This Country Banned Abortion and Now, Abortion Promoters Can’t Believe their Eyes!

“Outlaw abortion and abortion won’t stop. Women will just do it illegally and women will die!”

Or so the argument goes… But facts are pesky things, and they show that the opposite is true in Chile.

According to new research from the MELISA Institute, since Chile’s ban on abortion, not only has maternal health improved but the number of women seeking illegal abortion has plummeted!


Chile considers legalizing abortion for rape; Personhood Education warns it harms one victim, kills the other

A tragic rape case in Chile has sparked calls for legalizing abortion in the South American country. An eleven-year-old girl from Puerto Montt known as “Belen” is 14 weeks pregnant after having been repeatedly molested by her mother’s boyfriend.

Rather than being outraged at the rapist, abortion-promoters have seized upon Chile’s law prohibiting abortion in all cases. Even the mother has shamefully spoken in defense of the rapist and called for the abortion of her grandchild. The popular Presidential candidate, Michelle Bachelet, said via Twitter: “Michelle has a plan to decriminalize therapeutic abortion in cases of rape.” Bachelet previously promoted pro-abortion policies during her tenure as the head of UN Women.

The young girl, however, has declared her desire to keep the unborn child. “I’m going to love the baby very much, even though it comes from that man who hurt me,” Belen said in a TV interview. “It will be like having a doll in my arms.” Current pro-life President Pinera praised the girl for her “depth and maturity” and has asked the health minister to personally look after the girl’s health.

“Anyone who truly cares about a rape victim would want to protect her from the rapist, and from an abortion, and not the baby,” said Personhood Education spokesperson Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape and has become an outspoken advocate for others like her and for women, such as her mother, who have been raped.

“A baby is not the worst thing which could ever happen to a rape victim—an abortion is,” continued Kiessling. “That’s why most rape victims not only choose life for their children, but they choose to raise their child conceived in rape.  They express that the baby brings healing, but abortion brings more suffering and destruction—another violent intrusion into her womb.  My birthmother says that I’m a blessing to her. I honor her, and I bring her joy.”

In 2006, abortion allowed a serial rapist in Kansas, Robert Estrada, to repeatedly abuse his four step-daughters, aged 11-16. The sexual abuse was covered up because Estrada easily procured legal abortions for the girls.

“Abortion emboldens rapists,” said Jennifer Mason, Personhood Education’s communications director. “If abortion were legal in Chile, it would allow criminals like this to escape being caught, because he can take the victim to a local abortion provider, dispose of the evidence, and continue to victimize the young girl. Abortion for rape and incest is not compassionate; it is cruel. If Chile wants to protect girls like Belen, it shouldn’t give cover to rapists and criminals.”

Abortion increasingly victimizes women, but it also kills the second victim of rape: the unborn child. Personhood Education warns that legalizing abortion for rape and incest undermines the personhood of the unborn child and will lead to total legalization of abortion.

“Students of abortion history will recall that the gradual legalization of abortion in the cases of rape and incest undermines the personhood of the unborn child,” Mason continued. “If the right to life can be abrogated in cases of rape and incest, why should we respect it in other instances? The child in the womb is a person with rights, regardless of the circumstances surrounding his or her conception.”

The 1989 ban on abortion in Chile was correlated to a near total reduction in abortion-related maternal mortality. In 2008, Chile had the second lowest maternal mortality rate in the Americas, just behind Canada and ahead of the United States.

Can countries that prohibit abortion provide quality maternal healthcare?

Would you expect a country that prohibits all abortion to have a higher or lower rate of maternal mortality? Can countries which prohibit abortion achieve a standard of maternal healthcare comparable with those that permit abortion?

The answer revealed in a new video, which sets out to answer these questions from a scientific and medical perspective, may surprise you.

Medical experts in maternal healthcare testified before the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in March that direct abortion is not necessary to save the life of the mother in any circumstance. Several of the speakers were panelists at the International Symposium on Maternal Healthcare which released the Dublin Declaration last Fall.

