Discourse Analysis on the Argentinean Senate 2018

Between Life & Choice: Discourse Analysis on the Argentinean Senate 2018

Luciana S. Fernandez

University of Florida Abstract

Feminist movements in Latin America have gained significant support, but at the same rate have counter movements. This paper analyzes the speeches of Argentine Senate in 2018 in the discussion for the legalization of abortion through Discourse Analysis. This study is performed at three different levels. First, there is a textual and contextual close reading of the senators’ speeches in favor and against the legalization of abortion. I highlight the most used themes across the discussion as well as the incidence of topics to argue in the opposite positions. By using Discourse Analysis, I identify the overarching themes that appeal for a preconceived notion of the ideal Argentine nation. Second, I focus on the broader notions of gender and nationalism as social constructs that have real effects in the population. I see how each side of the discourse serves the desires and purposes of an ideology or national ideal. Lastly, I investigate the real sociological consequences of the discourses for citizens in their lives and the new challenges for emerging social movements.

Keywords: pro-life, pro-choice, abortion discourse analysis, gender, nationalism

3 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND ...... 4 1.1.FEMINISM AND NATIONALISM IN CONTEMPORARY ARGENTINA ...... 4 1.2.A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF FEMINISM ...... 5 1.3.ABORTION AS A FEMINIST ISSUE AND A HUMAN RIGHT ...... 8 2. THIS RESEARCH PROJECT ...... 10 2.1.METHODOLOGY ...... 10 2.2.ABOUT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ...... 12 2.3.ANALYSIS OF THE SPEECHES FROM THE SENATE BY THEME ...... 12 3. DISCUSSION ...... 24 3.1.NATIONALISM, GENDER AND THE STATE ...... 24 3.2.SOCIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRO-LIFE DISCOURSE ...... 28 3.3.SOCIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRO-CHOICE DISCOURSE ...... 29 4. CONCLUSSION ...... 30 5. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 32

4 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

1. Background

1.1. Feminism and Nationalism in Contemporary Argentina

Women’s Day in Argentina in 2019 was characterized by the streets being crowded with more than 400.000 people across the different provinces. Most participants were wearing green and/or purple representing the main flags of this wave of feminism in the country. Purple started to represent the protest against femicides and gender-based violence when

#NiUnaMenos (Not One Less) went viral in the South American country in 2015. Green became the color to advocate for safe and legal abortion. As the new law was drafted the slogan representing the campaign was; “Sexual education to decide, birth control to not abort, and legal abortion to not die.” March 8th was not only a women’s march, but also a strike to protest the current political and economic situation in the country, where the president, Mauricio

Macri, defunded projects aimed at the empowerment of women.

In 2018, the Argentinean lower house passed the law for the termination of early pregnancy with 129 votes in favor and 125 against. The Argentinean Senate had the last word on the matter and decided to leave the country with a law from 1921, when 38 senators voted against the bill and 31 in favor. However, this was just the beginning as the feminist movements in the country keep protesting on the streets and fighting to expand sexual reproductive rights as well as the complete separation from church and state. The opposition to the new bill IVE

(Interrupcion Voluntaria del Embarazo), Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy, came mostly from conservative religious sectors such as the Catholic and Evangelical churches. At the same time, Argentina is the home of Pope Francis, who compared abortion to the eugenic campaigns carried out in the Nazi era (Specia, 2018).

This is the furthest any piece of legislation regarding legal and safe abortion has made it in the Argentine political system. This project studies the different discourses proposed in 5 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez the senate to debate the decriminalization and legalization of abortion focusing on the portrayals of nationalism and the ideal society. Through the use of sociological discourse analysis this work will analyze such discourses at three different levels; textual, contextual, and sociological significance. In this paper, I assert that the political and social basis of the discourse against the legalization of abortion is founded in the argument that Argentinean nationalism and feminist ideals are not compatible. Second, through the analysis of speeches from the Senate in Argentina, I explore how the same arguments are used in both sides with opposite objectives. Lastly, I discuss how the young population, college students and in particular, the feminist movements have been a key factor in shifting and redefining cultural paradigms regarding abortion as well as sexual and reproductive rights (Politi & Londono,

2018).

1.2.A Brief Review of the History of Feminism

The history of feminism and women is hard to establish, since most of the national historic memory neglected this group and its significance (Lavrin, 2005). Most authors state that feminism came to the country with the huge currents of immigrants coming from Europe at the end of the 19th century. These immigrants brought with them the ideas of anarchism. They were already concerned about the unequal power and relationships between different socioeconomic classes, as well as men and women (Lavrin 2005 & Bellucci, 1997). Female

Anarchists organized themselves, most of these women joined the Socialist Argentinean party, while trying to push forward for public policies to achieve equal rights (Lavrin, 2005 &

Molyneux, 1986). Between 1896 and 1897, La voz de la Mujer, a women’s magazine, helped define the role of the workers and their relationship to this ideology. Molyneux (1986) analyzes the content in these publications and argues that the key element was “its recognition of the specificity of women's oppression” (Molyneux, 1986, p. 126). This oppression was not only by the bourgeois, but also by men in general. This was a key difference with the later emerging 6 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez socialist feminism, in which claims were solely focused on the oppression of the state and capitalism, ignoring the oppression went on in women’s private life. Anarchism with its ideals of equality arriving to Argentina with the European immigrants, shaped feminism and its conceptions in the country. La voz, a magazine focused on different feminist issues such as marriage, family, and male domination, was advocating to improve the legislation that was in place to regulate and control women’s lives (Molyneux, 1986, p. 129). The main problem with anarchist feminism, was how radical their ideas concerning the institutions of the family and marriage were, in a world where most women did not have other options. The family was a site of oppression and unequal division of labor in most cases, but some women also found this place to have at least some security and certainty about their future (Molyneux, 1986, p. 142).

After the anarchist feminist magazine stopped publishing, socialist feminism emerges alongside with the Socialist Party.

