Throughout Latin America, the question of when, if and how women should be allowed to end their pregnancies is hard to ask, let alone answer. Additionally, cultural mores, personal experiences, stigma, reluctance to publicly discuss the issue and a lack of a common vocabulary about abortion make it difficult to assess what people actually believe.
A new Ipas publication examines how the press discusses these matters in Nicaragua. El aborto terapéutico en Nicaragua: Un análisis de los medios escritos de comunicación examined all of the newspaper articles related to therapeutic abortion (abortion performed when a woman’s life or health is at risk) published in Nicaragua’s two largest newspapers, El Nuevo Diario and La Prensa, from October 2006 to October 2007 — the first year after therapeutic abortion became illegal.
“The debate that resulted from the ban on therapeutic abortion was confused and polarized, and the news media play a very important role in informing the public,” write the study’s authors, Karen Padilla and Cecilia Espinoza. “With this report, we hope to explain and reflect the public opinion expressed about abortion in general and therapeutic abortion in particular, as well as to invite the different parties involved to consider scientific evidence and respect to women’s basic human rights when considering therapeutic abortion.”
The analysis provided detailed information about 338 articles. Two-thirds (67 percent) of the articles that discussed therapeutic abortion as their primary subject presented a viewpoint in favor of legalizing therapeutic abortion, 20 percent presented a position mostly against it and 14 percent presented a neutral stance.
“Both daily newspapers referred to how the Nicaraguan government denied women their fundamental human rights by outlawing therapeutic abortion. The denial of women’s rights to life and health comes as a stark contrast to several treaties ratified by the Nicaraguan government,” Padilla and Espinoza write.
In addition to human rights, medical reasons also emerged as a major argument for keeping therapeutic abortion legal. Many articles featured complaints from health-care providers and doctors who reported that that the law prevented them from quickly and effectively treating pregnant women in distress. Some doctors reported being afraid to treat pregnant women because they believe that under the new law, treatment that terminates a pregnancy (such as for ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage) could potentially result in imprisonment. Also, some health-care providers are concerned that political and theological arguments for the ban are being given precedence over scientific information.
According to Padilla and Espinoza, the Catholic Church — a key figure behind the law change — also appears to be responsible for articles against legalizing therapeutic abortion. However, not all religious groups were in favor of the ban — Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir Nicaragua (Catholics for Choice in Nicaragua), the Rios de Agua Viva and Apostolar Centro Cristiano ministries, and a group of feminist theology students actively campaigned against the ban on therapeutic abortion.
Several other themes emerged from the report. One concern is the lack of a definition of therapeutic abortion. Only about 10 percent of articles clearly explained therapeutic abortion. Including this information would allow the public to be better informed and to get more involved in the issue, the authors write.
Roughly two-thirds of the articles examined were news reports, and one-third were opinion pieces. About 78 percent of the articles were directly about therapeutic abortion, and 22 percent discussed therapeutic abortion as a secondary theme.
The authors conclude the publication with a call for the Nicaraguan government to listen to the growing number of voices in favor of legalizing therapeutic abortion.
“Civil society groups, such as women’s movements, medical societies, human rights organizations and academic groups, have continued to denounce the state’s treatment of women, adolescents and girls. The state is clearly lacking in its obligation to protect, guarantee and promote the rights of these citizens,” Padilla and Espinoza write.
Top of the page