Findings from Ireland, Chile, and Malta indicate that prohibiting abortion is consistent with providing high quality medical care to pregnant mothers. Ireland consistently boasts one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world according to the UN, UNICEF, and WHO (#1 in 2005, #3 in 2008). The 1989 ban on abortion in Chile was correlated to a near complete reduction in abortion-related maternal mortality. In 2008, Chile had the second lowest maternal mortality rate in the Americas, just behind Canada and ahead of the United States. Malta, which prohibits abortion in all cases, achieved one of the best maternal mortality rates in the world in 2008 according to new data published in The Lancet.

MMR Comparison Chart

In fact, widespread access to abortion may actually increase abortion-related mortality! Developed nations with easy access to abortion typically have a higher rate of maternal deaths caused by abortion, despite their generally higher quality healthcare systems. According to the WHO, abortion-related mortality is responsible for 8.2% of maternal deaths in developed countries, while in Africa (where abortion is restricted and where 56% of all maternal deaths occur worldwide), abortion is related to less than 4% of maternal deaths.

Despite the claims of abortion advocates, the weight of scientific evidence over decades of research demonstrates that abortion is not a rational answer to maternal mortality. In reality, education and access to higher quality healthcare (especially better access to prenatal and perinatal care) decreases maternal mortality most effectively, not access to abortion.

Report from the 46th UN Commission on Population and Development

by Josh Craddock

The theme of the 46th Session of the Commission on Population and Development was supposed to be migration. Nevertheless, abortion proponents once again hijacked the discussion to push their agenda. Thankfully, the outcome document leaves very little room for abortion advocates to build upon.

During the week, IPPF launched its “Vision 2020” campaign, which includes applauds illegal abortion providers in Latin American countries, even though these medical abortions are hazardous to the woman and fatal to the baby. They call on all governments to “support a woman’s right to abortion by removing legal and policy barriers to abortion services” in the name of reducing maternal mortality. Evidence shows, however, that countries prohibiting abortion can actually provide higher maternal healthcare standards than countries where abortion is legal.

As always happens at the major UN conferences, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and its allies divert attention from real, pressing issues to push their agenda of so-called “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR) which include “youth-friendly” abortion services. The outcome document addressing migrants never once mentions food and only twice mentions employment, but mentions “sexual and reproductive health” five times and ensures “emergency contraception and safe abortion.” Guess where their priorities are?

When the African group opposed the IPPF agenda, Planned Parenthood sent a private letter to the Nigerian ambassador, rebuking her delegation’s stance as the voice for the African group. In the letter, IPPF issued a veiled threat that if the Nigerian ambassador did not tone done her opposition to SRHR, IPPF would use their influence to cause the ambassador to lose her position as First Chair at UN Women. The IPPF took to bullying again when the Filipino vice-chairman of the Commission denied numerous requests to include SRHR language in the text. On the final day of negotiations, they pushed to have him replaced as moderator of the negotiations.

Because of the US and EU’s neurotic focus on SRHR, the commission could not agree on a negotiated document. The document reverted to a chairman’s text, delivered by the moderator from Moldova. The outcome was not the result of a consultative process of negotiation; it was forced in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion upon the member states.

Nevertheless, the chairman’s text did not allow abortion advocates to make any headway. All references to Comprehensive Sexuality Education (which promotes abortion and early sexual activity to children) from the original draft were deleted in the final outcome document. All six references to “sexual orientation and gender identity” were likewise deleted.

Thankfully, a strong paragraph reaffirmed the national sovereignty of each member state “with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with universally recognized international human rights.” Remember, despite decades of agitation from the abortion advocates, there is no internationally recognized right to abortion. Universally recognized international human rights do include the right to life (though sadly, this right is ignored when it comes to unborn children).

There is very little in this document to build toward a so-called “right to abortion.” Two major country groups (the African group and the Arab group) and nine specific countries voiced specific reservations against abortion in their final statements. Nigeria for the African group and Egypt for the Arab group both complained that too much focus was placed on SRHR rather than the actual needs of migrants. Honduras issued a strong pro-life statement, reaffirming their position that “The unborn child has the same right as a child that is born.” Chile emphasized its belief that “Life is protected from conception” and that “no part of this resolution can be interpreted an acceptance of abortion in any of its forms.” Malta reminded the commission that “Termination of pregnancy is not recognized as a method of family planning.”