The three main pillars of this version of feminism were then defined by Justa Burgos (1903) who argued that the main objectives were: the acknowledgement of women’s intellectual capacity, the right to exercise any activity they could, and the right to participate in public and political decisions (Levrin, 2005). These were the same bases that the liberal feminist established earlier in Europe and North America (Lavrin, 2005). As it was the case with anarchism, the connection of feminism and the socialist party was strong, and the communication with the working class necessary, to create and develop its ideological platform

(Lavrin 2005 & Bellucci, 1997). The magazine La Vanguardia, was one of the first sources in which definitions and political stances establishing the unfair relationship between the sexes were published by the Socialist Party (Lavrin, 2005, p. 35). The magazine’s main goal was to formulate demands for the state. This institution was the main discriminatory agent against women that also neglected other sexist practices happening in more private spaces such as marriage, the family, etc. (Molyneux, 1986, pp. 141-142). The socialist feminist group argued 7 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez that working was the main way women had to achieve equality. They saw that the class struggle was as important as the feminist cause for equality (Lavrin, 2005, p. 37). Work as a tool to even the playing field, was an idea shared with liberal feminists who were also taking political and social relevance at this time (Lavrin, 2005).

One of the pioneers in liberal feminism who was a protagonist in the movement and

Argentinean politics, was Elvira Rawson de Dellepiane. She was one of the funders of the

Centro Feminista (Feminist Center) in 1905 and articulated the basis for liberal feminism in

Argentina. Her definition of feminism included several aspects of the social and political life such as: same pay for the same job, the right to vote and to be elected, maternity laws to protect women, elimination of the laws in the Civil Code that made women dependent on men, among others. The first step for feminists at this point in history was the reform of laws that oppressed and neglected women. Five years later, in 1910, the Congreso Femenino Internacional

(International Feminine Congress) took place in Buenos Aires. The choice of using “feminine” instead of feminist was to attract women who did not identify as feminists. The Congress tried to create an awareness of the limitations of “the female sex” and support the common goal for education, while discussing the connection between the feminine, women and feminism

(Lavrin, 2005).

Discussions about abortion and sexual rights did not enter the feminist or Argentinean political agenda until the 1940s, when the population started seeing the state as the entity with greatest responsibility to guarantee rights (Bellucci, 1997). The Communist Party was the main supporter of new legislation to legalize abortions alongside the Union de Mujeres Argentinas

(UMA). This was the beginning of a process that would not materialize until the 1970s, when women started questioning the relationship between womanhood and mothering, as well as the idea of sexual intercourse for pleasure. The questioning of the status quo had the overarching theme of “making the private public”. (Tarducci, 2018). With this aim, two significant feminist 8 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez groups arose at this time; Union Feminista Argentina (UFA), and Movimiento de Liberacion

Feminista (MLF) (Bellucci, 1997 & Tarducci, 2018). These groups brought abortion into the public debate. Three years later with the creation of the magazine Persona the theoretical and activist framework came to existence (Bellucci, 1997, p. 101).

The international scene also influenced the situation in Argentina; when the United

Nations decade for women was announced in 1975, the group Frente de Lucha por la Mujer made public some demands. For instance, they asked for the abolition of the law that prohibited the distribution and circulation of contraceptives for both sexes, as well as legal and free abortion. However, the political situation did not help. After the military coup in 1976, all these demands and grassroots groups stayed in standby until the return of democracy in 1982

(Bellucci, 1997). On March 8th 1982, women gathered on the streets and shouted the phrases:

“We do not want to abort. We do not want to die from abortions” and “What a destiny, what a destiny, one woman per day dies because of clandestine abortion”. They brought abortion to the center of the feminist discussion (Tarducci, 2018).

1.3.Abortion as a Feminist Issue and a Human Right

The process of feminist reorganization was a phenomenon not only in Argentina, but in Latin America and the Caribbean. Since the 1970s, Latin American women started to redefine feminism and tried to articulate ideas that could better represent the geopolitical situation of the region (Bidaseca & Vazquez, 2011, p. 193) In 1990, representatives of these regions had an Encuentro (meeting) in Buenos Aires, where they established abortion as a right

(Tarducci, 2018; Alma & Lorenzo, 2009). Two years later, the first draft of the bill for abortion and expanding availability and education on birth control was presented to the lower house of congress (Tarducci, 2018, p. 427). In 1994, the response from the government went in the opposite direction of what feminists had hoped for. The president and its administration, tried 9 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez to modify the constitution to include a clause that would protect life from “the moment of conception until natural death” following the influence of the Catholic Church (Bellucci, 1997

& Tarducci 2018). This decision mobilized women and more than 108 groups came together.

Their purpose was to draft a letter for the General Assembly showing their disapproval for this potential change (Bellucci, 1997). Mujeres Autoconvocadas para decidir en Libertad emerged from this debate and became the main link of communication between feminist groups and the

General Assembly (Bellucci, 1997). They were not able to drop this clause, but the wording was changed and instead of saying that life was to be protected from conception, they said from pregnancy. Even though this result was not ideal, it was ambiguous and left room for potential reforms allowing for abortion to eventually become legal (Tarducci, 2018). In 2003, all the feminist groups came together and established a plan for the legalization of abortion. The course of action included; a National March for the right of legal and free abortion, a nacional assembly for the right of abortion, meeting to set the strategies to achieve legal and free abortion, participation in the Pride March, and the promotion of laws that could help the approval of the legalization of abortion (Bellucci, Historia de una Desobediencia. Aborto y

Feminismo, 2014, pp. 388-389)

The approval for legalization concerning voluntary abortion in the new millennium only grew. Several Worker’s Unions and groups started supporting the initiative and advocating for the new bill. Many grassroots groups and organizations came together and started to make visible issues such as gender-based violence, reproductive and sexual rights as well as

LGBTQ+ issues. In 2010, Argentina was the first Latin American country and the 10th in the world that approved same sex marriage as well as adoption by these couples (Smink, 2018).

Several progressive policies in terms of gender identity and transgender issues followed this legislation, making the country a pioneer in terms of more inclusive policies in the region.

However, the legalization of abortion was not approved by the Senate in August 2018. The 10 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez speeches of politicians in the Argentine Senate serve as evidence on how nationalism has been constructed and feminism has been demonized throughout the country’s history.

