Social Actors and Discourse on Abortion in the Mexican Press: the Paulina Case

Abstract

Abstract

The “Paulina case” is the story of a 13-year-old girl in Mexico who became pregnant in 1999 after being raped. Although she received permission to obtain a legal abortion, the hospital convinced her mother through misleading information to decline the abortion. This case has become an almost obligatory point of reference when abortion is discussed in Mexico. This paper analyses how the Mexican press portrayed the Paulina case and the social actors who participated in it – Paulina herself, Paulina's allies, the state government, the Catholic Church, members of the political party PAN and the National Human Rights Commission. One of the great breakthroughs of this case was that the denial of an abortion was judged to be a form of negligence. In demanding justice for Paulina, Paulina's allies were given moral authority in the press to denounce those who denied her an abortion. While the government of Baja California state and members of the PAN were held responsible for their role in the case, the Catholic Church, who was also responsible, seemed to escape criticism. It is probable that the large emotional weight of the Paulina case accomplished more in terms of changing public opinion in support of women's right to decide on abortion than any other single event to date.

Résumé

$\ll$L'affaire Paulina $\gg$ est l'histoire d'une adolescente mexicaine de 13 ans, enceinte en 1999 à la suite d'un viol. Bien qu'elle ait été autorisée à avorter légalement, l'hôpital a convaincu sa mère par des informations trompeuses de refuser l'avortement. Cette affaire est devenue une référence obligée lors de tout débat sur l'avortement au Mexique. Cet article analyse comment la presse mexicaine a décrit l'affaire Paulina et les acteurs sociaux y ayant participé – Paulina, ses alliés, les autorités de l'Etat, l'Eglise catholique, les membres du parti politique PAN et la Commission nationale des droits de l'homme. L'un des grands progrès de cette affaire est que le refus d'avortement a été jugé comme une forme de négligence. En demandant justice pour Paulina, ses alliés ont reçu dans la presse l'autorité morale requise pour dénoncer ceux qui lui avaient refusé l'avortement. Alors que les pouvoirs publics de l'Etat de Baja California et les membres du PAN ont été tenus pour responsables de leur rôle dans l'affaire, l'Eglise catholique qui était aussi responsable semble avoir échappée aux critiques. Il est probable que le fort poids émotionnel de l'affaire Paulina aura fait davantage pour modifier l'opinion publique en faveur du droit des femmes à décider si elles veulent avorter que tout autre événement.

Resumen

El “caso Paulina” es la historia de una niña mexicana de 13 años que resultó embarazada en 1999 después de haber sido violada. Aunque recibió permiso para obtener un aborto legal, el personal del hospital convenció a su madre, mediante información distorsionada, de rechazar el aborto. El caso se ha convertido en un punto de referencia obligatorio cuando se habla del aborto en México. Este artı́culo analiza cómo la prensa mexicana representó el caso Paulina y los actores sociales que participaron en él: Paulina, sus aliadas, el gobierno estatal, la Iglesia Católica, los afiliados al Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN), y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos. Uno de los hitos más significativos del caso fue que se consideró que la decisión de negarle el aborto a Paulina constituyera una forma de negligencia. Al demandar justicia para Paulina, la prensa atribuyó a sus aliadas la autoridad moral para denunciar a quienes le negaron el aborto. Si bien se responsabilizó al gobierno de Baja California y los miembros del PAN por su papel en el caso, la Iglesia Católica, que era también responsable, parece haberse librado de las crı́ticas. Es probable que el gran peso emocional del caso Paulina haya tenido más impacto sobre la opinión pública a favor del derecho de la mujer de decidir en materia del aborto que cualquier otro acontecimiento hasta la fecha.

