Speaking Against Latin America’s Roe V. Wade

A case that is potentially the Roe v. Wade of Latin America is now being considered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica. The plaintiffs in Beatriz v. El Salvador are asking the court to declare the right to abortion to be an internationally recognized human right.

Such a declaration would be a major setback for the right to life on an international scale. The right to abortion is absent from the world’s treaties, conventions, and covenants with the exception of the Maputo Protocol of the African Charter of 2003, where this right was inserted at the behest of its powerful advocates in the West. Until recent years, Latin America has been a region of strong pro-life laws, though in the past decade, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and other states have liberalized their abortion laws. A declaration of the right to abortion in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, including some 20 countries in its jurisdiction, would advance the profile and status of abortion rights around the world.

These stakes make all the more significant the testimony at this trial of Paolo Carozza, a human rights lawyer who is a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School and the former President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. His testimony is one of the most eloquent, forceful, and succinct statements of the human rights of the unborn that one can find. About 10 minutes long, it merits viewing and being shown in classes, lectures, and forums on the right to life. (Here is ND Law’s story on his testimony.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqFRmYT5710

Professor Carozza’s testimony is a refreshing exception to the abortion paradox, which is that the right to life of the unborn, easily the most widely violated human right in the world, enjoys little support from, and even faces the opposition of, organizations whose purpose is to promote human rights and to work for the end of their violation. On conservative estimates, about 12 million abortions take place every year around the world while over a billion have taken place since 1920, when the Soviet Union became the first country to legalize the practice.

Only a few organizations and activists advocate for the right to life of the unborn: C-FAM, Human Life International, Women Without Frontiers (which campaigns against forced abortion in China), the Holy See, Professor Brian Scarnecchia, William Saunders, the pair of scholars Thomas W. Jacobson and William Robert Johnson, and perhaps a few others. They are mice that roar, up against lions that promote global abortion rights. These include the world’s major human rights organizations. Amnesty International, the world’s oldest and largest human rights organization, decided to promote the legalization of abortion in August 2007. Human Rights Watch promotes “reproductive rights” that include abortion. A coalition of United Nations officials, certain states, non-governmental organizations, and certain international lawyers work assiduously to find abortion rights in treaties, conventions, and international initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals where no such rights are stated, and to promote abortion rights through organizations such as the World Health Organization and the World Bank. The abortion paradox also enfolds a silence about abortion among other organizations whose mission is to promote human rights and social justice broadly, including human rights, peace and social justice centers at universities, even many Catholic universities.

The result is wide popular ignorance of the global scale of abortion, far too little influence exerted for the protection of unborn life around the world, and the advance of abortion rights among international organizations and countries that we are witnessing. We need more of Professor Carozza’s testimony.

Intersectionality: The Abortion Doula’s and the Catholic Church’s

An abortion doula and a historian of transgenderism ardently advocated abortion rights Monday on a zoom panel here at the University of Notre Dame titled “Reproductive Justice: Scholarship for Solidarity and Social Change.” The freedom to have abortions intersects with women’s autonomy, racial justice, and transgenderism, they argued. Intersectionality – different forms of oppression occur together and reinforce one another – is a popular concept now in academia.

While the event’s sponsors, the Gender Studies Program and the Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values, possess the academic freedom to stage this event, its message contradicts the mission of the University, as passages from Notre Dame’s mission statement illustrate.

As a Catholic university, one of its distinctive goals is to provide a forum where, through free inquiry and open discussion, the various lines of Catholic thought may intersect with all the forms of knowledge found in the arts, sciences, professions, and every other area of human scholarship and creativity.

What the University asks of all its scholars and students, however, is not a particular creedal affiliation, but a respect for the objectives of Notre Dame and a willingness to enter into the conversation that gives it life and character.

. . . the University seeks to cultivate in its students not only an appreciation for the great achievements of human beings, but also a disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice, and oppression that burden the lives of so many. The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice.

(Boldface added)

The panel presented neither a “line of Catholic thought” nor “respect for the objectives of Notre Dame,” which includes its pro-life commitment, and was not in “service to justice.”

Members of the Notre Dame community also have the freedom – and indeed something close to an obligation – to respond to the panel, which, far from being “in service to justice,” promoted the legal rights that enable the largest injustice of our time.

I attended the panel and raised a question in the Q and A period that the panelists did not choose to answer. So, I paste it here:

Given your commitment to expand the ambit of justice, ought you not to include in this ambit the human rights of unborn persons?

If the panelists wish to include marginalized people in the sphere of justice, then why do they omit unborn persons, over 2000 of whom lose their lives in the United States every day on average? These persons received hardly a mention in the entire presentation, while the right to end a pregnancy — end these persons — was affirmed again and again. The panelists’ intersectionalism does not intersect enough.

The Catholic Church’s intersectionality includes unborn persons and links the protection of their lives to the welfare of woman and racial minorities. None other than the Reverend Jesse Jackson spoke to this link in 1977, saying, “[a]bortion is black genocide” in the context of a pro-life view that he held until he sought the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. (See also this remarkable speech of his in 1977.)

From the earliest days of U.S Catholic opposition to abortion rights in the late 1960s, it has tied together its support for the rights of unborn persons, material and spiritual support for expectant mothers in both giving birth and raising their children, the responsibility of birth fathers and families, forgiveness and healing for women who have had abortions, and the building of a culture of life.

Further, the dignity of unborn person is tied to the dignity of all vulnerable persons, including the poor, immigrants, and racial minorities. The Church agrees with Vice President Hubert Humphrey that “the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” Cardinal Joseph Bernardin called this linkage the seamless garment, Pope St. John Paul II, the culture of life.

What could be more intersectional than that?