The bill presented to Congress was named Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (IVE), as it is going to be referred from now on in this essay. It included twenty different clauses that dealt with abortion, sexual education, and laid out the responsibilities of the state. The bill in its first article establishes the limit of 14 weeks for a woman to terminate their pregnancy. It also says there is no time limit for the termination of a pregnancy if the pregnancy is consequence of rape, or if the life of the woman is in danger, (Article 4). Article 6, states that if the person trying to terminate their pregnancy seeks out information, this should be merely scientific and accurate showing all the options. Article 9 lays out the legal details for underage youth and article 10 for people with disabilities. Article 12, focuses on sexual education and how the voluntary interruption of a pregnancy has to be included in all sex education curriculums. The second part of the bill, from article 13 to 17 provides all the changes that need to be made to the Penal Code to habilitate this bill (Proyecto de Ley de Interrupción Voluntaria del Embarazo, 2019).

2.This Research Project

2.1. Methodology

One of the main contributors to the discussion of this bill in congress, was the mobilization of women and feminist groups advocating to expand sexual and reproductive rights in the country. As it was presented in the historical literature review of feminism and its activist groups in Argentina, they have always had a key role in voicing the concerns of a significant part of the population . I also provide an overview of the law and the details of the bill that was being discussed, IVE (Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy). This study analyses the speeches of legislators in Argentina in the voting process of the law proposal IVE. The Discourse 11 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez analysis carried out in this work was of inductive nature. After grouping the congress representatives in two groups, one in favor of the law and one against it, I randomly selected

30% of cases (each speech was considered a case) for each group of senators. Since 38 voted against and 31 in favor, this left 13 and 10 speeches respectively. The Argentinean Senate keeps verbatim records of the sessions; therefore, all the speeches were analyzed in their textual form.

Discourse analysis in the sociological field follows three main stages. The first one includes the textual interpretation or analysis of the discourse. This study is based on the study of nationalism as an ideology. Within the context of Discourse Analysis, ideologies are defined as “representations of aspects of the world which can be shown to contribute to establishing, maintaining, and changing social relations of power, domination, and exploitation”

(Fairclough, 2003). For the first stage of textual analysis, I went through each group, the senators who voted in favor and the ones who voted against and looked for patterns and common themes among the candidates that defended each position coding all of them with key words. After the small sample was coded, I referred to the whole sample and tested the significance of the results for each code or theme. I selected the themes with the most significance across the whole set of speeches. The significance was tested at a 95% confidence level. This meant that for the themes to be significant, they needed to appear at list 61 times. I provide quotations from each speech to illustrate the different themes and the context in which they were presented by the senators.

In the second level of analysis, I focused on the broader question of feminism and nationalism and how the notions of gender and nation are part of a political and ideological project. This is based on the statement that each position established in the senate represents an ideology based in different notions of nationalism and the ideal of the nation that these politicians have. At this level, I explain why feminist philosophy and its associated public policy agenda are in conflict with the nationalistic ideal, creating a social product that 12 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez convinces the people that these two are mutually exclusive. In other words, pro-life discourse argues that a true Argentinean national identity and feminism could never coexist. In the last level of analysis, I see how this discourse as a social product has had sociological influence among social movements and the society as a whole.

2.2. About Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis in the sociological field follows three main stages. The first one includes the textual interpretation or analysis of the discourse. Second, it analyzes its context and aims to interpret its enunciation level discovering what is the effect of the discourse or what is done with it. Lastly, it provides a sociological explanation for such discourse, studies what these ideas imply in the broader society, and how these can be part of an ideology or a social product

(Ruiz, 2009). Discourse within the sociological field has been understood as “any practice by which individuals imbue reality with meaning” (Ruiz, 2009). In this work, these discourses will be the pro-life discourse and the pro-choice discourse embodied in the speeches of

Argentinean Senators in their voting session for the legalization of abortion past August 2018.

A similar work (See Felitti & Prieto, 2018) studies different forms of discourse related to the issue of legalization of abortion focusing on the different configurations of secularism as a positive or negative aspect in each of the construction of discourse. The study showed how secularism was used as a discursive technique to appeal for sexual and reproductive rights as well as the relationship between democracy and religious freedom in this context. Even though secularism was a clear trend among senators that voted in favor of the law, it was not as present in the ones who voted against.

2.3.Textual and Contextual Analysis of the speeches from the Senate by theme

The analysis of the verbatim records of the Argentinean Senate yield the following 13 codes for each side of the debate: 13 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

Against the law (Pro-life) In favor of the law (Pro-choice) National Constitution, Civil Code, Penal Public Health/Responsibility of the Code and National Laws State/omission of the state Policies in Health and Education/ Inefficient Poor Population as the most vulnerable role of the state/Omission of previous laws /Perpetuate inequality between rich and poor women Life from conception Young populations and students as agents of change Abortion as a foreign idea and concept National Constitution, Civil Code, Penal Code and National Laws Convention on the Rights of the Child & Women’s rights/Women’s autonomy/ Not International Treaties fair to obligate women to be mothers Poor Population as the most vulnerable It is not about yes or not to abortion but rather legal or clandestine abortions Sexual Education Social change/ Cultural change/ Evolution of society/ Argentina of the modern days vs. outdated Argentina False dichotomy of the life of the unborn Threats/ assassins / genocide and privileging the autonomy of women/ rights of the unborn Women as vulnerable population Deaths for abortions as avoidable deaths Nation Building/ The idea of the nation as a International Treaties/ Costa Rica Pact house Personal values and convictions Women as protagonists for change/feminist movements/ Public Health Access Widening sexual and reproductive rights or stagnation Conscientious Objection Secular State

These concepts are organized by their relevance on each side of the debate (From the most prevalent to the least). The hierarchy of these concepts already aligns with the concepts and theoretical frameworks for the building of the nation presented earlier in the essay. In the pro-choice side the main considerations (top 4) are related to more historical aspects such as the National Constitution and National laws, the role of the state, life from conception, and abortion seen as a foreign idea trying to be imposed by outsiders. On the other hand, the pro- life discourse proposes arguments that show more willingness for change and the nation as a more fluid concept that can and, if it wants to respond to its population, must change. The concern with abortion is presented from a public health standpoint, considers the socioeconomic inequalities perpetuated by the illegality of this practice, considers the 14 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez importance of the youth and social movements, and lastly it also mentions the National

Constitution.

