For months, the international press has been predicting a massive victory for abortion in Latin America. In recent years, the abortion movement has seen several significant victories and a string of failures: abortion has been legalized in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico, but rejected firmly in Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Chile. With pro-life legislators across the continent fighting back against the abortion movement, activists have turned to the courts to overturn pro-life laws.
On January 23, however, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, an international court based in San José, Costa Rica, rejected the abortion lobby’s attempt to establish a “right to abortion” in Latin America. As Carlos Polo, the head of the Population Research Institute’s Latin American office, wrote: “This ruling creates a legal precedent that will help PRI and other pro-life groups to defend innocent unborn life from conception in the 25 member countries, including in the region at large.”
At the heart of the abortion lobby’s case, Polo writes, was a fundamental falsehood—one that abortion activists have used time and again in country after country, to great success. This tactic was used successfully in Ireland, where the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar was used to legalize abortion; it recently failed in Malta, after a herculean pro-life pushback succeeded in maintaining that country’s ban on abortion. Polo reported:
[Abortion activists] claimed a ‘therapeutic abortion’ would have saved the life of a young Salvadoran woman, Beatriz, in a high-risk pregnancy. They argued that the laws of El Salvador, which recognise the right to life of the unborn and prohibit abortion, prevented doctors from saving her life. The truth is that, just as Jane Roe was never raped, Beatriz did not die from complications related to her pregnancy or the alleged lack of an abortion. Rather, Beatriz died more than four years after the birth of her child in an unrelated motorcycle accident.
The Beatriz Case began in 2013, when the 22-year-old, who suffers from lupus, was pregnant for a second time. Doctors “suggested sterilization” after the child was born, but Beatriz declined, hoping to have more children. Several years later, she discovered she was once again expecting—again, it was a wanted pregnancy. She was told, however, that her baby had anencephaly, a “congenital malformation that prevents the development of the brain.” Her baby would not survive long, she was told. The abortion lobby promptly got involved, telling Beatriz that “she would die if she continued with her pregnancy.” As Polo writes: “Their real goal was to use her situation as a pretext to promote the legalisation of abortion, first in El Salvador, and then later at the Inter-American Court.”
El Salvador’s Supreme Court concluded that Beatriz’s life was not in danger, and that thus an abortion was not necessary. The court was told by perinatologist Rafael Varaona—Beatriz’s doctor during her second pregnancy—that “her systemic lupus erythematosus was completely controlled during her pregnancy, and that her life was never at risk.” A complicating factor was that the cesarean surgery she had received to deliver her second baby had not healed properly, and thus her third child was delivered via c-section at six months. As Polo reported: “Her daughter was born and named Leylani. She was born alive, received much love from her mother, and passed away naturally hours later due to her anencephaly.” Beatriz recovered completely.
Four years after her daughter passed away, Beatriz died in a motorcycle accident—and the abortion lobby saw their chance. They claimed that she had died because she had not been able to procure an abortion while pregnant with Leylani, and that her death was evidence that the “human right to abortion” was paramount. Despite the egregious deceit, they managed to bring the case, which had already been decided by El Salvador’s Supreme Court, to the Inter-American Court.
The prevailing consensus was that the pro-abortion views of a several members of the Inter-American Court would result in a victory for the abortion lobby. But like in Malta, the pro-life movement pushed back. “A chorus of pro-life organisations across the region raised its voice for months, exposing the way the abortion lobby was distorting the facts of the case, not to mention engaging in outright falsehoods,” Polo reported:
Population Research Institute played a key role in the Beatriz Case through our ongoing alliance with the Global Center for Human Rights (GCHR), our main ally within the Inter-American system. Together, we work tirelessly to defend human rights, with a special emphasis on the right to life from conception. We have trained GCHR’s leaders in political strategies, provided them with practical and effective political tools, and are in constant communication with them. In the Beatriz Case specifically, PRI actively participated in multiple strategic meetings throughout the process, helping to outline clear courses of action. We facilitated the involvement of opinion leaders across the region and promoted a series of campaigns related to the case through media outlets and social networks. By forming a united front and working together for a common purpose, we were able to prevail against the duplicity and deep pockets of the abortion movement.
The Inter-American Court’s ruling is a definitive defeat for the abortion lobby. Not only did they conclude that El Salvador’s pro-life laws did not lead to Beatriz’s death or violate her human rights, they went further. Polo summarized several other key precedents laid down by the case, that he notes will be of great help to the pro-life movement in the years ahead:
- Rejection of Falsehoods: The Court dismissed the lies in the Beatriz Case, recognising that her death was unrelated to El Salvador’s abortion prohibition and that her right to life was not violated.
- Recognition of the Dignity of the Unborn: The Court rejected attempts to dehumanise Leylani, affirming that a proper understanding of human rights does not prioritise the unborn’s right to life over the mother’s health, but does clearly grant equal protection to both.
- Abortion Not Recognised as a Right: The Court clarified that abortion cannot be considered a “right” within the inter-American system because it remains a crime. An act cannot simultaneously be both a crime and a right.
- Rejection of “Obstetric Violence” as a Pro-Abortion Argument: The Court noted that obstetric violence results from medical protocol failures, not laws criminalising abortion. This dismantled feminist arguments linking pro-life legislation to gender violence.
- Reaffirmation of National Sovereignty: In an unprecedented and unexpected decision, the Court declared that while countries are free to implement its recommendations, it will not and does not impose them on member countries. This strengthened El Salvador’s sovereignty.
In fact, Polo writes, “this ruling reaffirms that the best practices for protecting both mother and child lie in medical protocols that always, under all circumstances, respect life, and never see abortion as a solution” and “marks a turning point in the defense of life in Ibero-America,” demonstrating “that the defence of life can prevail even against massive international pressure and media manipulation and lies.” This, he notes, is the result of a collective and coalitional pro-life pushback, which successfully exposed the lies that the abortion lobby utilizes to great effect. His shout-out to pro-life leaders involved in this victory deserve to be quoted in full:
This victory could not have been achieved without the splendid efforts of the Global Center for Human Rights. Its leaders, Sebastián Schuff and Neydy Casillas, have dedicated years of their lives to co-ordinating efforts across the region to ensure that the Inter-American Court respected national rights and democracy. Among other things, they launched the website casobeatriz.org to centralize information, promote activities, and facilitate the participation of thousands of citizens through a petition directed at the Court’s judges. Our victory serves as a model for successfully resisting the culture of death throughout the region. The story of Beatriz teaches us that, if we stand together, Truth and Life can prevail, even against the vicious lies of the merchants of death.
As I have written before, the pro-life movement in Latin and South America—which has dubbed itself the “Blue Wave movement”—is one of the most encouraging international developments in decades. Their activism, lobbying efforts, and legislative action are not merely a model for their countries, but for Western nations, as well.