crime," the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) reported in 2007. 

     El Salvador has ruled all abortion illegal, and has created a comprehensive law enforcement system to enforce the law, which extends to the medical reporting system. El Salvador’s abortion laws and enforcement apparatus were chronicled in a report, “Pro-Life Nation”, by Jack Hitt of the The New York Times in 2006. 

    In Mexico, where there are an estimated 200,000 illegal abortions a year, and over 1500 women die each year from these unhygienic, “back alley” procedures, Mexico City has voted to permit first trimester abortions, but the situation nationwide remains critical for women. 

     The overall context of these restrictions on a woman’s right to choose reflects societies in which women often struggle for their very survival. Human rights groups and observers have noted the phenomon of “femicide” in both Guatemala and Mexico, where we have seen hundreds of murders motivated by gender. For example, about 400 women have been murdered in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua City since 1993, well-documented by Michael Newton in a series of reports – here is one of them, “Body Count”. 

    In Guatemala, there have been over 2000 unsolved murders of women since 2001, and the government established a commission on the femicide in 2006. Amnesty International maintains a campaign on this issue in both Guatemala and Mexico, here.  

     Around the world, in the Sudan, in the Congo, and in other recent conflicts we have seen and are seeing rape being used as a weapon of war and occupation. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International must confront the reality of this horror on a daily basis and try to find a way to advocate for the victims. For this reason, in August of this year, Amnesty resolved to support abortion rights for women in cases of sexual violence, rape, incest, or where the health, human rights or life of a woman are endangered. Amnesty was immediately attacked by the Catholic Church, and the church hierarchy encouraged Catholic activists to boycott the organization. This organizational fatwa is examined in the following article, published on Sunday, August 26, 2007 by CommonDreams.org,, “Courageously Defying The Holy Roman Empire, Amnesty International Stands Tall”, by Rita Corriel, a practicing psychotherapist, activist and write living in Allentown, PA. 

     “Amnesty International has recently taken a monumentally courageous step for which I am profoundly grateful. But it may cost them dearly. This month, in its 28th International Council Meeting in Mexico City, Amnesty International reaffirmed its April decision to support abortion rights in certain circumstances such as sexual violence, rape, incest, or where the health, human rights or life of a woman are endangered. This is especially relevant in places such as Darfur, where rape is widely used as a weapon of war and terror. But the policy decision has created a huge outcry from powerful forces within the Roman Catholic Church. The voices of disapproval and outrage are ringing everywhere; from the Vatican right down to long time peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan. A large group of Catholic clergy and organizations are calling upon Catholics worldwide to join them in a financial and personal boycott of the human rights organization. The Vatican declared that “Amnesty International has betrayed its mission”. The head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Marino stated, “AI has betrayed all of its faithful supporters throughout the years, both individuals and organizations who have trusted AI for its integral mission of promoting and protecting human rights”. He went on to say that “Individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support for Amnesty International worldwide”. 

     Upon announcing his own withdrawal from AI, British Bishop Rev. Michael Evans, along with other clergymen, cited the 1989 United Nations International Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention states that a child needs “special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.” The Bishop went on to say that “such appalling violence against the most vulnerable and defenseless form of human life in a woman’s womb” cannot be tolerated. Combined with a lack of self awareness and serious self reflection, hubris can be one of the most insidiously dangerous traits within human personality. When this kind of self righteous, myopic thinking dictates to the minds and hearts of the masses, it always has disastrous social consequences. We need only look to historical events, both past and present for the proof. 

     Since so many in the clergy are eager to point to the UN International Convention, I think we should consider the Church’s own record regarding the ’safeguard’ and ‘care’ of its own children. If these men are sincerely concerned about the welfare and protection of minors, why are they not calling for Catholics worldwide to stop giving financial support to their own church? In light of the countless crimes of sexual violence and rape perpetrated against children within their own parishes, where are the resounding calls for a boycott of the Church itself? 

     Rev. William Skylstad, head of the U.S. Conference of Bishops claims that “The decision undermines Amnesty’s long standing moral authority”. I can think of no institution with less moral authority when it comes to the protection of children than the Catholic Church. I wonder what sort of ‘legal protection’ and ’safeguards’ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had in mind back in 2001 when, as ‘Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’, he issued an edict ordering Bishops worldwide to keep all incidents of clerical pedophilia from legal or public disclosure. The Cardinal, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, ordered that all information regarding child sexual abuse be sent to Rome, and handled through ’secret tribunals’. The reputation of the Church itself must take precedence above all other considerations - including the health and welfare of its victimized and abused children. Loyalty to the institution supercedes caring and concern for the ‘most vulnerable’ within its own flock. 