National Constitution (77), Civil Code (39), Penal Code (84)

This argument was prevalent in both sides of the debate. The pro-life side argued that the Argentinean National Constitution does not allow for such a procedure as abortion and approving the law will be going against this funding document. For instance, the National

Constitution was equated to the main structure of the house, representing the nation and this conceptualization was clear in Senator Mera’s speech where when affirming his negative vote, at the end of his speech he says: “Let's not affect the foundations. Let's not affect the beams, otherwise, the house falls and when the house falls, it falls on top of all of us” 1. (Honorable

Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018) On the other side, the pro-choice arguments refuted this notion that abortion was not permited by the national document. For example, Senator

Martinez argues that Argentina has to “[…] move forward with progress, with future and with concord seeking social care as do the articles 14 and 14 bis of the National Constitution”.2

(Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018). The article mentioned states religious freedom as well as freedom of speech. It also mentions how the state has to guarantee economic equality as well as integral social security for all citizens. The Civil Code was used for the pro- life arguments to argue that the unborn have all the same legal rights as the pregnant person.

At the same time, it is used to reinforce another prevalent argument in the pro-life side, which is that there is life from the moment of conception. This is evident in the speech by Senator

Fiad where he states:

1 “No afectemos los cimientos. No afectemos las vigas, que después, la casa se cae y cuando la casa se cae, se nos cae encima de todos” (pp.26) 2 “Y avanzar entonces hacia adelante con progreso, con futuro y con concordia procurando los cuidados sociales así como también lo hacen los artículos 14 y 14 bis de la Constitución Nacional” (pp 142)

15 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

“The Civil Code, which recognizes the person to be born as a subject of law, and all the norms that we can clearly summarize in one sentence: the recognition of the right to life from conception”3. (Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

There are fewer arguments from the pro-life side about this document. However, Senator

Guastavino argues that the clause that allows women to get an abortion at any time of their pregnancy (only if their life is in danger) already existed when the Civil Code was sactioned

(pp.17). The Penal Code was use evenly for both arguments using different parts and refering to different parties at the time of requesting and executing an abortion. The pro-life senators were worried about the culpability of doctors and the consequences for them at the time of: performing an abortion or deciding not to do it. For example, as it was expressed by senator

Basualdo:

“On the other hand, if there is a subjective right to demand abortion, doctors could be accused of committing other, more serious crimes that may be delved into in the Penal Code. They would also be liable for civil liability actions for not having performed an abortion or not having alerted of a malformation. They could also be sanctioned with disqualification of the registration for up to five years for the fact of having refused to perform abortions”4

(Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

3 “Código Civil, que reconocen a la persona por nacer como sujeto de derecho, y todas las normas que con toda claridad podemos resumir en una sola frase: el reconocimiento del derecho a la vida desde la concepción.” (pp.10) 4 Por otra parte, si hay un derecho subjetivo a exigir el aborto, los médicos podrían ser acusados de cometer otros delitos más graves que puedan hurgarse en el Código Penal. Serían además pasibles de acciones de responsabilidad civil por no haber practicado un aborto o no haber alertado de una malformación. Podrían además ser sancionados con inhabilitación de la matrícula por hasta cinco años por el hecho de haberse negado a hacer abortos. 16 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

Public Health (97)/Responsibility of the State/Omission of the state on the current situation

The argument of public health was made from two standpoints. The senators in favor of the law, argued that the priority of this matter was within the arena of public health before anything else. Senator Almiron stresses this point with clarity on her speech:

“Because I could leave my personal experiences aside and understand that this debate is not about the beginning of life, it is not about the rights of people to be born, but we are talking about public health.”5 (Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

This argument and the dichotomy between abortion as a public health issue, and abortion as ethically or morally incorrect was recurrent in the debate. On the other hand, pro-life senators gravitated more towards the argument that public health was already failing, preventive Public

Health needed to be improved, and that it is not a priority in the list published by the Ministry of Public Health in 2015. The discussion was focused on using public health as a resource to avoid abortion and take care as well as monitor pregnant women. For example, Senator Uñac, when confirming his rejection for the project says:

“I have no doubt that pregnancy is a public health issue. I am fully convinced that pregnancy is a public health issue and, in consequence, that we must protect and contain the pregnant woman6. (Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

5 Porque pude dejar mis vivencias personales de lado y entender que este debate no es sobre el comienzo de la vida, no es sobre los derechos de las personas por nacer, sino que estamos hablando de salud pública. 6 No tengo dudas de que el embarazo es un tema de salud pública. Estoy plenamente convencido de que el embarazo es un tema de salud pública y, en consecuencia, de que debemos proteger y contener a la mujer embarazada (pp 147) 17 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

Life from the moment of conception (conception 178)

The argument that there is life from the moment of conception was present in all of the speeches of the pro-life senators and some of the pro-choice mentioned it to refute the claim.

The Argentinean Civil Code in article 19 says that the human being exists from the moment of conception which makes difficult the acceptance of any other stance for politicians. This was one of the main issues within the legal framework and that is why many of the speeches mention how the new bill was unconstitutional, as this word was mentioned 54 times along the debate. Personhood and the acquisition of legal rights from the moment of conception and the importance of advocating and protecting this innocent person that would soon become part of the society. For example, Senator Bullrich argues;

“The discussion is whether in that mother's womb there is a neighbor who can be loved or an

Argentinian to defend, if we agree that there is a neighbor whom we have to love and an

Argentine to whom we have to integrate to the community from the moment of conception”7.

(Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

Poor Population as the most vulnerable /Perpetuate inequality between rich and poor women

There were 75 mentions to the poor population in Argentina, 39 to poverty, and 26 recognized women as a vulnerable population. This argument was more prevalent among the pro-choice discurse since the number of deaths or complications for illegal abortions show that the poor populations are at considerable higher risks. This is stated by senator Gonzalez when she says:

7 La discusión es si en ese vientre materno hay un prójimo a quien amar o un argentino a quien defender, si nos ponemos de acuerdo en que allí hay un prójimo a quien tenemos que amar y un argentino a quien tenemos que integrar a la comunidad desde la concepción. (pp37) 18 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

“I have heard many senators, many speakers, say that poor women do not abort. And the truth, according to the statistics we have, is that poor women are those who abort and those who die.

