Turning Health Care Providers into Prosecutors: Mexico’s Warnings for US Women

Nadine Goodman

The current law in Guanajuato, and the barrage of restrictions being enacted against women throughout Mexico and in the United States and elsewhere poses a test first and foremost for the medical community:  Do health care providers serve their patients?

Forty years ago as a teenager in New York I had occasion to go to a clinic to get a pregnancy test.  I assumed that this encounter was within a circle of confidentiality. That was why I went–no one but me would have access to my pregnancy test result.

For the last 30 years, I have been living and working in Mexico. In July a young woman, barely out of her teens, visited the clinic I helped found in the state of Guanajuato. She asked for a pregnancy test and assumed there would be confidentiality.  She was wrong.  The local justice ministry demanded that the clinic provide the results of her test to them, as she was under investigation for illegal abortion after seeking medical attention at a public hospital for vaginal bleeding and pain.  

In early October this same young woman was advised that her case was officially dropped due to insufficient evidence. Her nightmare, which started in an emergency room with a brutal interrogation and included inappropriate questioning about her personal sex life by the General Attorney’s Office, is seemingly over. Both this young woman and the clinic personnel, including me and my husband, faced the real possibility of incarceration – in our case because we did not hand over the confidential information of our patient.

In 1997 abortion in the first trimester was legalized in Mexico City, but laws throughout the rest of the country are extremely harsh and confusing.  Furthermore Mexico is not alone when it comes to doctors in public health facilities being joined on site by prosecutors and others. Similar laws and practices, in the name of “protection of the right to life,’ can be found in many countries in Latin America and elsewhere. The goal seems to be to punish, coerce, and even frighten women away from needed medical care.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

In late September, the New York Times published an article that shared the history of seven women from Guanajuato incarcerated, some for eight years, for the crime of “homicide in reason of parentage” — loosely defined as homicide between family members, including mother and newborn.  On September 7th following considerable pressure from the press and the general public, these women were released.  They and others maintain they are innocent of any crime and that they did not receive due process in being accused of a crime.

Prior to and since the passing of the 2007 law that made abortion a crime punishable as a homicide,  abortion has been illegal in Guanajuato except in cases of rape. Also in 2007 the State Congress in Guanajuato passed a constitutional amendment establishing conception as the official start of the right to life, apparently with the aim of  ensuring beyond doubt that no woman in Guanajuato will ever have the right to interrupt an unwanted pregnancy.  All of these laws are seemingly designed and being used to punish women who are suspected of inducing abortion, and have been applied even to women who have miscarriages.

As a woman and a public health and human rights activist I am incensed by what is happening in my adopted country. And I am baffled and saddened about what is happening in the United States, my motherland, afraid for my daughter and for my sons, and for all U.S. residents. Soon after the time I first went to the clinic in New York 40 years ago, the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision secured my right as a woman to have access to abortion services on demand. Over many decades I felt secure and protected.  Not anymore… especially when I see men and women running in U.S. senate races with a platform that includes overriding Roe v Wade.  It is more than disturbing to see Attorneys General in the United States dedicating themselves to rewriting hospital regulations with the purported mission of increased safety for women while in fact they are dismantling the already insufficient supply of abortion providers in their states.

I am also disappointed that the international public health world and others that have made significant progress in bringing attention to unacceptable high maternal mortality rates is still not speaking plainly and with the needed frequency about the need for safe, free family planning and abortion services. It is an undisputed fact that in countries where abortion is illegal or access is curtailed, abortions still take place.   In Mexico, according to national and international public health sources, 800,000 women a year abort illegally.  Moreover, Mexico like other countries, including the United States is experiencing rising maternal mortality rates. Lack of access to safe abortion is a well-documented killer of women.

In Guanajuato, where I live, the Mexican human rights group Las Libres maintains that 165 women are currently being arraigned for the crime of abortion and that the majority went to public health facilities for medical assistance only to have the physicians who attended them abandon patient-doctor confidentiality and act as agents of the state.  This not only violates medical ethics on patient privacy, it compromises respectful, confidential doctor-patient relationship necessary for high quality diagnosis and treatment.  Obviously if a patient believes that a physician will report her to authorities, she will be fearful of telling the doctor the truth.  Indeed, some women will be too scared to go for treatment at all.

