The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has rejected the request of pro-abortion organizations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to recognize abortion as a right in El Salvador.

It has also rejected the request to consider the refusal to provide an abortion within the Inter-American human rights system as an act of torture.

The president of the Global Center for Human Rights, Sebastián Schuff, stated that “this is a great victory, not only for El Salvador, but for all countries.”

This ruling was issued in the wake of the famous case of Beatriz, a young pregnant Salvadoran woman suffering from the autoimmune disease lupus erythematosus, who requested an abortion in 2013 because the fetus had anencephaly, a serious lethal malformation.

The request was denied, as abortion is prohibited in El Salvador under all circumstances. Four years later, the young woman died, and her mother, Delmy Cortez, began a campaign to achieve access to abortion and the creation of “medical and judicial protocols for pregnancies that put a woman’s life and health at risk.”

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a historic ruling in this case, condemning the Salvadoran state for violating Beatriz’s human rights by denying her a therapeutic abortion. However, it affirmed that there is no right to abortion, thus respecting the American Convention.

Ligia Castaldi, an expert before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Beatriz case, explained in her ruling that the young woman’s death in 2017 was not related to the decision to deny her access to abortion or to the prohibition of this practice in the country. As stated in Aciprensa: “The ruling should not be considered a pro-life decision, since its greatest omission is that it does not recognize a single right for the child Leilani Beatriz, born alive, nor does it value her life in any way.” Furthermore, abortion is not recognized as a right, which is why restrictions in this country have not changed to date.

The Abortion Situation in Latin America

Abortion regulation in Latin America varies widely across countries, reflecting diverse legal, ethical, and cultural stances regarding the protection of human life.

In Mexico, the Supreme Court eliminated the crime of abortion at the federal level, meaning that no woman can be criminalized for this practice. Prior to this decision, abortion had already been decriminalized in 12 states. In Mexico City, abortion is permitted up to the 12th week of gestation.

In countries such as Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Cuba, abortion is legal at the request of any pregnant woman. In Uruguay and Cuba, abortion is permitted up to the 12th week of gestation, while in Argentina the limit extends to the 14th week.

In the Americas, other nations such as Canada, Guyana, and French Guiana also have regulations that allow unrestricted abortion during the first weeks of pregnancy.

On the other hand, some countries allow abortion only in certain circumstances. Bolivia authorizes it in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s mental health is at risk. In Ecuador, it is only permitted in cases of rape, while in Peru it is permitted when there is a risk to the mother’s life.

In nations such as Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, Dominica, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, and Venezuela, abortion is generally prohibited, but is considered an exception when the mother’s life is in danger.

Finally, Suriname, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras maintain a total ban on abortion, with no legal exceptions, which reinforces the protection of the right to life from conception in these countries.

CNN – Abortion in America – Green: Permitted upon request; Red: Permitted to save the woman’s life; Yellow: Permitted to preserve health; Black: Prohibited outright; Gray: Uncertainty following the Supreme Court ruling

Bioethical Assessment

The so-called therapeutic abortion is a euphemism that contains a great contradiction. Abortion is not therapeutic in any case: it is not therapeutic for the baby it terminates, nor for its mother, given that the consequences associated with the abortion are objective.

Advances in obstetric medicine make it possible to rule out situations in which the death of the fetus would have to be induced to save its mother. A therapeutic intervention on a pregnant woman aimed at saving her life in the face of a serious illness, which is associated with embryotoxic side effects and can damage or kill the embryo, is bioethically permissible when there is no therapeutic alternative, the double effect is inevitable, and, furthermore, it is not intentionally sought. However, this is not a therapeutic abortion, but rather a therapeutic intervention for the pregnant woman, this time, which inevitably carries a side effect on the fetus.

Intervening with the direct intention of causing the death of an embryo or fetus constitutes in any case an unjustifiable and reprehensible attack on human life.

Julio Tudela – Cristina Castillo – Bioethics Observatory – Life Sciences Institute – Catholic University of Valencia