In the coming weeks, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected to rule on a case that could legalize abortion across Latin America. Disturbingly, this decision will be based on a bogus case.
The case involves Beatriz, a young Salvadoran woman with lupus and limited financial means. In 2013, Beatriz, pregnant with her second child, was informed that her fetus had anencephaly—a condition that prevents brain development and is usually fatal shortly after birth.
Instead of receiving emotional support, Beatriz’s case was politicized by groups funded to advocate for 'abortion rights,' such as CEJIL and the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local.
In El Salvador, abortion is allowed if it is the only way to save the mother’s life. However, no Salvadoran doctor concluded that Beatriz’s life was in danger. Nonetheless, pro-abortion groups insisted that her pregnancy posed a fatal risk, and the case was eventually brought before the Salvadoran Supreme Court.
Rafael Barahona, the perinatologist responsible for Beatriz’s care, confirmed that her lupus had been well-managed throughout the pregnancy and that there was no threat to her life. After reviewing the evidence, the court ruled that Beatriz’s life was not at risk.
Her daughter, Leylani, was born alive but passed away shortly after due to anencephaly. During this time, feminist organizations that had previously supported Beatriz were notably absent, providing no assistance in her grieving process.
Four years after her daughter's death, Beatriz died in a motorcycle accident. This event was unrelated to her pregnancy. However, pro-abortion advocates falsely linked her death to the pregnancy, claiming she had been denied her 'human right to abortion' and reopened her case before the Inter-American Court.
In hearings held earlier this year, the Salvadoran legal team exposed contradictions in the arguments presented by pro-abortion advocates. Isabel Jaramillo, an expert witness for the Inter-American Commission, argued that while the fetus is biologically human, it is not a person with legal rights. This attempt to separate personhood from humanity is scientifically unsound, as from a biological standpoint, the fetus is unquestionably a living member of the human species.
Pro-abortion arguments often hinge on philosophical distinctions between a "human being" and a "person," with the latter defined by cognitive abilities like reason and will.
This view, associated with thinkers such as Yuval Noah Harari and Peter Singer, undermines the principle of inherent human dignity by assigning varying degrees of worth based on cognitive capacities. Such reasoning justifies the unequal treatment of human lives, eroding the ethical foundation of universal human rights.
The impartiality of the Inter-American Court is questionable, as it is funded by various pro-abortion organizations. Recognizing the difficulty of passing pro-abortion laws through national legislatures, these groups seek to impose their will through international tribunals.
In conclusion, this case raises broader concerns about national sovereignty and the influence of international bodies on national policies. It is crucial that nations resist external pressures that undermine their legal and ethical foundations. Let us hope the Inter-American Court upholds the protection of life and does not violate the mandates of the Convention.