After years of trying, abortion advocates left the 46th Commission on Population and Development with little “progress” to celebrate.



* La Food and Drug Administration (FDA) solamente ha autorizado su uso para la prevención y tratamiento de las úlceras gástricas

Organizaciones de la sociedad civil de México, Ecuador, Chile y Estados Unidos,  denunciaron que el Misoprostol, fármaco que usan las clínicas de aborto, es utilizado en algunos países  para acelerar las contracciones en los partos, lo que provoca toxicidad en los bebes e incluso la muerte, así como también puede afectar la salud de las mujeres

La Fundación Familia y Futuro de Ecuador; el Instituto de Formación en Valores de México;  la Asociación protege la Vida de Uruguay;  la Red por la Vida y la Familia y  la Organización no Gubernamental Investigación, Formación y Estudios de la Mujer (ISFEM) de Chile y  Personhood de Estados Unidos, alertaron a las instituciones de salud para que tomen  cartas en el asunto sobre la venta sin receta de este fármaco en algunos países y el uso en indicaciones no autorizadas que pueden provocar muerte materna y fetal.

Al respecto, la doctora en ciencias biomédicas por la UNAM, Alejandra Huerta, precisó que el misoprostol ha sido aprobado por la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sólo para la prevención y tratamiento de las úlceras gástricas.

Sin embargo reportes de América Latina indican un incremento en el uso del misoprostol para inducir abortos  al inicio del embarazo y debido a su bajo costo, algunas clínicas lo utilizan para acelerar partos, lo que puede traer efectos secundarios o consecuencias severas en los bebés.

En un porcentaje que va del 10 al 35 por ciento de los casos, el aborto con misoprostol no se completa, dijo la doctora Huerta, lo que puede provocar hemorragias abundantes, por lo que es necesario sacar los remanentes de tejido fetal en el útero con el método de aspiración, lo que lleva a serias complicaciones en las mujeres, agravando el problema de un aborto inducido.

En otras ocasiones, el embarazo continúa, pero provoca altos niveles de toxicidad en el bebé en el vientre materno, que pueden llegar a malformaciones graves o a enfermedades congénitas.


La Red por la Vida y la Familia y  la Organización no Gubernamental Investigación, Formación y Estudios de la Mujer (ISFEM) de Chile, señalaron que el misoprostol se vende ilegalmente a través de internet, lo que dificulta el seguimiento de los infractores que lo comercializan para provocar abortos, aumentando el peligro para la madre y el hijo en gestación.

El  Instituto de Salud Pública de Chile solo  ha autorizado el uso del Misoprostol para el tratamiento y prevención de úlceras gastroduodenales inducidas de antiinflamatorios no esteroidales  y no como inductor del parto, por lo tanto, su uso para otros fines se considera ilegal.

De ahí que se requiere receta médica para su venta en farmacias y pese a su restricción es utilizado para acelerar partos en los hospitales, a pesar de los efectos adversos que puede ocasionar a las mujeres y sus hijos.

La prensa chilena dio a conocer  un caso registrado en la Clínica Alemana, donde un doctor le medicó el misoprostol -ilegalmente- a una  paciente y en contra de su voluntad, para inducir el parto, lo que puso en evidencia los graves daños  que provoca en la salud de la mujer, como intensas hemorragias, dolor de cabeza e incluso perforación del útero.

El doctor  fue cesado por negligencia  al no haber causas justificadas para acelerar el parto, por usar un fármaco ilegal y por los daños causados a la salud de la paciente.

Otro caso lamentable sucedió en Inglaterra  donde el misoprostol, causó la muerte de una bebé a los tres días de nacida. Según las directrices oficiales del Instituto Nacional para la Salud y la Excelencia Clínica  de Londres, el Misoprostol no debe ser utilizado para inducir el parto ya que sólo está autorizado para el tratamiento de las úlceras de estómago.

