Beatriz and Abortion in El Salvador

Doctors recommend that Beatriz, a 22-year-old Salvadoran woman with Lupus, terminate her 19-week pregnancy due to the associated risks of morbidity or mortality. Her doctors are worried that because Lupus has damaged her kidneys and caused other health issues, she is at high risk of preeclampsia, pregnancy related hypertension, and other life-threatening complications. Also, her fetus has a lethal anomaly that, aside from any of Beatriz’s health issues, will result in its eventual demise, either in utero or immediately after its delivery.

We first posted about Beatriz’s case last week when Amnesty International asked the international community to write to members of the Salvadoran government on her behalf.

In 1998, El Salvador completed a series of reforms, which included changing the constitution, resulting in an absolute ban against abortion. As reported by the New York Times Magazine in 2006, the ban is so restrictive that doctors cannot remove ectopic pregnancies (when a fertilized egg stays is implanted in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), which have no chance of survival and put the mother’s health at risk.

After years of quiet activism a growing cadre of civil society organizations and human rights activists are speaking out against the absolute abortion ban and its extreme application. Over the past several years, activists have been defending women who have been accused of having an abortion, some of which have been convicted in a court of law and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Civil society, however, has really coalesced around Beatriz’s case, which is a potentially tragic example of the impact that the ban has on Salvadoran women.

This movement, which has become more vocal in recent weeks, is being met with fierce opposition from the Catholic Church and Fundación Sí a la Vida (Yes to Life Foundation), which represents some 50 pro-life organizations.

The Catholic Church and Yes to Life oppose allowing Beatriz to terminate her pregnancy, even if it means that she loses her own life. The Archbishop of San Salvador José Luis Escobar, said, “it is my understanding that the mother of the child is not in an intensive care situation… For me, it is the baby in utero that is in more danger because there is a movement to terminate its life. Only God knows how long this baby that they want to kill will live.”

Julia Regina de Cardenal, the President of the Foundation Yes to Life said “She [Beatriz] is stable, and able to speak, what we want is her physical and emotional wellbeing; we are trying to get close to her to help her. Carlos Mayora Escobar, also from Yes to Life, said “these people, why do they want to legalize abortion in this country? For political reasons, for ideological reasons, for reasons unknown. We always try to defend the rights of the women.”

As we posted last week, doctors at the National Maternity Hospital have filed an appeal with the Salvadoran Supreme Court, asking them to give the okay on terminating the pregnancy to save Beatriz’s life. The Court has yet to respond, but the magistrates asked the National Bioethics Commission of El Salvador (CNBES, in Spanish) for its opinion, which they provided this week. The CNBES advised the Court that Beatriz’s doctors should be allowed to immediately proceed with the potentially life-saving procedure.

The Citizens Association for the Decriminalization of Abortion, which advocates for legalization of abortion in El Salvador, supports Beatriz’s case. They are using it to demonstrate why they believe abortion should be safe and legal. On Thursday, April 25^th, the group is presenting Beatriz’s case before the Inter-American Court for Human Rights, asking them to intervene.

Lic. Oscar Luna, the Ombudsman for the Defense of Human Rights in El Salvador, published a statement on April 16 also supporting Beatriz’s case as a human rights issue, stressing the mother’s right to life. He wrote in 2009, “the complete ban of abortion greatly increases the pain and suffering of women and girls, including those who seek medical attention for complications that require an abortion… because the penalty for abortion causes physical pain, fear, depression, and prison. In many occasions the suffering can lead to death or suicide.”

Luna says, “During my term [as Ombudsman], I have insisted that the human rights approach to health care ought to have an integral focus, taking into account the needs and requirements particular to women during all the different stages of life; and that in all forms, it is urgent to double up the efforts to decrease the causes of mortality and morbidity in El Salvador.” He concluded that the medical team should “use all means necessary to protect Beatriz’s right to life, health, and personal integrity.

In 2006, the New York Times Magazine published a long article on the abortion issue in El Salvador called the Pro-Life Nation. In addition to detailing the experiences of women who have had abortions in El Salvador, the article discusses the constitutional ban and abortion laws, and how the doctors/police/prosecutors enforce them.

In one sense, Beatriz’s case is extreme – it is a potentially life or death situation for her. But in many ways her case is not that different from other Salvadoran women who are socially and economically marginalized, lack knowledge of or access to contraception, and have little control over when and with whom that have sexual intercourse.

If you want to help Beatriz, please visit the Amnesty International website (click here).

Legislative Assembly Reaches Agreement on New Attorney General

It appears the Salvadoran Government will avoid another institutional crisis by selecting a new Attorney General for the three-year term that is to begin on September 19, 2012.

A conflict arose on April 25, 2012 when the outgoing Legislative Assembly chose Astor Escalante to be the next Attorney General of El Salvador. At 1:00 in the morning, Sigfredo Reyes, President of the Legislative Assembly, swore him in, even though his term would not start for another 5 months.

Members of the ARENA party objected to his appointment and filed a complaint in the Constitutional Court. In July, the Court ruled in their favor declaring Escalante’s appointment unconstitutional. The based their decision on the principal that each Legislative Assembly (which serves a three year term) has the responsibility to appoint a specific number of judges, as well as the nation’s Attorney General. In April, the outgoing Legislative Assembly, which appointed Romeo Barahona when they took office in 2009, appointed Escalante to serve for the next three years. This was their second appointment and if it stood would have essentially denied the current Assembly an appointment.

The Court handed down its decision while it was embroiled in its own crisis; many, including Escalante, said that the Court’s decision was invalid. With the summer’s crisis resolved, some feared another institutional battle over Escalante’s appointment.

According to La Prensa Grafica, the Legislative Assembly has reached a decision that will avert a new battle between the legislative and judicial branches. Yesterday stakeholders met to discuss a resolution and it appears they will void Escalante’s April appointment and start the process again so the new Attorney General can take office on September 19, 2012. They will choose from the same list of 47 candidates that were considered in April, and it is possible that Escalante may be chosen again – the fight was over the process not the person. Sigfrido Reyes clarified yesterday that the decision reached by the working group was a political compromise, and not an indication that they agreed with the Constitutional Court’s decision.

Prior to the meeting, the Catholic Church, the President and others asked that the Legislative Assembly resolve the issue before Barahona’s last day on September 18. President Funes even offered to mediate between the parties, but it appears that won’t be necessary.

The online news journal La Página had interesting political analysis back in July when they reported on the Constitutional Court’s decision. It was the ARENA block of the Legislative Assembly that objected to Escalante’s appointment, even though the ARENA supported his appointment during the Saca administration. In the months after leaving office, former President Saca was ousted from the ARENA party. The split was ugly and when Saca joined the GANA party, ARENA labeled him a traitor. Members of the ARENA objected to Escalante now because he supported Saca during the split. It will be interesting to see if Escalante will have the support of this new Legislative Assembly, which has a few more ARENA representatives than it did in April.