Custom Search
so why dose this happen in 2009???
Submitted by cubanita on Wed, 2009/07/29 - 01:25.
-- Nicaragua's total ban on abortion is a "cruel, inhuman disgrace" that's led to the rise in maternal deaths, human rights organization Amnesty International has said.
Nicaraguan women hold up signs shaped like the female form during a 2008 protest against the anti-abortion law. 1 of 2 The Central American country's revised penal code on abortion came into force in July 2008 and criminalizes all forms of abortion regardless of the circumstances, even in cases of rape or incest, a deformed fetus, or when the mother's life is in danger.
Amnesty's researchers visited the country on a fact-finding mission to assess the impact on the lives of women in Nicaragua.
The findings are detailed in the report issued Monday, titled: "The total abortion ban in Nicaragua: Women's lives and health endangered, medical professionals criminalized."
Amnesty International describes the total ban on therapeutic abortion -- carried out to protect the health of the mother -- as "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."
"Nicaragua's ban on therapeutic abortion is a disgrace," Amnesty International's Executive Deputy Secretary General Kate Gilmore said at a media briefing in Mexico City to launch the report.
"It is a human rights scandal that ridicules medical science and distorts the law into a weapon against the provision of essential medical care to pregnant girls and women," she added.
Amnesty reports that doctors and nurses are frightened to treat a pregnant woman or girl for illnesses such as cancer, malaria, HIV/AIDS or cardiac emergencies where treatment could cause injury or death to the fetus. One health worker told Amnesty researchers that one woman who was admitted to hospital following a miscarriage was so terrified of being prosecuted for abortion that she asked doctors not to treat her in case any treatment was seen as an intentional termination of pregnancy.
"She told the health worker that she was concerned that her neighbor, who knew she was pregnant, might report her for having an abortion," the report said.
"There's only one way to describe what we have seen in Nicaragua: sheer horror. Children are being compelled to bear children. Pregnant women are being denied essential - including life-saving - medical care," said Gilmore.
According to official figures cited in the Amnesty report, in the first five months of 2009, 33 girls and women died from pregnancy and birth-related complications, compared to 20 in the same period last year.
Before the law was changed therapeutic abortion had been recognized as a necessary procedure in Nicaragua for more than 100 years, Amnesty said.
However, President Daniel Ortega of the left-wing Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) backed the law banning abortion to win crucial conservative Roman Catholic support in the January 2007 elections, Amnesty said.
A call from CNN to the country's health ministry was not immediately returned.
Three years ago when the ban was first signed into law, the BBC reported that a statement on presidency's Web site said the new legislation would help protect the right to life enshrined in the Nicaraguan constitution.
The statement said abortion "allowed the daily execution of innocent children in their mother's womb, in open violation of the Constitution which protected the unborn child", the BBC reported.
Nicaragua is among only a few countries in the world where abortion is illegal regardless of any circumstances. Others in Latin America include Chile, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic. Malta and the Philippines also have a total ban on abortion.
In rape cases reported to the police in Nicaragua, half of the female victims are under 18 and 16 percent become pregnant.
Between 1999 and 2005, an average of around 7,000 women and girls were admitted annually to hospitals in Nicaragua for health complications that ended in abortion or miscarriage, says the report.
Politics or...
