Personhood Education

Support us as you shop on Amazon

If you already shop on Amazon, please go through AmazonSmile and support Personhood with every purchase.

It looks and functions exactly like Amazon, but your shopping dollar is stretched a little bit further and helps us out in a big way.

Thank you in advance!

http://smile.amazon.com/ch/26-4825246

Advertisements

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.

El Salvador’s Supreme Court rejects abortion case; points to personhood of child

San Salvador—The Salvadoran high court rejected the over-hyped claims of abortion advocates in favor of common-sense protections for mother and child on Wednesday. The ruling upholds El Salvador’s constitutional protection of the right to life beginning at fertilization.

Over the past few months, international abortion activists have exploited the case of a 22-year-old Salvadoran woman known as “Beatriz.” Intending to open the door for broad legalization of abortion, they allege that her life is in danger because she has lupus and kidney difficulties and that her child possesses no right to life because he suffers from a severe brain abnormality known as anencephaly.

Medical experts, however, testified that there is no serious threat to the woman’s life. El Salvador’s Institute of Legal Medicine advised against abortion and testified to the Supreme Court that “there is no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy.”

The 4-1 decision stated that “the rights of the mother are not privileged over those of the unborn child (who is to be born) and vice versa.” Furthermore, the Court determined “that there is an absolute bar” to authorize an abortion since this would violate “the constitutional protection afforded to the human person ‘from the moment of conception.’”

The judges concluded that there was no legal purpose for appealing to the court, since while abortion is prohibited, the laws in El Salvador already permit interventions which may risk the life of the baby to save the life of the mother. The court acknowledged that, although the Institute of Legal Medicine determined her current condition to be stable, her condition may change and that doctors may provide necessary treatment “that at any time [may] be appropriate for [her] medical condition.”

“The biased English-language news grossly mis-portrays this case denying life-saving abortion to a woman in need. That characterization is dishonest,” said Josh Craddock, United Nations liaison for Personhood Education. “Rather, this is a decision that recognizes the equal right to life of mother and baby, ensures that Beatriz will receive the best medical treatment for her condition, and rightly rejects killing a baby because he or she suffers from a disability.”

El Salvador’s Yes to Life Foundation called the decision “a triumph of life over death” because it sets “a precedent in our society that should favor the constitutional right to life that exists from the moment of conception.”

Abortion proponents intend to appeal the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, but the Salvadoran supreme court’s decision will likely remain binding.

International manipulation intends fully legalized abortion in El Salvador

by Josh Craddock

International abortion proponents, who make their living pedaling death around the globe, are now manipulating a case in El Salvador in order to overturn the Latin American nation’s personhood protections for unborn children.

A 22-year-old Salvadoran woman known as “Beatriz” is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of El Salvador to determine whether the country’s laws will permit her to kill her unborn child who suffers from a severe disability. Her baby was diagnosed with anencephaly (an abnormality affecting the part of the brain and skull) and is not given a high probability of surviving long after birth.

Abortion proponents insist that babies with anencephaly are “lives unworthy of life.” They ignore the precious time a child might live (even up to several years old!) and impose their subjective view that the baby would be better off dead. Of course, we know that Every Life Counts and that personhood must include all human beings, regardless of the state of their physical or mental development.

Beatriz has lupus and kidney difficulties, but medical experts report that there is no serious threat to the woman’s life. El Salvador’s Institute of Legal Medicine advised against abortion and testified to the Supreme Court that “At this time, [Beatriz] is clinically stable, which means that right now there is no imminent risk or danger of death.”

A medical symposium of world-renowned experts in obstetricians and gynecology reported in the Dublin Declaration last September that there direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother. Indeed, while abortion is prohibited, the laws in El Salvador permit interventions which may risk the life of the baby to save the life of the mother.

Nevertheless, so-called “human rights experts” at the United Nations are calling for a national dialogue to legalize abortion in these situations. These same experts will in one breath opine that persons with disabilities need dignity, and with the next promote abortion to target disabled persons in the womb. International abortion advocates are pushing abortion in this case because they know it will lead to full legalization of abortion.

As the Archbishop of San Salvador warns, “I see the knife killing children tomorrow because the door is opened [today].” The international abortion movement doesn’t care about women’s health or safety in complex medical situations. They simply want to advance their agenda. El Salvador must stand up to these international bullies in order to protect women and their babies.

Mexican Supreme Court upholds state’s right to protect personhood

Mexico City, Mexico—The Supreme Court of Mexico upheld state personhood amendments Thursday, guaranteeing the right to life for preborn babies for the second time in two years.

Five justices sided in favor of the amendments, rejecting the constitutional disagreements submitted by municipalities in Oaxaca and Guanajuato, ruling that the amendments do not exceed the state’s jurisdiction over health issues. The decision reaffirms the states’ right to recognize and protect personhood in their constitutions.

Personhood in Mexico

States in red have adopted Personhood amendments to their local constitutions, protecting life from conception until natural death.

Eighteen Mexican states passed personhood amendments in response to the 2009 legalization of abortion in Mexico City. The measures enjoy broad popular support, including endorsement from 88% of all state legislators. Lawmakers from all major national parties, including the PRI, PAN, and PRD, have voiced their support for recognizing every single human being as a person.

