Media

Lies going unchallenged

Whitey Ford

Sure, it's tiresome to be always refuting the lies that the forced childbirth crew spew, but it must be done, and I don't see it happening. Where is the pushback to the recent false and inflamatory quote in a national publication that, "Planned Parenthood raked in more than $300 million in profits..."

Just the other day, the new head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (probably mangling her name) correctly and truthfully said that the Republicans are anti-women and that she was planning to mobilize women to vote against the Republicans who are advancing legislation that negatively affects women. (Good Idea!!!)

In covering this story for US News and World Report, in the column, Washington Whispers, Paul Bedard decided that a true statement by a nationally respected and powerful member of Congress who will be directing the election campaign for the whole Democratic Party needed balance, or something, so he turned to the leader of an anti-abortion group and quoted her factually incorrect and inflamatory remark, “Planned Parenthood has raked in more than $300 million in profits over the past four years…” (Marjorie Dannenfelser)

He didn’t add any qualifier or note that this is disputed. Oh well, surely someone will challenge this smear in the comments? Nope, just right wing vitriol aimed at Schultz. Then I thought, one of the feminist bloggers will write about this, so I looked around, and nope, nothing. Does Planned Parenthood have a site where I can easily access some numbers to disprove the statement? No. And besides, PP is a non-profit and just like any other non profit, it’s innacurate to say that they “rake in profits.” Media Matters, anything on this there? No. How about RHRealityCheck, anything there on how part of the drastic new attacks on reproductive rights is achieved is through outright lies? A short article calling Mr. Bedard out for including an innacurate “counter-point”? A call to write to the editors of US News and World Report about this quote?

No. A big fat silence in response to this column. This is why we’re getting creamed.

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

If Democrats and women hope to win elections, a quote like this has to be pounced on. It’s disheartening to see the pathetic non response to a horribly biased and damaging assertion in a nationally influential publication.

Analysis Politics

The Real Story Behind Candidates’ Stances on Detention Centers

Tina Vasquez

Whether they are run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or a for-profit entity, detention centers are alarming for a number of reasons, as are the connections some politicians have to them.

When discussing immigrants’ rights, presidential candidates tend to focus solely on how their administration would create a pathway to citizenship and funnel more resources to the border. But detention centers are perhaps the most troubling and overlooked aspect of the United States’ broken immigration system, and they are a topic many major media outlets are failing to engage candidates on.

And even when detention centers are brought up, candidates don’t always clearly articulate a stance. For example, even when a candidate is pushing for an end to privately run detention centers, they aren’t necessarily calling for an end to the detention of undocumented folks. This is certainly true of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, neither of whom is vowing to disrupt the detention system, just who oversees it.

But whether they are run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or a for-profit entity, detention centers are alarming for a number of reasons, as are the connections some politicians have to them.

Before examining the candidates’ stances on—and ties to—detention, it’s important to understand which institutions are behind the current explosion of facilities here in the United States.

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

Detention Centers, Explained

The number of immigrants in detention centers has steadily increased since the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Under these policies, mandatory detention of non-citizens became the norm, despite the fact that, as noted by the American Civil Liberties Union, prolonged detention is a violation of the right to due process.

Simply put, detention—and family detention in particularis inhumane. Women and children fleeing violence in their countries of origin, for example, present themselves at the border as asylum seekers, as is required by law, yet they’re placed in what are essentially prisons with their young children. They also remain in detention indefinitely, often in unsafe conditions. According to the American Immigration Council, because “there are no statutory limits to the amount of time a non-citizen may be held in immigration detention,” the length of detention stays for asylum seekers varies depending on, among other factors, the status of their application. For asylum applicants, the average length of detention is 65 days, but many asylum applicants are kept in immigration detention for several months, sometimes even years.

U.S. government policies ensure that there are always plenty of people in detention. As the Nation reported in August 2014, the United States keeps at least 34,000 undocumented immigrants in detention each day for the purpose of meeting a quota, also known as the “detention-bed mandate.” The quota, which the Nation reported took effect in 2007, appears in the federal law that appropriates funding for ICE. Advocates contend the quota is linked to industry lobbying. Since its implementation, “the quota has become a driver of an increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement strategy,” according to the Texas-based organization Grassroots Leadership.