It could be considered a loaded question. After all, “Why does this happen in 2009”, includes the year in the question, implying that there cannot be any believable reason for it happening at this modern time – or that no intelligent person could, today, actually believe such a law were proper. But, for the most part, it happens for all the same reasons it has happened other places and in other years. And, it happens for the same reasons other things happen. After all, given reality and some associated facts, what is more surprising, the existence of the Nicaraguan abortion law, or…: the fact that soon there will be 2 billion people claiming to believe in Islam (not to discriminate, pick any religion taken literally), that the U.S. actually has a second war in Iraq and that many people support it, that calling someone a bad name is against the law in many countries, that O.J. Simpson was “not guilty”, or that Ortega is President, again? One could attach “why does this happen in...” to any number of facts, beliefs or laws, around the world, every year of every decade of every... But, the real “why” in why it happens isn’t something most people want to talk about. It is the most simplistic of all answers to assume that a pact is solely responsible for the creation and continued existence of the law (as if no other person or group other than the pact “signatories” favor it, and it was forced on the entire population of a country against their will, and it is illegal to propose changes). That many Nicaraguans are against the law is a fact. But, that many favor it (as do many Latinos all over Central and South America) rarely ever gets any newsprint. Why it happens (such laws), perhaps especially in a place like Nicaragua, needn’t be any great surprise – except mostly for Europeans and North Americans, all of whom are well-versed in labeling such laws of any kind (even ones with exceptions) barbarism and/or idiotic, though at the same time, somehow magically not calling all those brown-skinned people who believe it is the proper law, barbaric or idiots (that wouldn’t be politically correct).
Though it may seem counter-intuitive when viewed from afar, many supporters of Latin-American leftists are unlike their counterparts in Europe and North America and much more likely to be pro-life. Venezuela was targeting full legalization, a proposed transition that ended quickly under Chavez backers. Additionally, many people in the poorest Latin countries (Bolivia in particular, a country which under Morales almost ended up with the same ban Nicaragua has) are suspicious of any pro-choice assistance from abroad, and equate the proposed legal changes with racist population control and a threat to sovereignty. There is little difference in ideology in some speeches and comments from Nicaraguan’s First Lady than those from comparable countries in South America, especially from people supporting Morales – but also those in Peru and Ecuador. Contrary to news stories from outside the regions, one of the easiest things to do in Latin America is locate women -and men, but they usually don’t count when abortion proponents do the math- who are pro-life (it is just a little bit harder than locating women, but it can be done even though journalists from abroad have a remarkably tough time doing so, and never print an interview even if they do find one). So common, it seems almost silly to mention it. But, it has to be mentioned, as pieces like those from outside aid groups and even Amnesty International, seem to imply a massive conspiracy by a tiny handful of non-women to oppress all women. This is, of course, a lie – but a useful one for them to maintain because they cannot risk publicly dealing with people who actually believe other than they do, and need to focus on politicians who, presumably, don’t actually believe anything as a matter of principle and so are fair game.
Amnesty International was neutral on abortion until 2007 (except forced abortions), at which point they undermined much of their operation, at least in the eyes of many of their longest and toughest supporters. They lost measurable following when they made this change, a change they never satisfactorily defended, publicly. In return for the new stance on abortion, they eventually gathered new supporters, perhaps even replacing more than they had lost. Their problem, as a serious international organization working on the border of law and morality, was that the people they lost were primarily all those people able to craft moral-legal documents, best-suited for dealing with cultural and religious differences, and also skilled in analysis that was taken seriously by detractors. They no longer pursue this route, and go the sociology-United Nations route, two groups pretty much devoid of moral clout, and the former often made up of people who do not even acknowledge the existence of most moral precepts. Amnesty International, and other outfits with less name clout, went from a nearly unquestionable independent authority (due to reputation and the way they handled problems) to the kind of outfit that now runs to the United Nations or International Aid agencies asking them to freeze monies to the poor if a government doesn’t do what they want – and their condemnatory evidence often takes on a “say anything” model. Amnesty International entered the world of “anything-goes" (propaganda?) -the kind of work that leads to things like this recent report (a very slick document loaded with citations, which hinges on carefully chosen time-lines, definitions, doctors, case testimony, and UN decisions made completely outside the realm of Committee oversight). None of this is to say the Nicaraguan law is a good law or that pro-life is the morally proper position. But, why this happens in 2009 is: not surprising, not just due to petty local politics, and if any group’s report can eventually get the law changed that, too, wont just be due to petty international politics – which is sadly now the best sort of work Amnesty International can do.
