Marta Maria Blandon and Lorna Norori: "we have successfully challenged two states".

How did you find out about Rosita's situation, and what was the position of the women's movement?

Marta: We found out about the case of this nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl who had become pregnant as the result of rape through the Costa Rican press. Then a number of different positions began to be heard from sectors like the Catholic Church, service providers and Costa Rican government officials who were saying things along the lines of, "It is amazing how human beings are developing; now a nine-year-old girl can become pregnant," and that her parents were "excited at the prospect of becoming grandparents," etc. The fact that the pregnancy was the product of rape was only mentioned in passing.

Se we called together a group from Nicaragua's Red de Mujeres contra la Violencia (Women's Network Against Violence) to take action. We discussed what was happening with this family in Costa Rica and decided to go there. We got in contact with the Procuraduria de los Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Ombudsperson's Office), and we formed a commission to analyze the facts in situ. This commission was comprised of a representative from the Ombudsperson's Office, a representative from the coordinating body of organizations working with children, Lorna and myself. That was the beginning of a long story that I can sum up one sentence: neither the Nicaraguan nor the Costa Rican officials involved wanted this little girl to return to her country of origin.

How did you gain access to the Costa Rican authorities?

Marta: We never introduced ourselves as members of the women's movement or as feminists. We used other identities that were not threatening to these people who in a way had taken control of this family's life. Se we came as members of a high-level commission. I also introduced myself as a representative of Nicaragua's Comision Nacional de Lucha contra la Muerte Materna (National Commission Against Maternal Mortality) of which I am a member. Lorna came as a consultant and an expert in sexual abuse.

But the Costa Rican officials and the Nicaraguan diplomats in Costa Rica advised us to not take Rosita back to her country since it was "so poor." These officials promised to provide the family with all the material things that they needed: a house, food, medicine, work throughout the course of the pregnancy to assure that the "experiment" would be a success, that what was in Rosita's uterus would survive. This "offer" came from the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (PANI, National Child Welfare Agency), the Caja del Seguro Social (Social Security Administration), the Procuraduria de los Derechos de los Habitantes (Inhabitants' Rights Ombudsperson) and the Costa Rican Ministry of Health.

However, when we spoke with the family, we realized that all of their rights had been violated: their right to information, to freedom, to be with their daughter. Rosita was a virtual prisoner. She was forced to stay in bed and told: "Don't stand up. Don't move. You can only get up to go to the bathroom. No, you can't play. Don't you realize you're a mother now? No skipping around, you could lose the baby!"

Rosita's parents are two young, illiterate Nicaraguan immigrants who also had to put up with the stereotypes of immigrant workers in Costa Rica: that they were delinquents, low-lifes, thieves. They were manipulated by the officials who told them that it was their duty to take care of two children now: they gave Rosita's parents baby clothes and magazines with pictures of newborn infants and of developing embryos.

They were lectured on the foods that Rosita should eat for a healthy pregnancy, but they were never told that Rosita could die because her body was not yet prepared for bearing a child. They were never given any alternative but bringing the pregnancy to term.

We witnessed the highest authorities of the National Child Welfare Agency tell Rosita and her parents that they had been blessed by God, that what had happened was a blessing from heaven and they had to accept it, and that surely this baby was going to be someone very important because it could be no random chance that Rosita had been chosen to experience the magnificent event of motherhood at such a young age.

What is the legal status of abortion in Costa Rica?

Marta: Costa Rica's abortion law is much more advanced than Nicaragua's. Article 121 of the Costa Rican Constitution states that abortion practiced with the woman's consent by an authorized physician (or nurse-midwife if a doctor is unavailable) is not a criminal offense if it is done to save the woman's life or health and cannot be avoided by other means. In other words, Rosita could have had an abortion in Costa Rica without fear of punishment.

What obstacles prevented Rosita and her parents from leaving the country?

Marta: We didn't have passports for them, and leaving the country clandestinely was very risky. So our strategy was to prove that we could take care of Rosita's family, and we finally were able to convince the National Child Welfare Agency to let us be responsible for the girl.

On the other hand, we were not able to leave Costa Rica because the parents had to make an official declaration for the trial of the rapist. Even though Rosita's attacker was already in jail, the judge maintained that there was insufficient proof against him. Rosita and other children already had testified that he had abused and raped her, but the court was not satisfied. Why? Xenophobia, prejudice against immigrants. There was even an attempt to accuse Rosita's father of the abuse.

