---

Abortion and Anti-Democratic Imperialism

Response to Human Rights Watch demand for abortion in Nicaragua

By Carlos Polo Samaniego,
Director, Latin American Office
Population Research Institute

LIMA, Peru, November, 2007 (pop.org) - Human Rights Watch wants abortion for Nicaragua. It wants Nicaraguan law to be altered and its investigators, Lance Lattig and Angela Heimburger, demand it with a passion. But…does Human Rights Watch have the right to do it? May we know what authority this foreign institution has to supersede the national laws of a sovereign nation like Nicaragua? Or is it that, well within the twenty-first century, the majority vote of the National Assembly of a country can be changed from outside, in the purest style of imperial Rome and its "protected" kingdoms and provinces? 

Does Human Rights Watch think that there are primary nations and secondary nations?

Human Rights Watch is an institution that in recent years has supported the process of democratization in the region. It is therefore surprising that two of its investigators have written the editorial published by El Nuevo Diario on October 26th, surprising because of the sheer quantity of lies that the article in question contains.

It isn't often that we see a democracy constructed on a foundation of falsification of the truth and confusing the citizens(and especially the women of the society). Something must not be right with Human Rights Watch for them to have let loose such a torrent of error.

For example, Lattig and Heimburger have affirmed that "in accordance with information released by the government itself, the maternal mortality rate has increased by 100% in the last year." But the real data shows that their assertion is false…by a little more than 100%.

Maternal deaths reported by the government haven't increased, but have actually decreased by about 4%. Anyone can verify this by accessing the web page of the Nicaraguan Health Ministry and observing the numbers (see http://www.minsa.gob.ni/vigepi/html/tablas_temporal07/Boletin-40.pdf). Knowing the truth allows us to draw some very different conclusions from those of Lattig and Heimburger. (By the way, this reduction coincides with the time in which so-called "therapeutic abortion" began to be punished as a crime against unborn children).

This reduction in maternal deaths experienced by Nicaragua is very similar to what happened in other countries like Chile and El Salvador. In these specific cases, greater protection for the unborn child brought about an improved protection of women's lives. The statistics clearly endorse this thesis and disprove those that promote legal abortion.

But the most troubling fact is that in the aforementioned article it seems that there is no Nicaraguan institution that escapes the criticism of the Human Rights Watch spokesmen. Based on false (and falsified) information, Lattig and Heimburger criticize the President of the Republic for promulgating a law in a country that chose that law democratically, that is, for doing exactly what he supposedly should do. Because it doesn't coincide with their point of view, suddenly the behavior of the lawful authorities becomes "undemocratic". Is this logical?

Let's recall that according to the Nicaraguan press the constitutional case that Lattig and Heimburger were so eager to see presented to the Supreme Court of Nicaragua wasn't well-received and they reported that, off the record, pro abortion demands has already been rejected. Should we expect new diatribes and insults from these gentlemen against Nicaraguans if this decision goes against their preference? Or is it that they believe themselves to be the owners and creators of the truth and the rest of us mortals should just submit to it?

Another common tactic of authoritarians is to criticize the Catholic Church. Lattig and Heimburger are no exception. Do they have any idea of the hidden daily labor of priests and religious to alleviate the suffering of the poor in Nicaragua?  Does it matter to them?  They manipulate the undeniable fact that Nicaragua is a religious nation to attack a sovereign decision deriving from a general consensus. This is almost unimaginable discrimination and arbitrariness.  It is also another example of presumptuous and antidemocratic attitudes. 

In any case, it is appropriate to ask: on what basis does Human Rights Watch contend that abortion is an intrinsic right corresponding to modern democracies? 

Nicaragua, an independent nation, after a full democratic process, confirmed that to kill an unborn child is not nor can be a right. Why is it attacked by people who consider themselves "promoters of democracy"?  Where and when was this concept invented that abortion is a right?

It is obvious that this happened in the research facilities of Human Rights Watch, where there is no respect whatsoever for the President of Nicaragua (elected democratically), for the National Assembly, or for the Supreme Court of this free and sovereign nation.  Are Nicaraguans obligated to obey?  But who is talking about "obeying"?  Not even listening to!

Lattig and Heimburger recognize Nicaragua's "long history of struggle for social justice".  It should not be forgotten that this struggle has always been anti-imperialist.  Life has its ironies: today Nicaragua is confronted by a new attempt at imperialism (which has been demonstrated to be profoundly anti-democratic).

Happily, Nicaraguans maintain their dignity and love for their fellow countrymen, born…and unborn.  This is the source of the struggle that these foreigners claim to admire…and it is based on the same strength that Nicaragua rejects such meddling and manipulation.

 Back to Top

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.