Women who have purchasing power and can have a safe abortion, paying a good doctor, do not die. Those who are going to do it clandestinely, and in the garage of the neighbor's house, they do die.”8 (Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

This argument is presented by Allard (2002) where she argues that technology and better medical care is helping women improve their autonomy, however only middle and upper classes can enjoy these privileges. Secondly, in the debate they argued how women are more vulnerable, have less opportunities for employment, and the reality that poor women keep being marginalized from the system. An example that illustrates this argument is given by the Senator

Sacnun when she states:

[…]“Feminization of poverty is a concept that we must grasp more and more, because among the poorest of the poor, among the most neglected of the neglected, there is an innumerable number of women who remain outside the system: women from the neighborhoods, women of the popular economy, working women who do not have the support of the State”.9 (Honorable

Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

On the other hand, pro-life groups used the argument of poverty to say that if social conditions were improved then abortion would not have its tragic consecuences

8 He escuchado a muchos senadores, a muchos expositores, decir que las mujeres pobres no abortan. Y la verdad, según la estadística que tenemos, es que las mujeres pobres son las que abortan y las que mueren. Las mujeres que tienen poder adquisitivo y pueden hacerse un aborto seguro, pagando un buen médico, no mueren. Aquellas que se lo van a hacer de manera clandestina, y en el garaje de la casa de la vecina, sí mueren. 9 […]feminización de la pobreza es un concepto del que debemos asirnos cada vez más, porque entre los más pobres de los pobres, entre los más postergados de los postergados, hay una innumerable cantidad de mujeres que van quedando afuera del sistema: mujeres de los barrios, mujeres de la economía popular, mujeres trabajadoras que no tienen el acompañamiento del Estado (pp104)

19 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

“Why do not we think about the result tomorrow, and we all join together in seeing what look we can give him and what solution can we give?”[…] “This is the true debt of democracy: to promote a cultural change that fights against poverty, against marginality, against exclusion, against ignorance.”10 (Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

Senator Boyadjian acknowledges poverty and argues that a solution for a better future in the country is improving conditions for the poor rather than legalizing abortions as this bill proposes. The line of thinking follows the idea that if there are not poor women, and everyone is able to economically rise children, then they should do so.

Sexual Education (93) & Contraceptives (39)

These two aspects were present in both sides of the debate. While pro-life senators argued that abortions would stop altogether if better sexual education was provided to everyone, pro-choice senators saw sexual education and contraceptives methods as complementary to the bill decriminalizing abortion. For Instance, senator Gonzalez says:

“If we cannot reach to them through sex education, if we cannot reach to them with family planning, if we do not reach with contraceptives, I want us to have one more chance: that woman has one more chance! An opportunity to approach the system without fear, without guilt, without shame, without social stigma”11 (Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina,

2018)

10[…]¿Por qué no pensamos en el resultado el día de mañana, y nos unimos todos juntos en ver qué mirada le podemos dar y qué solución podemos dar? […] Esta es la verdadera deuda de la democracia: promover un cambio cultural que luche contra la pobreza, contra la marginalidad, contra la exclusión, contra la ignorancia. (pp60) 11 Si no llegamos con la educación sexual, si no llegamos con la planificación familiar, si no llegamos con los anticonceptivos, quiero que tengamos una oportunidad más: ¡que esa mujer tenga una oportunidad más! Una oportunidad de acercarse al sistema sin miedo, sin culpa, sin vergüenza, sin estigma social (pp117) 20 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

She argues what many other senators did in the debate, abortion is the last solution and is only complementary to all these other elements that were also proposed in the bill. She also acknowledges how all the other methods can fail at preventing a pregnancy.

The pro-life side argued that there were already laws for contraceptives that were not being followed and that the state was not providing them to their citizens. In contrast with the other side of the argument, the senators in this group argued that sexual education and contraceptives alone could stop abortions and improvement of these conditions would stop abortion. Senator

Blas who voted against the project expresses this on her position about these aspects:

“It is here to request the national government to spare no effort and resources in prevention campaigns and in the provision of contraceptive methods; This is key and is part of the responsibility and commitment that we have on public health” (Honorable Senado de la Nación

Argentina, 2018)

Mothers (134) and Motherhood (37)

There were 134 mentions of mother/mothers along the debate and 37 to motherhood.

On the pro-life side of the debate the most recurrent image was that of the preganant mother that needed the help and support of the state. Mothers are a vulnerable population as well as the unborn (most times these two were mentioned together), and are also the responsibles to continue on reproduction. For example, Senator Menem argues:

“[…]what matters here, the protection of the life of the unborn child and of his mother who, under any circumstance, is the principal director of the mandate -we consider it divine or 21 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez natural, but, in any case, self-evident- to engender a human being in the permanent process of the continuation of the species.” 12 (Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

This trend of prioritazing the life of the unborn over the the life of the mother is a common feature in pro-life speech. At the same time, being a mother or motherhood is seen as a responsibility or an honor in the name of the future of the country. On the other hand, the pro- choice side of the debate saw maternity as an option for women and they were the ones deciding to carry or not to term their preganancies. Senator Durango presents the idea in her argument, that maternity should be voluntary and intended for all women. In her speech she argues:

“We are discussing the possibility of generating normative and institutional tools so that women and pregnant people can decide a voluntary and, above all, desired maternity”13.

(Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

This recurrent argument shows how women are not subjected to the needs of the state or the species anymore, but rather have their own autonomy and should be able to choose that role of the mother whenever fits better with their life plans. This right to decided that throughout

Argentinean history has been limited, is well articulated by Levin (2018), where she argues that motherhood and maternity always had the guarantees of the state in terms of public health.

This has never been the cases for women that decide not to be mothers, therefore, this creates discrimination based on the reproductive capacity of the individual (p.381). At the same time, it continues an argument seen throughout the debate that is that the bill decriminalizing abortion by itself is not the magic solution, but rather the complimentation of the bill with other policies is what is going to produce the real change.