Key Words:

• abortion law and policy
• sexual violence and abuse
• advocacy and political process
• role of media
• Mexico

On 31 July 1999 in Mexicali, Baja California state, Mexico, a 13-year-old girl named Paulina was raped by a thief in her family's house. With the help of her mother, Paulina reported the rape. Upon learning she was pregnant, they requested an abortion. The state prosecutor authorized an abortion at Mexicali General Hospital, where she was admitted on two different occasions. On neither occasion, however, was an abortion carried out [1]. Various attempts were made to persuade Paulina and her mother that she should not undergo the abortion. The state Attorney General personally took Paulina and her mother to see a priest, for example. Then the director of the hospital told her mother that Paulina could haemorrhage, become infertile or die as a result of the procedure. Frightened, her mother signed a document declaring that she no longer wished an abortion for her daughter. This happened a mere 16 days before the three-month limit for a legal abortion was reached under state law. Days later, the case became public in the local press, and in January 2001 the national press picked it up. By then, it was no longer possible for Paulina to terminate the pregnancy; she gave birth to a boy in April 2000.

Upon reading about the case in the local press, two feminist groups in Mexicali, Alaı́de Foppa and Diversa, filed a complaint with the local Human Rights Commission that Paulina's rights as a minor had been violated in numerous ways. The Commission upheld the complaint and recommended: (1) compensation to Paulina and her family for the moral damage caused by not being allowed to exercise her right to an abortion, (2) the establishment of a trust fund to provide maintenance for Paulina and her son, and (3) administrative or penal proceedings to hold the involved officials responsible [1]. The governor of the state, Alejandro González Alcocer, rejected these recommendations and the case was appealed to the National Human Rights Commission, who again ruled in favour of Paulina. After more than a year of controversy and under strong pressure from the media and local and national civil society groups, the governor offered Paulina a vacant piece of land and a sum of money, though less than was recommended. Paulina and her family accepted both, but they are continuing the legal process against those who were responsible for denying her an abortion.

Paulina's case attracted a great deal of public attention and generated many articles in the media in 2000, giving abortion “a human face” in Mexico. For the first time, a young girl's experience, instead of abortion in general, was the subject of discussion, and it has had a great influence on abortion law and policy in Mexico.

This paper analyses how the Mexican press portrayed the actors involved in the Paulina case, based on the headlines of the 306 articles that were published in the national press in Mexico from January to August 2000. Although 18 different print media published articles on Paulina, ¹ the case was reported most regularly in one daily newspaper that identifies with the left, La Jornada (93 articles) and three with liberal leanings, Reforma (51 articles), El Universal (44 articles) and Milenio diario (28 articles). These four newspapers published 216 of the 306 articles which appeared. The other 14 outlets, representing both newspapers and magazines, published the remaining 90 articles. Hence, in political terms, the Paulina case was interpreted for the public mainly by the print media with the most liberal positions on sexuality and reproduction. Nonetheless, the extent of coverage in other outlets shows that the case resonated with all audiences, including newspapers that have never normally referred to abortion or only as a deplorable practice.

The actors, according to the headlines

Headlines are a journalistic genre in and of themselves [2]. Research has shown that headlines are the part of newspapers that most people read and contain the information that readers are most likely to remember [3].

A review of the 306 headlines on the Paulina case identified 60 named individuals and institutions. These were grouped according to the form their participation took in the case. Those who were named less than ten times were discarded, leaving nine (Table 1

Table 1 Actors named in the Paulina case in press headlines

Actor	No. of references
Paulina	107
Isaac (Paulina's son)	17
Paulina's allies	62
Baja California state government officials	70
Catholic Church hierarchy	35
National Action Party (PAN)	47
Pro-life	13
Leaders of left-wing political parties (PRD, PT, PDS)	15
National Human Rights Commission	22

). Of these, two were not relevant to understanding the case, the leftist parties and Paulina's son. When the leftist party leaders were headlined, the articles always mentioned the Paulina case in relation to abortion in general or to other political events. Paulina's son was named 17 times but was not an actor in the case as such. This left seven actors referred to in the headlines for analysis.

