theguardian.com
Smear Campaign Targets El Salvadoran Abortion Rights Activist Ahead of Landmark Court Case
A smear campaign using fabricated videos falsely accuses El Salvadoran abortion rights campaigner Morena Herrera of pressuring a young woman into an abortion, aiming to influence the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case that could decriminalize abortion in El Salvador, where abortion is punishable by up to 8 years in prison.
- What is the immediate impact of the online smear campaign against Morena Herrera and other Salvadoran abortion rights activists?
- Morena Herrera, a 64-year-old El Salvadoran abortion rights campaigner, has been the target of a smear campaign involving fabricated videos on social media. These videos falsely accuse her of pressuring a young woman into having an abortion, aiming to discredit her activism and influence the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) case of Beatriz, who died after being denied an abortion in 2013. The case could lead to abortion decriminalization in El Salvador.
- What are the long-term consequences of these attacks on the struggle for reproductive rights in El Salvador and the broader region?
- The intensified attacks on Herrera and other activists highlight the significant risk faced by those advocating for reproductive rights in El Salvador, especially under the current authoritarian government's state of emergency. The confluence of digital smear campaigns and the government's suppression of dissent creates a climate of fear and intimidation that could significantly impede efforts towards abortion decriminalization and broader women's rights advancements in the region. The potential for legal repercussions based on these fabricated accusations further exacerbates these risks.
- How are US-based anti-abortion groups influencing the political landscape and legal challenges surrounding abortion rights in El Salvador?
- The attacks on Herrera are part of a broader pattern of digital attacks against women's rights activists in El Salvador, with 78% of 188 documented attacks in 2023 being digital, according to IM-Defensoras. These attacks, often coordinated by anti-abortion groups with ties to the government and US-based conservative organizations, employ slander, fake news, and attempts to undermine activists' credibility. This coordinated campaign aims to pressure the IACHR to avoid ruling in favor of abortion decriminalization.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently emphasizes the attacks on pro-choice activists, portraying them as victims of a coordinated campaign of disinformation and intimidation. The headline and introduction focus immediately on the video targeting Morena Herrera, setting a tone of victimization that is maintained throughout the article. While the actions of anti-abortion groups are described, the article's structure and emphasis largely favor the perspective of the pro-choice activists.
Language Bias
While the article strives for neutrality in its reporting of events, certain word choices subtly convey a bias. For instance, describing anti-abortion groups as employing "slandering campaigns, fake news, manipulation" uses strong language that is inherently negative and lacks neutrality. More neutral phrasing could be considered. Terms like "extreme right" to describe the opponents are also subjective and potentially inflammatory. Using terms like "conservative" or "anti-abortion" would present a more neutral tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the attacks against pro-choice activists but offers limited details on the arguments of anti-abortion groups beyond their actions. While it mentions the Global Center for Human Rights and their connections to conservative groups, it lacks a deeper exploration of their specific counterarguments or justifications for their actions. This omission limits the reader's ability to fully grasp the complexity of the debate.
False Dichotomy
The article implicitly presents a false dichotomy by portraying a clear conflict between pro-choice activists and anti-abortion groups, with little room for nuanced perspectives or common ground. The narrative frames the issue as a simple battle between "good" (pro-choice activists) and "evil" (anti-abortion groups and their supporters), overlooking the potential for more complex considerations or individual viewpoints within each group.
Gender Bias
The article focuses on women who are victims of the attacks, which is appropriate given the context. However, it would be beneficial to explore the perspectives and roles of men involved in either supporting the pro-choice or anti-abortion movements to present a more complete picture of gender involvement in the issue. The article does not implicitly present gender bias in language but could benefit from exploring the extent to which gender shapes both the attacks and the activists' responses.