12 “[…] lo que aquí importa, con la protección de la vida del niño por nacer y de su madre que, en cualquier circunstancia, es la principal realizadora del mandato –ya lo consideremos divino o natural, pero, en todo caso, evidente por sí mismo– de engendrar un ser humano en el permanente proceso de la continuación de la especie.” (pp254) 13 “Estamos debatiendo la posibilidad de generar las herramientas normativas e institucionales para que las mujeres y las personas gestantes puedan decidir una maternidad voluntaria y, sobre todo, deseada.” (pp27) 22 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

Youth (45), Feminist Movements (33), Student Movements

The pro-choice senators in most of their speeches acknowledged the participation and influence of feminist movements, the youth and students unions at the time of exposing issues like clandestine abortions to the rest of the society. They were mentioned as agents of change, that are trying to expand the sexual and reproductive rights in the country. Many of the politicians thanked them for this cultural shift they had created bringing issues like this to the public discussion. At the same time, feminists were mentioned as a movement which historically has demanded policies for women to decide on their on bodies. This is present in senator Almiron when by the end of her speech she mentions:

“[…]this struggle is a historical demand of the women's movement, which achieved a transversality in time and throughout the world. This discussion came to every park, to every office, to every table of the Argentineans, to the secondary schools, to the universities.”14

(Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

When talking about the youth, pro-choice refered to it as this group that has the potential for change, an active portion of society that wants its voice to be heard. To illustrate this, there is the example of senator Pilatti Vergara who argues that these groups were the ones who made her understand the reality of the country:

“[…]Later, the thousands of women throughout the country pushed for the legalization of abortion and raised this flag, and young people, women and men of an early age, the youth, who went out to push forward and went out to the streets to express themselves and they came

14 […]no quiero dejar de mencionar que esta lucha es una demanda histórica del movimiento de mujeres, que logró una transversalidad en el tiempo y en todo el mundo. Esta discusión llegó a cada plaza, a cada oficina, a cada mesa de los argentinos, a las escuelas secundarias, a las universidades.(pp35)

23 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez to convince us and explain to us, to inform us and make themselves heard”15 (Honorable

Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

On the other hand, pro-life senators also included the youth in their speeches, but they did so considering them a vulnerable population within society rather than an active one. The youth in the country were the ones who ought to be educated and supported by the state to avoid abortions and/or unwanted pregnancies. The were seen as a more passive group that needed to be taken care of. For example, the senator Blas says:

“As a society we must overcome the barriers that our children, adolescents and young people face when they are denied the possibility of accessing a comprehensive sexual and reproductive education that guides them. Defining and implementing public prevention policies directed and with the participation of adolescents and children, with special attention to the approach of early pregnancy, ensuring information about family planning methods and the availability and provision of contraceptive methods in an accessible manner, it is a duty of the State”16

(Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina, 2018)

This more paternalistic view of the young population is recurrent in the references of the pro- life senators to the youth in the country. At the same time, it is acknoleging what has been exposed before that the state is absent or incompetent at the time of taking care of its citizens, in this case, the young ones. It is also taking into account that the young population is going to be the most affected by the approval or denial of this bill.

15“[…] ayudaron posteriormente las miles de mujeres que a lo largo y a lo ancho del país han militado la legalización del aborto y han levantado esta bandera y de los jóvenes, mujeres y hombres de temprana edad, pibes y pibas que salieron a militarlo y salieron a expresarse y salieron a convencernos y a explicarnos, a formarnos e informarnos y a hacerse escuchar […]” 16 Como sociedad debemos vencer las barreras que nuestros niños, adolescentes y jóvenes enfrentan al vérseles negada la posibilidad de acceder a una educación sexual y reproductiva integral que los oriente. Definir e implementar políticas públicas de prevención dirigidas y con la participación de adolescentes y niños, con especial atención al abordaje del embarazo precoz, asegurando la información sobre métodos de planificación familiar y la disponibilidad y provisión de métodos anticonceptivos de manera accesible, es un deber del Estado. (pp93) 24 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

Secular State (65)

This argument was present in most of the pro-choice speeches. The pro-choice senators argued that a secular states provides freedom of expression above all, therefore moral or ethical diferences based on religious grounds should be left out of the debate. Even though Argentina is considered a secular state, the state and the Catholic Church are not separated completely.

Senators on this side of the debate asked to respect diversity and understand that the state has to provide constitutional guarantees and safety for all its citizens always respecting diversity.

For instance senator Odarda says:

“[…]In the secular state, governments and legislators have to take positive actions for all citizens, to guarantee individual rights, collective rights, constitutional guarantees, to guarantee diversity. That makes it a secular state.”17 (Honorable Senado de la Nación

Argentina, 2018)

This notion of secularism is not only expressing the importance of accepting all religions and beliefs, but also the relevance that diversity has within the state. The state should be actively improving conditions for everyone and above all guaranteeing rights.

3.Discussion

3.1 Nationalism, Gender and the State - The Ideal Argentina has legal abortion?

The idea of gender and “the nation” as social constructs came to my attention after reading the work by Verdery (1994). Even though her work is based in the Eastern European context, her conceptualization of these two ideas within the political system can be used in the

Latin American context as well. She analyzes how “gender” and “nation” are made up

17 “[…] en el Estado laico, los gobiernos y los legisladores tienen que realizar acciones positivas para todos los ciudadanos, para garantizar los derechos individuales, los derechos colectivos, las garantías constitucionales, para garantizar la diversidad. Eso lo hace un Estado laico” (pp178) 25 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez arbitrarily and the everyday use of the concepts makes them seem natural as they become part of a social reality. In the Latin American context, García (2009) offers a similar conceptualization of “the nation” and “the state” and how they have a dialogue (and at times confrontation) with the different feminist and LGBTQ+ movements that represent the non- traditional notions of gender and advocate for the recognition of other gender identities as well as accountability of the state in terms of sexual and reproductive rights (García, 2009). This was the case in many of the speeches were the social and feminist movements were recognized as agents of change and as the main motivation to change the laws and update them to keep them aligned with the needs of the contemporary society. Most senators also expressed how legal abortion was a historic demand from feminist groups.

Garcia (2009) also argues that women should (and are) working on redefining the roles in relationship to motherland and mother of the family. This contrast on the notions of being a mother as a duty to the state and maternity as an option for women was a clear cut between pro-life and pro-choice senators. The former saw it as an honor and most times referred to the

“pregnant mother” usually also mentioning the unborn. On the other hand, pro-choice senators argued that family planning and a woman choosing when is the right time to carry to term their pregnancy, was essential to provide real autonomy to women in the country.