Paulina's age

Just over 20% of the headlines about Paulina refer to her age. She is described as a “minor”, an “adolescent”, a “teenager” or a “child”. Despite the different meanings of these words, they are used interchangeably to a certain extent, which is not surprising in that Paulina was 13 when she was raped and 14 when she gave birth. Although it seems obvious in retrospect, one of the main reasons why the case got so much attention was the fact that a “child” had been raped and became pregnant, which is very moving in media terms. A pregnant child is a rather unusual phenomenon; when the press reports other cases of pregnant girls, they normally speak of “teenage pregnancy” not “child pregnancy”.

The emphasis on Paulina's age cannot be due only to the rape, however, given that the age of women who are raped does not usually merit press attention, or at least not to this degree, unless the girl is even younger than Paulina. It would appear that Paulina's age was repeatedly stressed because she had requested an abortion. This suggestion is supported by Celeste Michel Condit's analysis of abortion rhetoric in the USA. In the early 1970s, abortion had not yet been articulated in the public sphere as a necessity for women. Instead, the press opted to present cases of “good” women (married and/or with children) who had had to resort to abortion following rape or due to fetal abnormality [4]. Through these stories, the press created a base from which to talk about this issue, even though it went against the family values of the time.

In Mexico, abortion has been articulated as a necessity for women and as a right demanded by feminist groups since the 1970s [5][6], but it was only at the end of the 1980s that the media gave more space to abortion as a public health problem [7]. Today, the Mexican media cover abortion more often, but this coverage is not always positive. It is still treated either as a women's health problem or through the lens of yellow journalism but rarely as a social problem of concern to the general population. Paulina's case, in which an adolescent girl sought an abortion for reasons beyond her control, gave the press an opportunity to address abortion anew, but without going against the values and beliefs that prevail in Mexico on this issue. Thus, mentioning Paulina's age invoked innocence or, at the very least, the lack of malicious intent, as is attributed to young girls.

Paulina's name and her story

Paulina's name in the headlines became firmly associated with rape and abortion in a brief space of time, through phrases such as “raped child” or “raped teenager” or “who was not allowed to abort”. Eventually, the mere mention of “Paulina” had the power to evoke her story, and many headlines used emotive expressions in relation to what happened to her (Table 2

Table 2 Headlines with Paulina's name

Headline	Newspaper	Date
Paulina, human rights and abortion: the next torment	El Dı́a	5/4/2000
Paulina's via crucis	La Crónica	7/4/2000
Paulina: double violence	Reforma	14/4/2000
The drama of Paulina	La Jornada	17/4/2000
Paulina's other rape	Milenio diario	17/4/2000
The wound of Paulina	La Jornada	27/9/2000
No more Paulinas	Reforma	15/4/2000

).

These headlines are convincing due to their brevity and dramatic effect. The words used are all associated with pain and suffering. Some use her name as a synonym for injustice and lack of respect for human rights, e.g. “No more Paulinas”. Thus, “Paulina” became a generic name representing all women at risk of not being allowed an abortion when a pregnancy is the result of rape.

Paulina's allies: a heterogeneous group with moral authority

Under the heading “Paulina's allies”, I include a heterogeneous group of individuals and organizations that: (i) condemned the fact that Paulina was denied a legal abortion, (ii) demanded punishment for those who denied her the abortion, (iii) demanded reparation for damages caused by denying her an abortion and (iv) publicly supported Paulina in statements to the press. These included various federal government officials; Baja California state Congressmen and women from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI in Spanish) and the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD); 32 intellectuals who signed a public statement in favour of Paulina; Socorro Maya, Paulina's lawyer; and various feminist organizations and other civil society groups.

A diversity of actors from distinct social and political arenas around the country supported Paulina. Some of them (such as feminists, federal officials and Congressional representatives) have been antagonistic towards each other in relation to other political events, but in this case they came together in their support for Paulina. In terms of the future of the abortion debate, it is significant that more and more groups and organizations are coming together to defend women's right to decide more generally [7].