The current law in Guanajuato, and the barrage of restrictions being enacted against women throughout Mexico and in the United States and elsewhere poses a test first and foremost for the medical community:  Do health care providers serve their patients?  Or are they supposed to ignore medical ethics, good science and human need to serve as informants for state prosecutors and others?  How the medical community performs on this test, and how policy makers and the public support them, will have implications for the lives and well-being of countless women around the world.  I, for one, hope we all pass this test; that we will vote for people who will also pass this test and that women will get the confidential care we all have a right to.

News Politics

Tim Kaine Changes Position on Federal Funding for Abortion Care

Ally Boguhn

The Obama administration, however, has not signaled support for rolling back the Hyde Amendment's ban on federal funding for abortion care.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate, has promised to stand with nominee Hillary Clinton in opposing the Hyde Amendment, a ban on federal funding for abortion care.

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, told CNN’s State of the Union Sunday that Kaine “has said that he will stand with Secretary Clinton to defend a woman’s right to choose, to repeal the Hyde amendment,” according to the network’s transcript.

“Voters can be 100 percent confident that Tim Kaine is going to fight to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Mook said.

The commitment to opposing Hyde was “made privately,” Clinton spokesperson Jesse Ferguson later clarified to CNN’s Edward Mejia Davis.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Kaine’s stated support for ending the federal ban on abortion funding is a reversal on the issue for the Virginia senator. Kaine this month told the Weekly Standard  that he had not “been informed” that this year’s Democratic Party platform included a call for repealing the Hyde Amendment. He said he has “traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde amendment.”

Repealing the Hyde Amendment has been an issue for Democrats on the campaign trail this election cycle. Speaking at a campaign rally in New Hampshire in January, Clinton denounced Hyde, noting that it made it “harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.”

Clinton called the federal ban on abortion funding “hard to justify” when asked about it later that month at the Brown and Black Presidential Forum, adding that “the full range of reproductive health rights that women should have includes access to safe and legal abortion.”

Clinton’s campaign told Rewire during her 2008 run for president that she “does not support the Hyde amendment.”

The Democratic Party on Monday codified its commitment to opposing Hyde, as well as the Helms Amendment’s ban on foreign assistance funds being used for abortion care. 

The Obama administration, however, has not signaled support for rolling back Hyde’s ban on federal funding for abortion care.

When asked about whether the president supported the repeal of Hyde during the White House press briefing Tuesday, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said he did not “believe we have changed our position on the Hyde Amendment.”

When pushed by a reporter to address if the administration is “not necessarily on board” with the Democratic platform’s call to repeal Hyde, Schultz said that the administration has “a longstanding view on this and I don’t have any changes in our position to announce today.”

News Politics

Democratic Party Platform: Repeal Bans on Federal Funding for Abortion Care

Ally Boguhn

When asked this month about the platform’s opposition to Hyde, Hillary Clinton’s running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said that he had not “been informed of that” change to the platform though he has “traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde Amendment.”

Democrats voted on their party platform Monday, codifying for the first time the party’s stated commitment to repealing restrictions on federal funding for abortion care.

The platform includes a call to repeal the Hyde Amendment, an appropriations ban on federal funding for abortion reimplemented on a yearly basis. The amendment disproportionately affects people of color and those with low incomes.

“We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured,” states the Democratic Party platform. “We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

The platform also calls for an end to the Helms Amendment, which ensures that “no foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Though Helms allows funding for abortion care in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, the Obama administration has failed to enforce those guarantees.

Despite the platform’s opposition to the restrictions on abortion care funding, it makes no mention of how the anti-choice measures would be rolled back.

Both presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have promised to address Hyde and Helms if elected. Clinton has said she would “fix the Helms Amendment.”

Speaking at the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum in January, Clinton said that the Hyde Amendment “is just hard to justify because … certainly the full range of reproductive health rights that women should have includes access to safe and legal abortion.” In 2008, Clinton’s campaign told Rewire that she “does not support the Hyde amendment.”

When asked this month about the platform’s opposition to Hyde, Clinton’s running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said in an interview with the Weekly Standard that he had not “been informed of that” change to the platform though he has “traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde amendment.”

“The Hyde amendment and Helms amendment have prevented countless low-income women from being able to make their own decisions about health, family, and future,” NARAL President Ilyse Hogue said in a statement, addressing an early draft of the platform. “These amendments have ensured that a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion is a right that’s easier to access if you have the resources to afford it. That’s wrong and stands directly in contrast with the Democratic Party’s principles, and we applaud the Party for reaffirming this in the platform.”