In 2011, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of personhood amendments in the states of Baja California and San Luis Potosi. This week’s ruling strengthens the legal precedent in favor of state personhood amendments.

A Wednesday ruling invalidated a similar amendment in Querétaro, based on alleged legislative process violations. Nevertheless, the court reinforced the state’s legislative power to pass the amendment again, so long as the proper process is followed.

“While President Obama was calling personhood ‘absurd’ this week, Mexico upheld common-sense legislation that all human beings are persons with dignity and rights,” said Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones. “The decision in Mexico is additional evidence that personhood works in the real world. We commit to work towards the day when this truth is realized for all children in Mexico, the United States, and around the globe.”

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.


srhr
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.

SALVADOREÑA PERMITE QUE SE TOMEN LAS MEDIDAS DE EMERGENCIA NECESARIAS PARA SALVAR LA VIDA DE BEATRIZ SIN RECURRIR AL ABORTO

LA LEGISLACIÓN SALVADOREÑA PERMITE QUE SE TOMEN LAS MEDIDAS DE EMERGENCIA NECESARIAS PARA SALVAR LA VIDA DE BEATRIZ SIN RECURRIR AL ABORTO

Nosotros, miembros de la Agrupación deAbogados por los Derechos Humanos, en pleno uso de nuestros derechos constitucionales y sociales hacemos el siguiente pronunciamiento ante el caso de Beatriz quien ha presentado demanda de amparo ante la CSJ referencia 310-2013, joven madre que se encuentra embarazada de un bebé anencéfalo, que padece de lupus y  que se presume que se encuentra ante un riesgo inminente de morir:

 

CONSIDERANDO

I

Que nos preocupa sobremanera que se proteja la vida y la integridad física y psíquica de Beatriz así como el respeto al ser humano aún no nacido que ella lleva en su vientre.

II

Que la legislación salvadoreña actual permite una intervención médica de emergencia necesaria para salvar la vida de cualquier mujer que se encuentra ante un peligro de inminente de muerte, siempre y cuando esa intervención NO SEA EL ABORTO U OTRO DELITO, y se busque también proteger la vida del no nacido.

III

Que si como consecuencia indirecta, natural y no deseada de dicha intervención o tratamiento el no nato pierde la vida, se estaría ante una situación distinta al aborto consentido y propio.

En vista de lo anterior, deseamos aclarar algunos conceptos desde el punto de vista jurídico:

1.    El Código Penal de El Salvador en su Capítulo II Art. 27 incisos 1 y 3, establece las EXIMENTES DE RESPONSABILIDAD que consolida la libertad de actuar de la que gozan los médicos, sin temor a infringir la ley y literalmente consigna: “No es responsable penalmente: 1) Quien actúa u omite en cumplimiento de un deber legal o en ejercicio legítimo de un derecho o de una actividad lícita; 3) Quien actúa u omite por necesidad de salvaguardar un bien jurídico, propio o ajeno, de un peligro real, actual o inminente, no ocasionado intencionalmente, lesionando otro bien de menor o igual valor que el salvaguardado, siempre que la conducta sea proporcional al peligro y que no se tenga el deber jurídico de afrontarlo;”

2.    El Código Penal comentado publicado por elConsejo Nacional de la Judicatura” ofrece una explicación exhaustiva a este respecto y analiza la excluyente de responsabilidad penal llamada “situación de necesidad”: “Es condición indispensable para la existencia de la causa excluyente, de forma completa o incompleta. Se refiere a un conflicto entre bienes jurídicos que crea una situación de peligro para uno de ellos y que sólo puede solucionarse mediante el sacrificio o menoscabo de uno de ellos.”

Los médicos están facultados para actuarsiempre y cuando fuere necesario.

3.     Existe jurisprudencia en el país a tal efecto: Citamos la sentencia de fecha 20 de noviembre de 2007 emitida en el juicio de inconstitucionalidad 18-1998 de la Sala de lo Constitucional. En la que declaró que no es inconstitucional (por omisión) que el Código Penal salvadoreño no regule el sistema de indicaciones médicas (incluido el aborto terapéutico) pues afirmó que “el contenido del art. 27 numeral 2 del Código Penal, permite conocer y decidir, dentro del proceso penal, sobre las indicaciones del aborto, no existiendo por tanto contravención, en los término planteados en este proceso, a los arts. 1 y 2 de la Constitución.”

Además dicha Sala “considera que respecto al delito de aborto, al tomar la opción del sistema común de penalización, el legislador salvadoreño no ha omitido cumplir el mandato constitucional de regular una solución del conflicto entre los derechos constitucionales de la mujer y los del nasciturus”

Por lo tanto, si existe un estado de necesidad imperante de salvaguardar la vida de Beatriz, los médicos están facultados para ejercer su deber primordial de llevarlo a cabo mediante una intervención médica como la inducción a un parto inmaduro o el tratamiento necesario que garantice su vida. Los médicos deben siempre buscar salvar ambas vidas.  Si aplican un tratamiento para salvar a la madre, buscando también salvar al hijo y este muere, no es aborto. Nunca es necesario un aborto intencional o premeditado, de esta forma se respetan los arts. 1 y 2 de la Constitución.

