Thursday, July 19, 2007

Netherlands Threatens Nicaragua over Conservative Abortion Laws

This the "Friday Fax" from C-FAM two weeks ago, written by Samantha Singson.

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) Bert Koenders, Dutch Minister of Development, has told the government of Nicaragua that his country may withdraw much needed development assistance unless Nicaragua liberalizes its abortion laws.

Last October, the national Parliament of Nicaragua unanimously modified its penal code to ban all abortions. Prior to the vote, a coalition of UN officials and country representatives, including UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) tried to stop the Parliament from changing the law.

Since the legislation passed, the Nicaraguan government has been the subject of increasing pressure from the pro-abortion radicals from around the world. Last January the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women told Nicaragua to review “laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions.” Human Rights Watch mounted a legal challenge to the Nicaragua’s abortion law claiming that Nicaragua’s ban on abortion is contrary to international documents. The nation’s high court is expected to deliver a decision in the case in the coming months.

Nicaragua has repeatedly spoken out at the UN in defense of its pro-life constitution and laws. At both the Cairo and Beijing conference, as well as at other UN meetings such as the Disabilities Convention negotiations, the Nicaraguan delegation defended the right to life from the moment of conception and stated that abortion or the termination of pregnancy cannot in any way be considered a method of regulating fertility or birth control. Nicaragua has also stated that “The domestic laws governing [abortion] are within the sovereign purview of the Nicaraguan nation.”

This is not the first time that Nicaraguan aid has been threatened because of the government’s conservative position regarding life and family. In 2000, Scandinavian representatives threatened to withdraw much needed financial assistance from hurricane-ravaged Nicaragua. Several Scandinavian ambassadors chastised Nicaraguan representative Max Padilla for representing the conservative views of his government which included resisting any attempts to: expand access to abortion, redefine the family to include homosexual couples and redefine gender to mean a “social construct” instead of a biological distinction. Padilla’s refusal to change the definition of gender resulted in his dismissal.

“Even if an abortion is medically necessary, it still remains illegal in Nicaragua, which results in the death of women. We should emphasize that this is completely unacceptable,” Koenders told the Dutch Platform of Millennium Goals. He continued, “I do not want to immediately cancel our aid to Nicaragua, but we will certainly weigh the matter.”

British MEP Nirj Deva told the Friday Fax, “This latest threat by the Netherlands to withdraw financial assistance to Nicaragua because of the abortion ban is not an EU initiative but an instance of one EU member state speaking unilaterally on this subject.” Mr. Deva added, “This certainly is not reflective of a unified EU position on the matter.”

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 19, 2007

    i know you've got a heavy religious theme to this blog, but I'll just put it out there, regarding their legal/diplomatic rights as a country, the Netherlands can do what they want.
    If they choose to put conditions on their aid to "hurricane-ravaged Nicaragua" they can as far as I am concerned and everyone else concerned with rule of law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll contribute two thoughts:

    - Does the discussion of the morality, or justness, of abortion pertain to the domain of religion or natural reason, or both?

    - Is the "legality" of abortion at all legitimate? That is to say; does the sanction of abortion contribute to those ends for which law is constructed in the first place? Throughout history "laws" have been enacted that were clearly opposed to right reason. Does the court's imprimatur give that particular law de facto infallibility?

    ReplyDelete