talk about loaded
i sat down with my husband nica grand mother. and asked her about her country's abortion law. trust me i think she is 100 years old. but very smart lady she is strong and has all her Witt's. she like alot of the matriarch of Latin family. as a young girl it was instill in her that abortion no matter in what situation it's wrong.i asked her what if the girl was rape? she said it is the will of god, one should see it as a blessing. i asked what if the girls life is at risk? she said her life will be higher at risk if she had an abortion. then she tells me,it's just the way i was raised children no matter in what form are a blessing from god and nowadays women see abortion as a birth control. they have no respect for life. it is very sad when a girl gets rape and gets pregnant. but you do not judge the unborn child as unwanted he is a gift under a very sad situation. she tells me she had a friend when she was young that got pregnant with her youngest child she did not want the child and she tried like many women nowadays home-remedies to have a natural miscarriage. but none of them worked and she had her son, she now thanks god he was born for he is the only child that takes care of her in her old age. she says she understands that some situation it might be the right decision to have an abortion. but were do you draw the line and stop killing innocent life's. what would become of this world and my country the new generation has no respect for there family or there bodies and think they should sleep with as many people as they can with out thinking of the consequence's.she agrees with the law to a certain point. where is that point. she says all situation are different, and one should not have an abortion just because they don't want it. they should give it to a loving family. family should be together and help each other. i know that she raised 2 of her sisters kids and 2 of her unfaithful husband kids she loved them like her own. and they call her mom they know there real mother but have a bond with her.i was raised in the us were it is like a birth control if you get it and don't want it just go take care of it. it has given me some insight into it . when my 16 year old came home pregnant from her boyfriend, abortion was out of the question not that she Evan mention it.i guess in a way i was also instill that abortion is out of the question. i was raised catholic.but i would consider the situation that a child of mine finds it's self in. but is it always god's will.
This is so sad
This is so sad, especially given a) the huge role of women in the FSLN before, during, and shortly after the revolution (before they were, basically, "sent home to be good housewives"); b) the huge numbers of very young and very poor women having children they can't afford, by men who want nothing to do with them (and also due to the limited use of contraceptives, which is another sad fact); and c) the fact that this ban was put in place just for a few votes, with total disregard for the health or safety of >50% of the population.
Even sadder? If the fundamentalists have their way, it'll be like this in the States, too, before too long. This in a country with higher education levels and separation of church and state - a country that should know better!
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Politics
As I watched this go down before the November 2006 election I was very sad to see this ban become part of political positioning. While I don't have any inside information here, it was fairly clear that the Legislature brought this up when it did in order to help the Liberal side in the election.
Whether it was Montealegre or Riso/Aleman that started this I don't know but once the ball was rolling it was pretty clear those that went along would gain votes, those that opposed the bad would lose votes. Of the four significant parties in the election, only the MRS came out against the ban—another thing that increased my respect for them at the time.
While I don't know Ortega's personal views on the issue, it is pretty clear the FSLN position should not be the total ban but Ortega supported the ban. The MRS percentage dropped in the polls.
I feel confident this was a Liberal "plot" to cause Ortega to lose votes. Had the MRS "gone along", it seems likely Ortega would have at least not won without a runoff election. But, they didn't and it is likely that is the reason the plot backfired.
Safe Abortion Pills
It is not just thanks to Ortega's political wheeling and dealing in 2006, Eduardo Montealegre advocated a total ban on abortion too! Therefore some say the Nicaraguan Roman Catholic Church and some other Christian Groups were the real dealers.
Anyway, if you know of any Nica girls/women in need, please recommend this safe website Women on Web. There are a lot of crooks selling fake abortion pills and even if you are lucky to find the genuine medicines it is often sold without any proper medical consultation, guidance and aftercare. On the Internet (except for this website) it is as worse.
The quick answer Cubanita
is that Daniel Ortega cut a deal with the Catholic church-his long time political enemy - in order to gain their support during the presidential election a few years back. I don't think Daniel cares much about women other than the witch he is married too. It speaks realms about the Church in Nicaragua that they would back an accused rapist and child molester for the Presidency.