The expansion of the immigration detention system has proven to be profitable for private prison corporations and local governments. Of the roughly 350 facilities used to detain immigrants by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), only about eight are owned and run by ICE. According to the National Immigration Forum, ICE contracts with more than 240 state and county jails and private correctional corporations to house immigrant detainees.

The average U.S. citizen isn’t aware that detention centers may exist in their community, even though it’s costing taxpayers billions. The system operates without much visibility, yet in 2014 DHS requested some $2 billion in detention funding for the year; the agency maintains the detention system costs over $5 million a day.

“Family detention centers” are specifically used to detain mothers and their young children, often asylum seekers fleeing gender-based violence. Reports have found that the conditions in detention centers are entirely inappropriate for mothers and children, and that detention often traumatizes families, undermines the basic family structure, and has a devastating psychosocial impact. Privately run centers, in particular, have seen numerous allegations of human rights violations over the years, including accusations of child abuse, physical and sexual abuse, sleep deprivation, and use of solitary confinement.

Immigrants in all detention centers are regularly denied basic due process rights, with no government-appointed attorneys for those in deportation proceedings.

How Private Companies Profit

The for-profit businesses behind the facilities have raked in billions from the detention of undocumented communities and, in turn, have made campaign contributions to support some unlikely bedfellows.

The two largest for-profit prison companies in the United States, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), make anywhere from $122 to $159 per detainee per day. At the former family detention center in Texas, the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, CCA has been able to receive up to $200 a day per detainee, according to Detention Watch Network.

Recently, the research firm In the Public Interest illustrated how private companies profit from all corners of America’s detention system, from the detention facility to the bail bonds to GPS ankle monitoring to the deportation itself.

The often unlawful imprisonment of undocumented immigrants has created a new market that primarily benefits for-profit prison companies.

It should come as no surprise why GEO and CCA have a combined annual revenue of $3.3 billion. These companies also regularly lobby Congress for more detention centers, according to the Washington Post. GEO and CCA have spent nearly $25 million on lobbying efforts since 1989.

This broken system, it seems, has also benefited some presidential candidates who have accepted campaign donations tied to privately owned detention centers. There isn’t a single presidential hopeful on either side who has shown a clear understanding of the consequences of detention centers, and some aren’t necessarily advocating for their complete closure.

Hillary Clinton

Last month, during the Fusion Television Brown and Black Democratic Presidential Forum, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised to “end private detention centers,” something she outlined in further detail during December’s National Immigrant Integration Conference, saying, “There are people in immigration detention right now who are on a hunger strike. We need to be focused on detention conditions. And as president, I’ll close private immigration detention centers. This is a critical government responsibility, and we should not be outsourcing it to anyone else.”

These declarations can serve Clinton well. A recent Gallup poll found that 20 percent of nearly 2,000 registered voters said they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on immigration, while another 60 percent said they consider the candidates’ stance on immigration one of many important issues they will take into consideration on Election Day. But those looking to vote for a candidate who wants to abolish the detention system need to take a closer look at what Clinton is really saying.

There is a stark difference between vowing to close detention centers entirely because they are unethical and profit off of vulnerable communities, and vowing to close private immigration detention centers.

On Clinton’s site, her stance is clearly articulated: “She [Clinton] believes we should move away from contracting out this critical government function to private corporations and private industry incentives that may contribute—or have the appearance of contributing—to over-incarceration.”

In May, Clinton earned the applause of immigration advocates when at a roundtable in Nevada, she said she was “very worried about detention and detention facilities for people who are vulnerable and for children,” saying the focus should be on detaining immigrants who have “a record of violent, illegal behavior.”

These kinds of statements paint a tidy picture of the very complex reality of immigrants’ lives. Sometimes those who are vulnerable have criminal records and often, those people are parents.

Clinton added, according to the U.S. News and World Report:

“I don’t think we should put children and vulnerable people into big detention facilities because I think they’re at risk. I think that their physical and mental health are at risk,” [she] said, adding that the government should be giving such migrants support and representation while changing the current processes “within the kind of discretion … the president has exercised with his executive orders.”