One definition of gender is that it is an structure of social relationships centered around reproduction and around practices controlled by the structure that generates reproductive distinctions between the bodies in the social processes (García, 2009; Connell, 2002). There is a process of legitimization in which only citizens who belong to a reproductive family model can talk about the family. The gender regime then responds to state’s political projects, variations in development and tradition (in this case Catholic influence), and social movements that expose the new interests of gender while being responsible for its transformation (García,

2009, p. 87). This organization of gender and the reproductive family was historically 26 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez organized in the Argentinean political and social system. In the debates, one of the recurrent references was to the National Constitution and other legal funding documents. Some senators argued that these were the foundation of the nation and it could not be overlooked while others recognized that laws must change with its society. Even though several speeches mentioned catholic religion and its values to defend the life of the unborn, there were more references to the secular state that must adapt to diversity and the different necessities in society.

The state when mediating the interaction tends to use three main arguments: higher numbers of population gives the nation higher power, the Malthusian speech of the need to reduce population, and the eugenic in which the race is being improved (p.89). The most recurrent argument in the case of the Argentinean senate was the first one. There were recurrent comparisons with Europe and how their population is aging so much, arguing this could be the case if the country allows legal abortion to take place. On the other hand, they also blamed pro- choice proponents of genocide in same cases, following what pope Francis had mentioned about abortion and eugenics in the Nazi Era.

In all these cases, women are seen as a cohesive group by the state; they do not have individuality or intersectionality on their identities and their levels of power are considered all the same (p.89). For example, senators constantly mentioned “poor women” or “young women” as a group. This was true for both sides of the argument. However, the inequality of women in higher socioeconomic status getting safe abortions and poor women dying from unsafe procedures was highlighted by most of the pro-choice senators. This group also reiterated the importance of woman’s autonomy and the importance of recognizing their agency over their own bodies.

The current notions of nation about Latin America started in the 20th century where the model of nation was based on the desire of whitening the population through different eugenic 27 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez campaigns (p.92). The ideal of nation or the “imagined community” (Anderson, 1983) has always been established by the state and as the population is a key element for this ideal, the ones baring the reproductive responsibility to fulfil this plan, are women. As it is the case in the South American country, the state was able to control women’s reproductive capacity to follow this ideal of nation. At the beginning of the 20th century immigrants started to arrive, and Argentina needed to increase its population. As a result, family planning, contraceptives and abortion were not included in the political agenda as this would go against what the nation needed, more population. At the same time, this ideology was not only established in pragmatic terms with restrictive public policies, but also through the reinforcement of Catholic ideas of the family and life from the moment of conception. This argument against abortion was the most prevalent among the pro-life senators, and in numerous occasions religion or personal values were cited with this concept. On the other hand, there was also a constant appeal for secularism and not only allowing other religious groups to exist, but also guaranteeing their liberties while accepting their diversity. For pro-life senators, this step towards a more secular state is to legalize abortion in the country. The “imagined community” is then not only imagined, but also takes measures and policies to achieve what the nation ought to be.

Gender relationships are then at the center of social identity as well as the building of the nation and the consequent social struggle and mobilizations (p.93). The role of social movements and in this case, the feminist movement, is to question this ideal of the nation, create alternative discourses and proposing alternatives for the institutionalization of non- conforming identities (p.96). The “cultural revolution” or the removal of abortion from the list of taboo has been attributed to the feminist movements in the country. Many senators mention this on their debates and said that even if the bill did not pass, the social movements have achieved a lot bringing this discussion to the public spheres. At the same time, both sides of the debate saw the importance of sexual education as a main tool as well as a right for the 28 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez population to make informed decisions. Another recurrent argument for both sides, was the absence or inefficiency of the state at the time of providing for its citizens, and how this is a failure that has to be addressed.

3.2.Sociological significance of pro-life discourse

Pro-life discourse in the context of the Argentinean Congress within the discussion of abortion presented a concept of the nation based on ideals closely related to the Catholic Church and rejected ideas of progress or evolution towards a more inclusive society. This side of the discourse was based on the idea that “the nation” was something to be protected, and the unborn were at its foundation. The idea of life from the moment of conception was the most prevalent argument and defended by all of the Catholic authorities in the country. At the same time, concepts of motherhood or traditional family roles were rarely questioned or discussed in this side of the debate where most of the senators saw the traditional family at the bases of the success of the Argentine society. Abortion was seen as a foreign concept that as a nation

Argentina should not accept, abortion was something trying to be imposed by outsiders instead of being a local born initiative. Even though in several debates, the senators mentioned the importance of sexual education in the educative system as a preventive system for unwanted pregnancies, there has been rejection by catholic schools and local institutions to teach inclusive sexual education curriculum. On of the main issues within this discourse seems to be the conflict of what is the state supposed to do and what is left for each citizen private life.

Women and children are seen as “objects” that need to be taken care of. This care is not autonomous or empowering, but it rather follows whatever values the Church and the traditional nation had established.

This discourse created on the senate around Catholic ideas and values had real consequences in the Argentinean society. After the bill was rejected in the Senate, a new 29 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez campaign started to completely separate Church and State. Even though Argentina is a secular state and allows religious freedom, the state stills maintain the Apostolic Roman Catholic cult and subsidizes it. This campaign aims to end this relationship in which the Church only benefits. The religious sectors’ response was a campaign Con mis hijos no te metas (Do not get involved with my children) which tries to stop all the initiatives for more inclusive sexual education. Paradoxically, pro-life senators were the ones promoting better and more inclusive sexual education to reduce abortions. This campaign shows once again what has been one of the themes in this discourse, the children as property of their parents instead of full citizens.

3.3. Sociological Significance Pro-choice discourse

The feminist movement in Argentina became relevant with the campaign Ni Una Menos

(Not One Less) in 2015. Through the visualization of domestic violence, the movement and activists started exposing the injustices and crimes that were being committed against women.

This element is key to understand when pro-choice discourses start gaining strength in the country. In this process of making “the private public” and showing the reality of many women, an initiative was presented to decriminalize and legalize abortion in the country.