 

Firmantes:

1.     DR. JORGE ISIDORO NIETO. DUI: 00108793-2

2.     DR. JAIME ARRIETA. DUI: 00644070-3

3.     DR. FRANCISCO RODOLFO BERTRAND GALINDO. DUI: 00717570-9

4.     Dr. DELMER RODRIGUEZ. DUI: 02029933-6

5.     DR. ABRAHAM RODRIGUEZ. DUI: 00022310-3

6.     Dra. ANA DETY MEJIA DE RODRIGUEZ. DUI: 02029903-5

7.     LIC. ADRIANA GUADALUPE AVILES DE ARRIAZA. DUI: 02061236-4

8.     LICDA. CARMEN ELENA PINEDA. DUI: 02879072-6

9.     LIC. ROBERTO FLORES. DUI: 02317146-4

10.  LIC. ANA JASMINA LOPEZ DE FLORES. DUI: 00169287-6

11.  LIC. RHINA CECILIA LUNA LARA. DUI: 00243915-8

12.  LIC. DENSSE GARZARO DE ARRIAZA. DUI: 02826592-5

13.  LIC. MIRIAM SERRANO. DUI: 01947473-7

14.  DR. ALONSO CASTILLO ROBLES. DUI: 2713939-1

15.  LIC. ROXANA MARÍA ROMERO MENA. DUI: 01777910-7

16.  LIC. ANA CINDY RIVERA RODRIGUEZ. DUI:00998134-2

17.  LIC. GILBERTO ALFONSO FAJARDO CARCAMO. DUI: 02927713-7

18.  DR. JORGE MARTINEZ VEGA. DUI: 00460367-2

19.  LIC. MARIA CONCEPCIÓN MARTINEZ CUELLAR. DUI:  02402944-0

20.  DR. RICARDO ALBERTO ZAMORA PÉREZ. DUI:  00243588-7

21.  DR. ALONSO CASTILLO ROBLES. DUI:  2713939-1

22.  LIC. ROBERTO CARLOS GIRONES MÉNDEZ. DUI:  00083696-4

23.  LIC. EDWIN ARMANDO CRISTALES CASTRO. DUI:  00280056-1

24.  LIC. CONCEPCIÓN MARINA ALAS DE GODINEZ. DUI:  00249124-9

25.  LIC. LUZ ELÍZABETH ALAS. DUI:  00096875-3

26.  LIC. KAREN YAMILETH RIVAS DE GIL. DUI: 01916654-6

27.  LIC. CARLOS EMILIO GONZÁLEZ ESCOBAR. DUI:  02225045-1

28.  LIC. MARINA EUGENIA MENDOZA DE BELTRÁN. DUI: 00495454-4

29.  LIC. NELSON ALFREDO JOYA MELARA. DUI: 00740147-7

30.  LIC. ZOILA ESPERANZA CASTRO AGUILAR. DUI:  02253567-3

31.  LIC. FRANCISCO JOSÉ SORIANO CONTRERAS. DUI:  00559932-1

32.  LIC. MARIA FRANCESCA LEIVA RODRIGUEZ. DUI:  00052238-7

33.  LIC. EDWIN AGUSTIN NÁJERA. DUI:  02351639-7

34.  LIC. SAMUL ELY MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ. DUI: 00562290-1

35.  LIC. MELIZA GUADALUPE MOLINA. DUI:  00335294-3

36.  LIC. LUIS MARIO MÁRTIR RÍOS. DUI:  01248810-9

37.  LIC. MARÍA LETICIA DAMIÁN DE LÓPEZ. DUI: 00907577-7

38.  LIC. CARLOS BRINDISI VILLALTA MARTÍNEZ. DUI: 02003977-8

39.  LIC. YESENIA NOHEMY SILIÉZAR DE HAIM. DUI:  00837989-3

40.  LIC. LUISA YANETH ROSALES DE PLATERO. DUI:  02346296-2

41.  LIC. RENÉ ALBERTO MEDRANO. DUI: 02805669-3

42.  LIC. MARTHA DE JESUS LOPEZ MENDEZ.  DUI: 01292134-3

43.  LIC. CECILA PASTORE BENITEZ.  DUI: 01237303-7

44.  LIC. ANA PATRICIA PORTILLO REYES. DUI: 00495118-0

45.  LIC. FATIMA GUADALUPE CASTILLO AVILA. DUI: 02336338-8

46.  LIC. MARVIN ABRAHAM SALAMANCA MORENO. DUI: 02216037-1

47.  LIC. ANA GISELA BOLAÑOS DE CRISTALES. DUI: 01533656-3

48.  LIC. RENÉ ALBERTO MEDRANO.  DUI: 028-056-69-3

49.  DR. MIGUEL ALFREDO MARTÍNEZ MORENO. DUI:  01-867-161-1

50.  DR. EDUARDO MORALES ERLICH. DUI 01-474-742-8