Put plainly, Clinton’s plan is to stop the privatization of detention centers and instead, make them a function solely of the government. In October, Clinton’s campaign spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa released a statement on Clinton’s behalf further outlining her plan, saying Clinton “believes that we should not contract out this core responsibility of the federal government, and when we’re dealing with a mass incarceration crisis, we don’t need private industry incentives that may contributeor have the appearance of contributingto over-incarceration.”

It’s also important to note that the presidential hopeful’s campaign and PAC has had ties to privately owned detention centers. As the Intercept reported in July, two of the Clinton campaign’s fundraisers are connected to two major prison companies, and Vice reported in October that lobbying firms working for GEO and CCA gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC. Clinton has since said she will stop accepting campaign contributions from those corporations and the lobbyists who work for them.

Bernie Sanders

Unlike Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has not accepted contributions from big-name supporters with ties to private detention centers, but like her, it is his goal to end private centers. Within three years, the senator from Vermont wants to put an end to all of the government’s private prison and detention center contracts with the hope of curbing the country’s soaring mass incarceration rate.

In September, Sanders announced that he was co-sponsoring the Justice Is Not For Sale Act, which aims to reduce the inmate population in federal, state, and local facilities that has skyrocketed because of “draconian criminal laws, politically powerful corporations profiting from incarceration, immigration enforcement policies, and strict policies regarding parole and release of prisoners.”

Three of the legislation’s seven proposed reforms are detention center-related. Sanders and co-sponsor, Arizona congressman Raúl M. Grijalva (D), aim to require ICE to improve the monitoring of detention facilities to “ensure humane treatment of detainees,” and end family detention and the bed quota.

Sanders is also pushing to see immigrants in detention released and monitored through ankle bracelets or required check-ins with immigration agents. His plan is being called ambitious, but like Clinton, Sanders has done little to quell advocates’ fear that private detention centers will simply be replaced by government-run detention centers.

Marco Rubio

While Donald Trump garners most of the headlines about immigration on the GOP side because of his egregious, racist comments, it’s actually Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) who has the most nefarious ties to the immigrant detention system. Rubio’s PACs and campaign have taken a total of $133,450 from private prison companies or groups that lobby on their behalf, but Rubio’s relationship with these companies goes back further than the campaign trail.

As the Washington Post reported, Rubio has had close ties to GEO for years, since his time as speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. The Republican Party of Florida PAC has received over $2 million from GEO and CCA since 1989 and in 2010, GEO and its affiliates provided $33,500 to political action committees benefiting Florida Republicans, including the Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate PAC. As of April 2015, GEO’s co-founder and chief executive, George Zoley, had personally donated thousands of dollars to Rubio.

This is not just a matter of accepting money from companies with histories of human rights abuse allegations in their detention centers and prisons. The bigger question, especially as it relates to Rubio, is how accepting this money influences policyand it seems to have done so. There are documented instances of private-prison companies appearing to influence policies that put more people in detention centers, including Arizona’s racist immigration lawswhich pass, in part, because of companies like GEO and CCA that lobby for funding for ICE.

The Center for Media and Democracy detailed how Rubio’s connections to GEO during his time in the Florida house gave the private prison company a seat at the table. Rubio hired Donna Arduin as an economic consultant; Arduin is a former trustee for GEO’s Correctional Properties Trust. According to reports, Arduin worked with Rubio’s then-budget chief, Ray Sansom, to push a $110 million deal for a new GEO prison in the House Appropriations Bill. In the same report, the Center for Media and Democracy detailed how legislation that benefited GEO followed Arduin’s presence in government from California to Florida.

When Rubio won the Senate seat in 2011, he appointed Cesar Conda as his chief of staff. Conda was co-founder of what would become GEO’s main lobbying firm, Navigators Global. While working with Rubio, Conda still received payments of $150,000 from Navigators Global as part of a stock buyout arrangement. The Washington Post reports that in April 2014, Conda went on to lead Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC as a senior adviser, until rejoining Navigators Global in November of that year. During Conda’s time with Rubio, GEO became a top-ten contributor to Reclaim America, giving $16,000 in 2014. Navigators Global also obtained $610,000 from GEO between 2011 and 2014, all while it lobbied for immigration reform on GEO’s behalf.

Rubio does not address detention once in his immigration plan.

