The death of a baby conceived in rape and the sentencing of his teen mother for “aggravated
A multitude of news stories have quickly been published globally, using this case to justify the legalization of abortion. In each of these one-sided articles, either someone from the pro-abortion Amnesty International is quoted or from the Citizens’ Group for the Decriminalisation of Abortion. It’s no surprise that earlier this year, a bill was introduced in El Salvador to legalize abortion in cases of rape. It is evident that they see this as the opportunity to pounce.
As the founder and president of Save The 1 – a global pro-life organization with a network of over 500 conceived in rape (like me,) or mothers who became pregnant by rape, I have great concern that only one viewpoint is being expressed in the news coverage thus far, and facts are being subverted.
The news articles all demonstrate that there was a trial and a sentencing, but you will find that the various articles provide different information about what really occurred in this case – some seem to intentionally be omitting pertinent information. Some articles indicate that local media reported that she was convicted on the grounds that she did not seek “antenatal care.” However, given the facts, the circumstances are quite a bit more alarming than that.
Many cite the Guardian article as their source, where it was reported not only that Cruz gave birth in the toilet, but also that she was arrested after the police found the baby still in the toilet. This tells me that there was no effort to remove the baby from the toilet. The reports say that medical experts could not ascertain whether the baby was born alive or stillborn, but leaving a baby in the toilet to potentially drown to death is more than failing to obtain ante-natal care.
According to the Sun article, the judge believed she dropped the baby in the toilet to die – which would be premeditated murder under the law. The Guardian news story also says that, at sentencing, the judge expressed that it seemed apparent that the girls’ mother played some role as well. I have to wonder what came out at trial. I’m finding that it takes reading dozens of articles to get a broader picture than what the pro-aborts would have everyone believe.
This BBC article explains that her mother drove the 18 year old to the hospital for care due to anemia, while leaving the baby in the toilet – very strange behavior if they weren't trying to hide something.
All reports indicate that the young mother (18 at the time,) was suffering on-going gang rape. If she was living at home with her mother, perhaps she knew or should have known her daughter was being raped. I find it unconscionable that none of these articles are reporting what efforts, if any, had been made for the girl to be protected, and there are no quotes from advocates expressing such concern.
What we often find, is that a girl’s own mother may be participating in her trafficking, or at the very least, leaving her neglected or unprotected. Alternatively, we find that it is the police who have left rape victims unprotected, with no hope for obtaining justice.
Regardless, it is most often the case that the baby is the one who finally exposes the rape, and delivers her out of the abusive situation. It is typically the baby who protects the rape victim, by bringing the rape to the light of day so she can obtain justice, or because the child motivates her to escape her circumstances and seek a better life. In this particular case, it seems clear that the baby did indeed expose the rape, but too late for her to obtain proper justice.
Abortion actually enables and protects sex traffickers, rapists and child molesters, by destroying the evidence, and allowing them to continue perpetrating. Rapists LOVE abortion!
Again, there is surely so much we do not know in this particular case – many facts which would undoubtedly work against the interests of the abortion rights lobby. Their story line is that the baby was stillborn and she’s being convicted for homicide, and that legalized abortion would have been the solution for her.
The BBC report indicates that she was initially charged with having procured an abortion. Yet, Cruz told the court, “I did not want to kill my son.” Her own admissions counter what the abortion lobby is saying! Like most rape victims who become pregnant, she did not want to end the life of her child.
Cruz is being exploited by the abortion lobby, while her own testimony, sworn under oath, is that she never wanted to end her baby’s life. This is much like the exploitation of Sandra Cano – Jane Doe from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Doe v Bolton, which was the companion case to Roe vs Wade, together having legalized abortion in the U.S.. Cano since testified under oath that she had never even sought an abortion during her pregnancy, but was exploited by pro-abortion lawyers.
Cruz’s own story is absolutely tragic. Just like her son, she deserved to have been protected. Justice would have been served with the rapists having been punished – not her and not her innocent son. We should all be advocating for the punishment of rapists, not babies.
So the question is, what should her penalty have been, if any? If she had procured an abortion, what would be the appropriate judicial solution? How do we provide a proper deterrent to abort, and incentive for rape victims to report their rapists, and abortionists? I believe the answer is to legislate whistle-blower statutes – to offer women immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony against the abortion provider. This way, there would be a disincentive to anyone else to provide an abortion, for fear that the women would turn them in.
Several of the women in our network of 500 are post-abortive from rape, and they are now speaking out regarding their rapes and the loss of their children through abortion. Do I wish to see these women in prison? No. I think justice would be served if they could report their abortion providers and if they could sue the abortionists in civil court for wrongful death of their children.
A rape victim who has already been exploited is prone to further exploitation and more violence is never the solution. A rape victim deserves to be protected from the rapist, and from the abortion – and not the baby! The baby is not the perpetrator. The baby is not harming her.
My daughter at 6 years old wrote: “Conceived in rape is not bad because that’s my mom. Rape is bad and abortion is bad because they both hurt people.” This is a basic truth which everyone must understand. We don’t have to ever be “either/or" is our approach to pregnant rape victims. We can care about a rape victim while at the same time caring about her innocent child.
This case of Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz and her deceased son is tragic, but the outcome is no justification for the legalization of killing other innocent children.
BIO: Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker, writer and attorney, as well as a wifeSave The 1 (Spanish division is Salvar El 1, co-founder of Hope After Rape Conception, co-founder of Embryo Defense, and on the Executive Committee of Personhood Alliance.