Las organizaciones de la sociedad civil agregaron que en Inglaterra el Misoprostol  sólo está autorizado para el tratamiento de úlceras en el estómago; sin embargo es utilizado para provocar contracciones en partos difíciles lo que ha traído como consecuencia la muerte de bebés.

Dieron  como ejemplo el caso de la pequeña Sofía Figus  quien murió tres días después de su nacimiento, debido a una falta de oxígeno durante un parto difícil, pues a su madre se le prescribió Misoprostol para provocarle las contracciones.

Si bien, la pareja formada por Roberto y Willicombe Figus, ya interpusieron una demanda en contra del hospital Homerton y una partera fue despedida, la intención es llamar la atención de los gobiernos y de la comunidad internacional sobre los efectos nocivos del uso del misoprostol ya que se usa  como abortivo y en muchas ocasiones falla el aborto, provocando toxicidad o severas complicaciones en los bebés y en la salud de las mujeres.

Policy-making to reduce maternal mortality: A holistic approach to maternal care

Brochure distributed to attendees at the UN CSW parallel event titled “Policy-making to reduce maternal mortality: A holistic approach to maternal care,” held Wednesday, March 6, 2013.

FULL Maternal Mortality Brochure

Scientists discuss relationship between abortion and violence against women

This press release is available in Spanish.

New York, March 8th 2013 – Scientists of the United States of America, Ireland, and Chile met this week in New York to discuss recent scientific evidence regarding abortion as a form of growing violence against women and girls. Indiscriminate practice of abortion is significantly correlated with coercion, a history of sexual abuse, violence during pregnancy, intimate partner violence, and with psychological consequences that may lead to suicide.

The scientific evidence was discussed by Doctors Monique Chireau (North Carolina, USA), Donna Harrison (Illinois, USA), Eoghan de Faoite (Dublin, Ireland), and Elard Koch (Concepción, Chile). The meeting “Public Policies to reduce maternal mortality, a holistic focus on maternal health” took place in parallel to the 57th Session of the Commission of Women Status of the United Nations, whose priority theme is the “elimination and prevention of all types of violence against women and girls”, activity that will continue until March 15th.

The scientists discussed different epidemiological studies, showing that:

  • A significant and growing proportion of induced abortions occur due to coercion by the intimate partner of the pregnant woman.
  • A history of sexual abuse and violence is a risk factor for abortion and subsequent mental health problems.
  • There is a significant correlation between the increase in the number of abortions and an increase in the rate of homicides against women versus those against men.
  • There is an important correlation between the increase of abortions and the suicide rate of women of childbearing age.
  • Countries with abortion laws that are less permissive, such as Ireland and Chile, display lower abortion rates than countries with more permissive abortion laws.

Dr. Koch, director of the MELISA Institute, presented international collaborative studies that have been recently published, which place Chile –a country with one of the least permissive abortion laws in the world– with the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America. Public policies ensuring more education for women, childbirth by skilled professionals universally available, and a timely access to emergency obstetric units would be key factors improving maternal health, and not the legal status of abortion. This evidence was in agreement with data presented by Dr. De Faoite, who showed evidence placing Ireland among the countries with the lowest maternal mortality in Europe, without having to modify their current abortion legislation. On the other hand, Dr. Chireau presented robust evidence regarding novel treatments for pregnant women with cancer, which are successful in safeguarding the life of the mother and her gestating child. Finally, Dr. Harrison discussed the risks related to complications following medical abortion with chemicals such as misoprostol, which are exacerbated in developing countries due the their lack of sufficient coverage of emergency facilities.

During the opening of these UN Sessions and commemorating the International Women’s Day, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon remarked “There is one universal truth, applicable to all countries, cultures and communities: violence against women is never acceptable, never excusable, never tolerable.” In this context, the scientists assembled in New York voiced their concern in regards to the alarming expansion of abortion as a form of violence against women in the world, something that should not be dismissed by any nation that respects fundamental human rights.


For more information on this subject or to arrange an interview with doctors Monique Chireau, Donna Harrison, Eoghan De Faoite, and/or Elard Koch, please contact Lea Parks, Officer of Public Relations of the MELISA Institute, to or to +56 41 234 5814