Ted Cruz

According to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s immigration plan, the number of people in detention will increase dramatically under his administration, as will the resources used to imprison them.

The Texas senator asserts there haven’t been nearly as many deportations under President Obama as possible—and in his estimation, as necessary. According to Cruz’s website, “During the first five years of the Obama Administration, President Obama removed or returned only 3.8 million ‘illegal’ entrants. That is a fraction of the removals and returns during the previous five years, and a fraction of what we could accomplish if we had a President who actually forced DHS to do its job and removed politics from an agency charged with law enforcement. As President, I would do just that.”

Cruz wants to funnel more resources to DHS to expand the number of deportees, asserting that everyone “apprehended trying to enter the United States without permission will be detained until they are removed from the United States.”

Despite reports finding that family detention is harmful and inhumane, Cruz wants to double down on all detention, including keeping asylum seekers detained as their cases are pending. Specifically, as it relates to asylum seekers, Cruz wants to “utilize the executive branch’s discretionary authority to ensure detention is enforced in all asylum cases. Detention of those making asylum claims will ensure rapid processing of legitimate claims and rapid deportation of false claims, and will go a long way toward discouraging those with bogus claims from attempting to come here.”

Cruz is advocating that detention centers be government-run and asserting that ICE-run detention centers are a priority. The senator plans to “[s]upport ICE agents and their enforcement efforts by significantly increasing permanent detention capacity for illegal immigrants in the interior of the United States, and give ICE leadership the flexibility to procure additional, temporary detention space from the General Services Administration and state and local law enforcement on an as-needed basis. The Obama Administration has limited detention space for illegal immigrants who are taken into custody to limit the ability of ICE agents to detain illegal immigrants and begin the process of deportation. I will end that practice.”

Donald Trump

Billionaire and former reality TV show host Donald Trump has said a lot about immigration, but not much about detention centers. Given his plan to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United Statesand their U.S. citizen children—using a “deportation force,” it’s safe to say the conditions in detention centers aren’t a concern to him.

Keep in mind, Trump is literally modeling his approach to deportation after President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1954 program “Operation Wetback,” a military-style, government operation that resulted in the mass deportation of one million people. According to CNN, the policy “plucked Mexican laborers from fields and ranches in targeted raids, bused them to detention centers along the border, and ultimately sent many of them deep into the interior of Mexico, some by airlift, others on cargo boats that typically hauled bananas.”

In her book Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America, author Mae Ngai included a congressional report that compared the conditions on the boats to those of 18th-century slave ships. The program ended after a number of deaths due to sunstroke and drownings, but the Eisenhower administration still characterized it as a “success.”

In a recent interview, when a reporter pointed out to Trump that “Operation Wetback” is seen by many as a “shameful chapter in American history,” Trump responded, “Well, some people do, and some people think it was a very effective chapter. When they brought them back [to Mexico], they removed some, everybody else left. And it was very successful, everyone said. So I mean, that’s the way it is. Look, we either have a country, or we don’t. If we don’t have strong borders, we have a problem.”

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that the American immigration detention system locks up hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year, exposing them to brutal and inhumane conditions—and it’s unnecessary. Unless policies change and politicians push for more than simply having government-run detention centers, the human rights abuses experienced by undocumented immigrants in detention will only continue.

Analysis Media

Heavily Edited Attack Videos Jeopardizing Fight for Women’s Rights Abroad

Kathy Bougher

In El Salvador, where abortion is illegal even in cases of rape, incest, and maternal danger, on-the-ground feminist organizations have been targeted by mainstream news media outlets publishing articles based on the Center for Medical Progress’ deceptive undercover videos.

See more of our coverage on the effects of the misleading Center for Medical Progress videos here.

The effects of conservative efforts to spread falsehoods about Planned Parenthood are not just limited to the United States. In El Salvador, where abortion is illegal even in cases of rape, incest, and maternal danger, on-the-ground feminist organizations have been targeted by mainstream news media outlets publishing articles based on the Center for Medical Progress’ deceptive, heavily edited undercover videos. These are, in turn, increasing the fear and resistance around the push for safe and legal abortion in the country.