Many grassroot groups, activists, and politicians came together to show support towards this bill. The pro-choice discourse in the senate portrays this process of exposing realities and transcribing this into public policies. Amnesty International estimates that around 400,000 and

500,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in the country. At the same time, one woman dies every thirty hours in the country due to femicides. All these facts were brought into the senate by the pro-choice senators who tried to advocate for better conditions for women in the country. This discourse also acknowledges the failure of the state at the time of guarantee security to its more vulnerable population. Abortion was not ideological anymore, but rather a reality that needed to be changed. One of the key points constantly repeated by this side was 30 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez that abortions should be treated as public health issue, and anything else was not relevant to the discussion the Senate was conducting.

This was the first time the issue of abortion was discussed in a political open forum creating a cultural shift on the perception different that what has been in the last 30 years. The history of feminism in Argentina shows some struggle to form a cohesive movement, but this is not the case for this wave. Even after the bill was rejected last August, the streets were full of women again this 8th of March. The message is that this fight for more justice and equal rights has not stopped. Something that was present in most of the speeches was the gain of the movement as it was a key factor in shifting and redefining cultural paradigms regarding abortion as well as sexual and reproductive rights (Barrancos, 2018).

4. Conclusion

The history of feminism in Argentina is marked by the constant friction with the government and its most conservative sectors. However, it has always found allies that are willing to give voice to them and join them on their fight for more inclusive rights. From the beginning, feminists were responsible for exposing the reality of women in the country, and especially the most vulnerable and neglected ones. Even though abortion was not legalized, the shift in the cultural paradigm regarding sexual education and contraception has taken a key role in the discussions of freedom in the younger populations.

The speeches from the Senate show how two completely opposite ideas of nationalism or the ideal nation are being constructed and reproduce in their discourses. In one hand, the pro-life senators argued that the nation was in danger and it needed to be protected from outside influences and ideas. At the same time, poor and young people were seen as something that needed to be taken care of instead of a group that could be empowered. The main arguments for the negative vote of the bill were mostly based on catholic and religious values that 31 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez according to most of them are an essential part of the Argentine nation. The image and role of the traditional family was also key in the debate and the concept of nation.

On the other hand, pro-choice senators appealed for a model of nation that was more inclusive and that needed changes to adapt to the changing times. They saw the state as the main guarantor for rights instead of the traditional family. The focused more on the empowerment of women and recognizing their necessities and realities to provide better tools for their development. This group also acknowledged the intersectionality of the issue and how the criminalization of abortion perpetuates inequality between rich and poor women.

As seen in the social campaigns that started after the debate, the discourses had influence on the citizens and what they ideal of nation is. Elections are coming up at the end of the year in Argentina and citizens have argued that could based their votes on the positions the senators and political parties had at the time of voting IVE. These discourses are fluid and are constantly being reformed by activists and leaders, adapting to the reality of the Argentine people.

32 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez Works Cited Allard, B. (2002). Mujer y Poder. Escritos de Sociologia Politica. Panama: Instituto de la Mujer.

Alma, A., & Lorenzo, P. (2009). Mujeres que se encuentran. Buenos Aires: Feminaria.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities. London: Verso.

Barrancos, D. (2018). La ley abortada: Notas sobre el debate de la interrupcion voluntaria del embarazo. Salud Colectiva, 373-376.

Barrancos, D., & Rosemberg, P. (2018). Aborto, sororidad y autonomía de los cuerpos: dialogo con la diputada nacional Monica Macha. Salud Colectiva, 447-460.

Bellucci, M. (1997). Women's Struggle to Decide About Their Own Bodies: Abortion and Sexual Rights in Argentina. Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 5, No.10, The International Women's Health, 99-106.

Bellucci, M. (2014). Historia de una Desobediencia. Aborto y Feminismo. Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.

Bidaseca, K., & Vazquez, V. (2011). Feminismos y Postcolonialidad. Desconolizando el feminismo desde y en America Latina. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Godot.

Connell, R. (2002). Gender. Malden: Backwell Publishing Inc.

Elizalde, S., & Mateo, N. (2018). Las jóvenes: entre la “marea verde” y la decisión de abortar. Salud Colectiva, 433-446.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. New York: Routledge.

Felitti, K., & Prieto, S. (2018). Configuraciones de la laicidad en los debates por la legalizacion del aborto en la Argentina: discursos parlamentarios y feministas (2015-2018). Salud Colectiva, 405-423.

García, A. S. (2009). Género, Estado y Nacionalismo en América Latina. Laboratorio de Investigación en Estudios del Trabajo (LAINET), 81-100.

Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentina. (2018). 10a Reunión, 5a Sesión Especial, 8 y 9 de agosto. Version Taquigrafica, (pp. 2-330). Buenos Aires.

Lavrin, A. (2005). Mujeres, Feminismo y Cambio Social en Argentina, Chile y Uruguay 1840-1940. Chile: Dirección de bibliotecas, archivos y museos.

Levin, S. (2018). ¿Salud sexual y salud reproductiva sin libertad?: El conflicto por el aborto legal en Argentina. Salud Colectiva, 377-389.

Molyneux, M. (1986). No God, No Boss, No Husband: Anarchist Feminism in Nineteenth-Century Argentina. Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 1, Latin America's Nineteenth-Century History, 119-145.

Politi, D., & Londono, E. (2018, 08 09). Argentina’s Senate Narrowly Rejects Legalizing Abortion. The New York Times.

Proyecto de Ley de Interrupción Voluntaria del Embarazo. (2019, 03). Retrieved from Aborto Legal - Campaña Nacional por el Derecho al Aborto Legal Seguro y Gratuito. 33 BETWEEN “LIFE” & “CHOICE” - Fernandez

Ruiz, J. (2009). Sociological Discourse Analysis: Methods and Logic. Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

Smink, V. (2018, 08 10). Aborto en Argentina: por qué pese a sus leyes progresistas el aborto sigue siendo intocable en el país sudamericano. BBC News Mundo, Buenos Aires.

Specia, M. (2018, 08 08). What to Know About Argentina’s Vote on Abortion. New York Times.

Tarducci, M. (2018). Escenas claves de la lucha por el derecho al aborto en Argentina. Salud Colectiva, 425-432.

Verdery, K. (1994). From Parent-state to Family Patriarchs: Gender and Nation in Contemporary Eastern Europe. East European Politics and Societies, 225-255.