In the headlines mentioning these individuals and groups, the use of verbs like “claim”, “denounce”, “accuse”, “demand”, and even “criticize” and “ask for punishment”, are abundant. These contribute to an image of Paulina's case as a terrain of dispute, struggle and power, which is common in the political arena. However, Paulina's supporters could only have had an influence on what path events followed if they were seen to have moral authority. A person cannot successfully “denounce” or “demand” anything if their own position and actions are susceptible to criticism or lacking in authority. Counter-accusations were never made against Paulina's allies, and the newspapers invested them with a certain authority, which supported Paulina's quest for justice (Table 3

Table 3 Headlines with the demands of Paulina's allies

Headline	Newspaper	Date
Government of BC accused of pressuring an adolescent	Ovaciones	23/3/2000
Intellectuals ask for response in the Paulina case	La Jornada	6/4/2000
Communicators demand justice for the young Paulina	La Crónica	17/4/2000
Paulina's case condemned at the UN (Mexican women's NGOs)	Reforma	7/6/2000
Ministry of Health criticized for lack of support in the Paulina case	Reforma	31/7/2000

).

The source of this authority stemmed from their speaking in the name of a cause that the majority of Mexicans considered just. A recent poll conducted by the Population Council in Mexico shows that almost two-thirds of the Mexican population (63%) believe a woman should be able to choose abortion when the pregnancy is the result of rape [8]. As defenders whose voices are united in asking for justice for Paulina, they were able to denounce and accuse those who denied Paulina an abortion.

State officials: responsible but not held responsible

According to research conducted by the local and national Human Rights Commissions, at least four public officials directly intervened to stop Paulina from having an abortion, even though it was legal. These were the Attorney General of Baja California, the Director of Mexicali General Hospital, the Health Minister of Baja California and an official in the State Prosecutor's office. One of the most surprising findings of this research is that these officials rarely appeared in the headlines by name.

Many of the 70 headlines that refer to the responsibility of persons or institutions declare that Paulina was not allowed to have an abortion, but without directing attributing responsibility for this. Instead, only generic titles such as “officials”, “authorities” or “doctors” are often used. Only 44 explicitly mention a name, in most cases the Baja California government.

The question then arises, if there were named officials who were alleged to be the responsible parties, why did the press mostly put the blame on the government of Baja California? A plausible response is that it was easier to hold the government of Baja California responsible for the actions of state officials than to try to name everyone involved. In fact, the state Governor rejected the first Human Rights Commission recommendations only a few weeks after the national press began to cover the case (mid-March 2000). With this act, he allied himself with the officials who had prevented the abortion, which allowed the press to attribute responsibility for what happened to him and his government. Shifting of the officials' responsibility to the Governor gave the press the advantage of being able to focus on one main actor in the case. In terms of bringing justice, however, the disadvantage was that responsibility was not place on the shoulders of those who actually prevented the abortion.

Refusing a legal abortion constitutes negligence: a breakthrough

One of the great breakthroughs of this case is that it modified the traditional view of abortion. Abortion has been clandestine, prohibited and morally incorrect for many years. In the Paulina case, in contrast, from the time the headlines began to appear, denying her an abortion was judged as negative and appraisals of the officials who had denied the abortion were also negative. In 43 of the 70 headlines that mention the government of Baja California or government officials, there is an accusation, a critique or a demand against them. In many, the denial of abortion is attributed to “negligence”, “prejudice”, “fanaticism” or a “violation of Paulina's rights” (Table 4

Table 4 Headlines defining the denial of abortion as negligence

Headline	Newspaper/magazine	Date
Irregularities and negligence in the case of a raped minor	La Jornada	25/1/2000
Rape and prejudice convert a minor into a mother	La Jornada	6/3/2000
A teenager, victim of anti-abortionist fanaticism in the government of Baja California	Proceso	2/4/2000
Paulina: double violence	Reforma	14/4/2000
Paulina's other rape	Milenio diario	17/4/2000
Astorga “Violates a secular state”	Milenio diario	4/8/2000
Paulina's case: violation of her rights	Reforma	8/8/2000
Attorney General of BC violated the individual rights of Paulina del Carmen	Excélsior	26/9/2000
History of deceit and impunity	El Universal	27/9/2000

).