In its August 16 Sunday edition, La Prensa Gráfica (LPG), a conservative major mainstream daily newspaper, published an article headlined in Spanish, Money from NGO linked to organ trafficking is used in pro-abortion campaign.”

The piece, written by frequent LPG contributor Byron Sosa, relied on patently false information. In addition to regarding as factual CMP’s allegations that Planned Parenthood “sells baby parts,” Sosa wrongly tied the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), whose affiliates are featured in the undercover videos, to groups in El Salvador—namely, the Agruapación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto (Citizen Group for the Decriminalization of Abortion) and a sister organization, the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local (Feminist Collective for Local Development).

The Agrupación in particular has attracted attention in the last few years for defending the right of a woman named “Beatriz” to interrupt a pregnancy that put her health and life at risk. The organization also works to free Las 17, a group of women unjustly imprisoned with aggravated homicide convictions when they suffered miscarriages or obstetrical complications that led to the deaths of their fetuses. The Colectiva Feminista, which works closely with the Agrupación and shares office space with them, is a national feminist organization that works with several local groups in the country around issues of local development, violence, human rights, the environment, and more. Many of the volunteers who work with the Agrupación are also part of the Colectiva.

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

In his piece, Sosa quoted Sara Larín, president of the Movimiento VIDA SV, an anti-choice group. Noting that the Agrupación receives funds from the Safe Abortion Action Fund (SAAF), Larin claimed this money comes from PPFA, itself, she says, an organization that profits off the “sale” of fetal tissue. She said the Agrupación is working to “promote the practice of abortion in El Salvador,” and that this work is of a “criminal nature.” Though Larín was referring to the Agrupación’s efforts to modify the total ban on abortion, she also used the false claims around PPFA to bolster her argument.  

To date, investigations in the United States have failed to find any evidence of Planned Parenthood breaking the law with its fetal tissue donation program. In addition, the Salvadoran groups in question do not receive any funding from PPFA. Rather, the SAAF money they receive is linked to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), an international organization that works with non-governmental organizations around the world. 

The conflation of PPFA and IPPF was a frequent theme throughout Sosa’s article; he also named PPFA officials who appeared in the videos as working for IPPF.

Sosa cited ACI Prensa, a conservative Catholic information agency in Lima, Peru, as saying that the videos allegedly proved Planned Parenthood sold, as Sosa put it, “the organs of aborted babies.” That agency also failed to distinguish between the IPPF and the PPFA.

The reporter also claimed that he attempted to contact the Agrupación, but did not receive a response. Agrupación representatives told Rewire that neither group was contacted.

Nowhere in the piece did Sosa mention the fact that experts say the videos were edited or that there has been no evidence of PPFA breaking the law.

The LPG article, however, was just the most recent in a series of media accusations inspired by the CMP videos. A July 27 ACI Prensa article quoted Larín as claiming that “the abortion lobby in El Salvador is being financed by [Planned Parenthood’s] sale of the organs of aborted babies.” She also criticized the Salvadoran government for having granted the Agrupación nonprofit status in 2014, implying that the Agrupación was sharing in the profits of those alleged sales.

The ACI Prensa followed up on August 5 with an article “revealing” the existence of a letter of support for Planned Parenthood in the wake of the CMP videos, a letter that was indeed signed by dozens of groups that defend reproductive rights in Latin America, including the Agrupación and the Colectiva Feminista. The article, a clear effort to drum up backlash against the groups, also claimed to link many of these organizations to “Planned Parenthood” funding, although distinctions were not made among IPPF, PFFA, and “Planned Parenthood.”

On August 15, in another right-wing Salvadoran mainstream daily paper, El Diario de Hoy, an anti-choice columnist published accusations linking the Agrupación with Planned Parenthood, again not noting whether she meant PPFA or IPPF. The writer, who has a history of defamatory columns, called the Agrupación “abortionists”—a potentially criminal accusation in a country where the procedure is illegal—and called their work “sinister.” She included the initials of Agrupación leader Morena Herrera, potentially to accuse Herrera without putting herself at risk by naming Herrera outright.

The Agrupación and the Colectiva Feminista refute all these claims. In a document they issued as part of a call for solidarity after the LPG piece, they explained:

The Agrupación and the Colectiva Feminista oppose the attacks on PPFA because they place at risk the rights and the health services that the organization offers, especially to women in the poorest sectors in the U.S., including our immigrant population.

