Nicaragua: Blanket Ban on Abortion Harms Women

[ismnotwasm]

Women Afraid to Seek Life-Saving Treatment
(New York, August 31, 2007) – Nicaragua’s new blanket ban on abortion – even in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening pregnancy – violates international human rights standards and poses a grave risk to women, Human Rights Watch said today in an open letter to the country’s Supreme Court.

International law prohibits bans on abortion because such restrictions deny women their basic rights to life and health. Nicaragua’s abortion ban is an affront to international standards – and Nicaragua’s women.

-----Snip------

Selected testimony:


“She was bleeding … That’s why I took her to the emergency room … but the doctors said that she didn’t have anything. … Then she felt worse and on Tuesday they admitted her. They put her on an IV and her blood pressure was low. … She said: ‘Mami, they are not treating me.’ … They didn’t treat her at all, nothing. … When her husband came to bring her food, he heard screams. … They took her to , but it was too late. She died of cardiac arrest. … She was all purple, unrecognizable. It was like it wasn’t my daughter.”
-- Angela Morales , mother of a 22-year-old woman who died from pregnancy-related hemorrhaging at public hospital in Managua in November 2006, only days after the blanket ban on abortion was implemented. From comments made by the doctors at the time, Morales believes her daughter was left untreated because doctors were reluctant to treat a pregnancy-related emergency for fear that they might be accused of providing therapeutic abortions.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/08/30/nicara16776.htm


Now, compare to this piece of shit;

The abortion-seeking woman: Perpetrator or victim?

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=172&id=10868&t=The+abortion-seeking+woman%3A+Perpetrator+or+victim%3F
From the article;
(Read at your own risk)
The abortion-seeking woman: Perpetrator or victim?
Monday, September 03, 2007By Matt C. Abbott

In a column in the Aug. 6, 2007 issue of Newsweek, on the subject of abortion, Anna Quindlen wrote:
‘Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object? Watch the demonstrators in Libertyville try to worm their way out of the hypocrisy: It's murder, but she'll get her punishment from God. It's murder, but it depends on her state of mind. It's murder, but the penalty should be ... counseling?


---Snip----
But here’s the catch: Not all abortion-seeking women are perpetrators. Many are coerced into procuring an abortion by their boyfriends, husbands, or parents. Certainly these women should be considered victims, not perpetrators. Those who are doing the coercing -- and, of course, the abortionists themselves -- are the perpetrators. They’re the ones who should be thrown in prison. (No, I don’t support the death penalty.)



That said, I do believe, in some cases, the abortion-seeking woman is indeed the perpetrator. She knows very well what she’s doing. She’s not coerced by anyone. Perhaps she’s even going against the wishes of her loved ones. This is the woman who should be treated as a criminal – if not a murderer, then an accessory to murder.



What would be an appropriate prison sentence for such a woman?

Fifteen years-to-life sounds reasonable, no? Of course, one would have to take into account all the circumstances in a particular situation, and it wouldn’t be an easy task. But it could be done."