     Why do these men express more caring and concern for embryos that are part of a woman’s womb, than for children who are real, whole human beings; individuals whom they personally know or know about? Why are children whose psyches and bodies have been abused, violated and permanently damaged, not treated with basic human concern or respect? Where are their ‘human rights’? These clergymen say that the ‘unborn’ cannot speak for themselves or defend themselves. So why has the Church stifled the speech and rendered defenseless, children who have real lives. Why such callous disregard for the ‘already born’? Perhaps in the eyes of these men, the victimized children are not seen as human beings, but as potential threats to the power and image of the Church. It is far easier to take a strong stand about the impersonal, theoretical concept of potential life, as defined in the ‘letter of church law’, than to actually feel compassion toward an identifiable child who could potentially ‘rock the boat’. Adherence to dogma does not require true empathy or humanity. 

     But it does serve well the interests of empire. The survival of the Church trumps the ‘Spirit of the Law’. Isn’t this precisely what Jesus was speaking about? Before any individual, institution or government can claim moral ‘authority’ they must first, at the very least, establish moral ‘credibility’. This implies proof of a fully working conscience and evidence of character. These qualities cannot be inherited or simply self declared. For this church to speak against Amnesty International, to the point of attempting to undermine it’s very existence, is blatantly hypocritical and disgraceful. AI is being discredited and even demonized, because it chooses to hold to its own sense of integrity and conscience. Cardinal Martino says, “To selectively justify abortion, even in the case of rape, is to define the innocent child within the womb, as an enemy and thing that must be destroyed…” It seems rather obvious to me, that no male has the innate authority to legislate what goes on within a woman’s own womb. It is a sacred place which ‘Nature’, in its infinite wisdom, obviously designed and entrusted to feminine wisdom and care. And the notion that Catholic clergymen claim the right to dictate to any woman concerning her most intimate physiology is really quite audacious. These are men whose very lifestyle suggests a belief that distance from women fosters closeness to God. It is mind boggling to think that they actually perceive themselves to be credible authorities in this realm. The very idea is just grandiose and foolish. 

     Empathy is the prelude to compassion. But it can only be developed through direct, personal connection and essential identification with the ‘other’. It is the deepest form of interpersonal understanding. If this is missing, then generic legalism, in all of its guises, becomes the fall back position. The ‘letter of the law’ rules the day. I believe this is something Jesus spoke of as well. These men have chosen to distance themselves from the very people whose lives and bodies they wish to control; over whom, they once again, proclaim ‘moral authority’. Amnesty International has made itself quite clear. It will not be blackmailed into submission by the Church. This tactic of secular ‘ex-communication’, the ‘boycott’, will not bring AI to its knees. Neither the heart nor the soul of this organization is for sale. Amnesty International has indeed surpassed itself. I believe it will surely survive -even without the blessings of the Pontiff and his legions. After all, Amnesty International does stand upon a much higher principle; one that transcends the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church.” 

     Amnesty International’s executive deputy secretary general, Kate Gilmore, responded to the Church’s condemnation by first noting the "pandemic of violence against women". She went on, "We have to articulate a response to pregnancies resulting from violence. If you're pregnant as a result of rape, you should, without force, fear or coercion, be able to make a choice whether to continue that pregnancy or not." 

     This is a simple and concise statement of the issue. Women deserve this choice, at a minimum, it seems to me. Amnesty must, in its position as a human rights advocate, respect the choice of the women who face this dilemma. By calling down the hounds of a vengeful lord, the Church does not foster an environment that will encourage governments and societies to respect the rights of women in a larger context than pregnancy. It is no wonder that the anti-choice forces of every description do not support equality for women in their own hierarchy, or in society. Further, the political choice of anti-choice is to support the authoritarian State. As social activists, we support the right to choose, and the right of each person to follow the dictates of his/her religion or conscience. The moral balancing act we must negotiate on the abortion issue is made more difficult by new technology and new science. No one has a stranglehold on understanding or truth about ”when life begins”. Each case is different, and the people involved in each pregnancy deserve the tolerance and understanding of society, not a rigid set of rules enforced by police states and encouraged by authoritarian church edicts. – Joe DeRaymond