The premiere of “Belén”, the film by Dolores Fonzi inspired by the case of a young woman from Tucumán who was imprisoned after a spontaneous abortion, sparked a seemingly decisive debate about the criminalization of women for abortions.
However, despite the legalization of abortion in Argentina in 2020, women continue to be imprisoned for obstetric events, i.e. involuntary abortions, which have been treated as a crime rather than a medical situation. Young women in precarious circumstances are particularly affected by these accusations.
International human rights organizations, particularly the Inter-American Court, have already pointed out that these punitive responses constitute institutional violence, discrimination and due process violations.
In Argentina, one of the cases that reflects this pattern today is that of Paola Ortiz, who was imprisoned in Córdoba 13 years ago after suffering an avalanche birth, an obstetric emergency that occurred suddenly and with high risk.
A court case marked by stereotypes
Paola Ortiz was charged with aggravated murder by bond and sentenced to life in prison after an avalanche birth. According to her defense, the trial was plagued by irregularities, with Paola testifying without legal representation, being stigmatized as a “bad mother,” and using an expert report as key evidence that did not allow the live birth of the fetus to be established with certainty.
The context of extreme vulnerability was also not taken into account. Paola lived in poverty, without support networks and experienced physical, psychological, sexual and economic violence for years. The case changed coverage several times and the verdict was based on unrealistic expectations of how a woman should behave in an obstetric emergency and required medical knowledge that she did not possess.
Since 2022, Catholics for the Right to Decide has been pursuing an appeal before the Supreme Court of Córdoba. The proposal is essentially based, among other things, on the international jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Justice.
What the Inter-American Court said
In the case “Manuela and others vs. El Salvador” (2021), the Inter-American Court analyzed the situation of a woman who suffered an obstetric emergency, was reported by health workers and was ultimately convicted of aggravated homicide. There, the authority concluded that the allegation was based on gender stereotypes, violations of medical confidentiality, misapplication of criminal law and an investigation marked by prejudice. The court warned that there is a systematic discriminatory criminalization of women in vulnerable situations when they face obstetric emergencies.
According to Paola’s defense, these elements also appear in her case because her structural vulnerability was not assessed, insufficient evidence was used and the investigation was characterized by stigmatization about motherhood and unrealistic expectations about how she should behave in a situation of extreme risk.
Another relevant precedent is Beatriz and Others vs. El Salvador (2023), which analyzed the state’s refusal to allow a patient with a serious illness and a non-viable pregnancy to have a therapeutic abortion, a medical procedure necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. Although this was not a criminalized obstetric emergency, the Court established a principle applicable to this context that states must ensure health care without criminalization.
A regional pattern that continues
International organizations have identified a regional pattern of treating obstetric emergencies as crimes rather than medical situations. Many of these elements appear in Paola’s case: presumption of guilt, stereotypes of a “bad mother”, lack of adequate medical care, lack of an effective defense and a criminal procedure that took the place of medical intervention.
The story that Belén brings back into the public conversation shows that these cases are not isolated. While the film is being screened at international festivals, the review of Paola’s file is still pending.