Our number one priority was to get them out of there, which is what the parents wanted. Finally, we did have to sneak them out clandestinely under veiled threats by the Minister of the National Child Welfare Agency who said that we might not be allowed to leave and that Rosita's custody might be taken away from her parents. But we made it to Nicaragua. Rosita was examined by a doctor, and we were able to really talk to her parents calmly and analyze the situation. We explained to them the very serious risks to Rosita's life and offered them our support whether they decided to terminate or continue the pregnancy.

Did you face similar problems in Nicaragua?

Marta: From the very beginning a strategy was developed by the members of the support group that was set up and led by the Red de Mujeres contra la Violencia and many other organizations with long experience in the issues. This coalition of the broader women's movement felt that it was the right time to lobby for an enforceable law allowing therapeutic abortion and to demand that the State take responsibility for Rosita's case. This decision coincided with a struggle to prevent the elimination of therapeutic abortion, a battle long underway in Nicaragua: the Penal Code is currently being reformulated, and "pro-life" groups are urging that the right to therapeutic abortion be removed.

[After they had made their decision], Rosita's parents presented a formal request to the Procurador Especial de la Ninez y Adolescencia (Special Ombudsperson for Children and Adolescents) and the Procurador de los Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Ombudsperson) stating that they wanted their daughter's pregnancy terminated. "We don't want her to die; she is our only daughter. Please help us. We know that she could have a clandestine abortion, but we don't want to run any risks. Please help us see that the law is fulfilled," was their plea to a fairly conservative official who was, in the end, quite sensitive to their situation. It was impressive how this painful reality became a process of growth, of appropriation of their rights, for Rosita's parents.

The Human Rights Ombudsperson then sent a letter to the Ministry of Health recommending that their case be heard. A commission of three medical authorities--who were not opposed to therapeutic abortion--were named to evaluate Rosita, and they made their decision. All this took place in a very tumultuous setting, with public declarations by the Minister of the Family and the Minister of Health, by the highest authorities of the Catholic Church, by representatives of the "pro-life" groups who warned that they would not permit an innocent to child to be killed. The Minister of Health, who was finally removed from her post, even threatened to revoke Rosita's custody from her parents.

In the end, however, the commission issued a rather ambiguous ruling that allowed us to proceed with the termination of pregnancy. We made the ruling known publicly, and the battle then moved on to finding a clinic or hospital and doctors who were willing to perform the procedure. However, we learned that there was an order from the Ministry of Health to all the public and private hospitals throughout the country that if Rosita was sought care, she should be admitted and blood samples should be taken to prove that she had not been given any abortifacient and that this should be reported to the Minister's advisors, an attempt to get the girl back under their control. But thanks to our contacts, we knew about this, and we chose a private clinic where the health care professionals had overcome their fear of the stigma of abortion, which is very serious. The procedure was performed, and six hours later, Rosita was fine. She had stopped vomiting, no longer suffered from any serious side effects and was already playing, like the little girl she is.

Later, we reported to the Human Rights Ombudsperson, and we thanked him for his support. We also gave a press conference that ended in hysteria: the Minister of the Family cried on camera, the Cardinal broke down and threatened to excommunicate us all, the Minster of Health also lost her composure. A private individual with close ties to the Church hierarchy filed a complaint against all of us who were directly involved, and the Office of the Public Prosecutor was obliged to investigate the case in order to settle the matter. We were all investigated and interrogated for hours. In the end, it was found that we had committed no crime. So the complaint was dropped, and the case was closed.

In your opinion how has Rosita held up throughout this ordeal? What might be the long-term effects on her and her family?

Lorna: Rosita was treated in much the same way as Paulina, the Mexican girl who had been raped and was denied a legal abortion. The strategy in Costa Rica was control of information. The less informed Rosita and her family were, the greater the chances that the "laboratory" would work. It was also very significant how the fact of the rape, the sexual abuse and all the suffering that this entailed, was passed over and the focus was placed on the abortion: is it legal or not? We called attention to this incongruence.

As specialists in the treatment of girls and women who have been victims of sexual violence and abuse and knowing how rape causes a series of traumatic after-effects, I felt that Rosita was not receiving the care that she needed. She was being killed by this excessive institutionalization, and she was being forced to bring to term a pregnancy that she had not conceived willingly without any treatment for the traumatic consequences of being pregnant as the result of rape. These are factors that become even more complex over time, that slowly grow and can have a serious affect on Rosita's mental health. As she grows older, she may have serious identity problems.

How do Rosita's parents feel? What is their position?

Lorna: They are relieved. They have survived a very hard ordeal, a situation that changed their life since in addition to the pain that Rosita suffered, they also lost their jobs and the stability that they had in Costa Rica. But overall, they are relieved for their daughter.