The two Salvadoran groups do have a grant which runs from 2014 to 2017 from SAAF, which is linked to IPPF … The goals of that grant do indeed include efforts to discuss publicly the consequences of the absolute ban on abortion and to explore the possibilities for legislative change.  

The document also pointed out that the LPG had not mentioned the fact that “multiple journalistic investigations … reveal the lack of credibility and the intense manipulation used by the CMP campaign.”

Overall, they concluded, “the reporting from this news media has not contributed to providing balanced and credible information to the Salvadoran society, but rather a sensationalist treatment that generates uncertainty and anxiety.”

Under Salvadoran law, the groups have the right to demand space in the LPG to write a response letter. The “right to response” demand from the Agrupación and the Colectiva Feminista, which was provided to Rewire, stated that the daily published “untrue news against our organizations,” that the news outlet demonstrated “little professionalism,” and that it acted with “pernicious intentions that harm our institutional and personal safety.”

The document continued, “Your statements are defamatory and intend to slow our work as human rights defenders, putting at risk the personal security of our members.”

The Agrupación and the Colectiva Feminista have requested space for an article of the same dimensions and location (in a Sunday edition) as the original article in order to respond to the false accusations made. They have also made clear that they invoked the “right to response” not only for the immediate situation, but for a possible future legal action against the newspaper.

The request for a right to response was delivered to the newspaper on August 21. Although by law, the LPG has three business days to respond, as of more than a month later, the Agrupación has not received a response, according to an email from Morena Herrera, Agrupación president, to Rewire. The Agrupación is now exploring other legal avenues.

Representatives from other human rights organizations feel that the resurgence of articles in outlets like these signal another push to limit reproductive rights for Salvadoran women.

After the LPG article was published, Axela Romero Cardenas, executive secretary of the Iniciativa Mesoamericana de Mujeres Defensoras de Derechos Humanos (Mesoamerican Initiative of the Women Human Rights Defenders), sent a statement to Michele Frost, the special rapporteur from the United Nations, notifying her of the situation. Cardenas characterized it as a “reactivation of a campaign of disparagement that fundamentalist religious groups are carrying out internationally against defenders and organizations that defend women’s sexual and reproductive rights in Latin America,” in particular, those who work to eradicate the consequences of the absolute criminalization of abortion in their respective countries.  

Romero also emphasized that these groups have had total freedom to spread their false statements without evidence. Thus far, she noted, the Salvadoran government has not stepped in to take “any type of provisional means to preserve the security, the safety and the work of the groups of defenders.”

She went on to detail how the fundamentalist campaign “has exposed private documents of the organizations, but above all has mentioned their names, inciting the exacerbation of violence against them when they refer to them as terrorists and abortionists.”  

These expressions polarize the public, she continued. She requested that the rapporteur be alert to any needs for urgent actions “to protect defenders at obvious risk of aggressions.”

Though the members of the Agrupación and the Colectiva have not reported any credible threats in response to this latest campaign, violent backlash against human rights defenders does happen in El Salvador. As Romero noted, this negative media environment could potentially heighten that environment of fear and oppression to a dangerous degree.

In one of numerous letters of solidarity received by the Agrupación, and provided to Rewire, another Salvadoran organization, Mujeres Transformando (Women Transforming), explained that the anti-choice campaign in El Salvador includes groups “with great economic power and with the capacity to generate public opinion by means of the conservative media and with the objective of criminalizing and delegitimizing the defense of sexual and reproductive rights … in this country that is so fundamentalist.”  

In the meantime, the Agrupación continues its campaign to defend the rights of women and to counter the power of mass media. In a radio interview on August 27 Alejandra Burgos, coordinator of the Network of Women Human Rights Defenders, part of the Colectiva Feminista, emphasized, “What we do is legal. This is a democratic country. We work to change a law we consider unjust.”  

She was joined by Katya Recinos, an attorney with the Agrupación’s legal team, who affirmed, “We have the right to talk about abortion, even though it has been a taboo topic. The right attempts to create an environment of misinformation and fear. We make a call to the public to seek out objective information. Don’t buy into the stigmatizing of human rights defenders.”