Nonetheless, there is another stage that they must endure: confronting, accepting and dealing with the traumatic consequences, the stigma of being a victim of rape, her traumatic introduction to sexuality. Her relationship with her parents may also be affected. Even though they protected her as soon as they knew about the rape, this sort of case is very complex. During the period in which the child still does not dare talk about what happened, she feels, consciously or subconsciously, that she was betrayed by her parents. She thinks: "How can it be that Mommy and Daddy don't know what is happening? How can it be that they don't help me?"

But today the family just wants to move on. They are tired and hurt by all they lived through in Costa Rica and in Nicaragua, by the media's invasion of their lives. They agreed to come to Chile because they felt that they could make an important contribution to Chilean society by supporting the reinstatement of a law that will safeguard the lives of women by allowing access to therapeutic abortion, by encouraging the abandonment of the conservative position with which this issue is addressed and by urging that human rights not be mixed with religious opinions. However, we feel that we lost the opportunity for an open and non-sectarian discussion on the television program in which we participated in Chile.

What was learned from this human and political experience, and what factors influenced its success?

Marta: On one hand, we believe that Rosita's case has set a legal precedent that could be applied to other women who are in similar situations. It also has been an incentive for the law allowing therapeutic abortion to continue in our legislation. We also think that we have made an historic contribution since this is the first time that the Catholic Church has been told to stop meddling. It has been shown that they had no business interfering and that the respect of this little girl's rights and life could be guaranteed. Because of this, the Red de Mujeres contra la Violencia and the Nicaraguan women's movement feels that the process should continue sc that it serves as a precedent for other countries with similar situations.

For our strategy to be successful, the existence in Nicaragua of many organizations that had previously worked on the issue of abortion and that were constantly active against violence was fundamental. It was also important that we had a good working relationship with health care professionals and the medical associations. We had the technical and political support of organizations like Ipas which has a wealth of proven experience on the topic of abortion and maternal mortality and where I am Director for Central America; as well as the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York; the international federations of obstetricians and gynecologists, and others. We forged alliances with the intermediate levels of Nicaragua's Executive branch and with members of Parliament, which allowed us to break down the plans and strategies of the most recalcitrant sectors opposing abortion and women's rights.

In terms of our legal strategy, we decided to go straight to the highest authority in the country in order to have a legally solid case. We had the support of jurist Sergio Garcia Quinteros, who is very well respected in the country and the region, who worked for us as the family's lawyer to defend Rosita's right to legally terminate her pregnancy as guaranteed by article 165 of the Penal Code.

We also recognize that we have learned a lesson about the internal politics of women's organizations because we had to confront issues like the exercise of leadership and decision-making in crisis situations and how to resolve issues of security in such a tense environment in which the entire world was watching us and any mistake could mean disaster ...

Lorna: We also had to bear in mind that the Red de Mujeres contra la Violencia is on the President's advisory council, and this position was only possible after a long lobbying effort. Now, without a doubt, our relationship with the State is taking on a different dimension, and we must reconstruct this relationship in order to continue to have access to this space to voice our demands.

Marta: It's worth noting that, as in Chile, it is very difficult to talk about abortion in Nicaragua, but this case surpassed all our expectations. More than 90% of the population--across gender, age, socio-economic groups--was supportive of Rosita having a therapeutic abortion. There was a huge outpouring of support, and the case was also covered extensively by the Nicaraguan media, even the most conservative.

What should we expect now from the fundamentalist and conservative forces?

Marta: What lies ahead is not going to be easy because we have successfully challenged two States: Costa Rica, the Switzerland of Central America, where everything is perfect and where we discovered and documented the disastrous violation of human rights that had been committed against this family; and Nicaragua, a parochial State where we also defied the Catholic Church.

Lorna: Two days after the press conference announcing the abortion, a permanent working group of "pro-life" activists began to monitor all the laws being debated in Parliament. And we are already witnessing the results: the Equal Opportunity Law, the fruit of two years of dedicated efforts, was finally rejected.

However, we have also made some truly significant gains. One of these is the overwhelming grassroots support for Rosita and her family. Another has been the coordination among women's organizations in Nicaragua as well as Costa Rica and the solidarity that has come from numerous countries and regions. How can we forget that the Red Feminista contra la Violencia (Feminist Network Against Violence) in Spain gathered over 30,000 signatures of people who declared that they wanted to be excommunicated in support of Rosita and her family, in defense of the right to freedom of reproductive choice?