The headlines also accuse the officials of ignoring the separation of Church and State and of violating Paulina's individual rights as well as having cheated, pressured and victimized her, causing “moral damage”. In some cases, the headlines compare the denial of abortion with the rape of Paulina, implying that Paulina had been the victim of two rapes and putting the officials responsible on the same level as the rapist.

Without a doubt, one of the greatest achievements of Paulina's allies and those working for the decriminalization of abortion was to ensure that most of the headlines and the people who wrote about the case shared their indignation over what Paulina suffered. The expressions used by the press in these headlines helped to communicate the previously unheard-of message that the denial of an abortion can be a form of negligence, thus implying that abortion for victims of rape is morally acceptable (as well as already legal).

The Catholic Church hierarchy condemns all abortions, but goes uncriticized

Of the 35 headlines that mention the Church, only nine refer directly to Paulina. The Church took advantage of the opportunity of the Paulina case to condemn all abortions and as such, to reinforce their rejection of abortion for rape survivors many times (Table 5

Table 5 Headlines referring to the Catholic Church

Headline	Newspaper	Date
Church condemns abortion; rape is not an exception	El Heraldo de México	13/4/2000
Rape does not justify abortion, confirms the Church	El Heraldo de México	17/4/2000
The Church condemns abortion, even in cases of rape	El Sol de México	20/4/2000
Bishop calls for prohibition of abortion under any circumstance	La Jornada	25/4/2000
Clergy supports the penalization of abortion in any circumstance	La Jornada	7/8/2000

). Their statements support, defend and even praise those who intervened to prevent her from terminating her pregnancy. From most of the headlines reporting the Church's views, it is as if the Paulina case were not happening. Yet open discussion of access to legal abortion for rape survivors was forced precisely by the Paulina case. Although the Church hierarchy rejects abortion in general, in this case they were obliged to underline their rejection of abortion for rape survivors who become pregnant.

One of the most disconcerting discoveries about the manner in which the Church was treated by the press in this case was that critiques of the Church's position on abortion, in general or on the Paulina case, were conspicuous by their absence. Instead, the press reproduced, time and again, the statements of the Church without questioning them, as if they had great journalistic value and as if the Mexican population shared all the Church's ideas on abortion. Of the 35 headlines that refer to the church, only two were openly condemnatory and only five contain some element that could be read as criticism – not directed at the Church alone but also at the conservatism demonstrated by members of the National Action Party (PAN) or Pro-life.

Hence, despite the fact that the press contributed to the hostility towards the officials who denied Paulina an abortion and others, they did little to show that the Church had also intervened to prevent Paulina from having an abortion. Clearly, the press are accustomed to treating the Church hierarchy as subjects who produce news and as interlocutors in the political arena. Although other actors were severely criticized for the pressure they put on Paulina, the Church seemed to be immune from criticism.

The National Action Party: an uncomfortable alliance

The PAN is one of the three main political parties in Mexico; it only began to win local elections in a few northern states in the mid-1980s, but its popularity has since increased. In 2000, when the Paulina case re-opened the abortion debate, the PAN candidate won the presidential elections, the first time in 70 years that a candidate not from the Institutional Revolutionary Party has won this position.

Paradoxically, while putting forward an image as the “party of change”, the PAN is the only important political party identified with a conservative position on abortion. Inside the party, there seems to be a lack of consensus on how to manage the issue as some members advocate complete criminalization of abortion, while others believe legal exceptions should be made.

The conservative positions on abortion within the PAN originate from the strongly Catholic orientation of its first members and the close relationship it has sustained with the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, there has been little serious analysis of that relationship, even by those specialising in the history of the PAN [9], in spite of the important political consequences, particularly regarding sexuality and reproduction.

In relation to the Paulina case, however, the alliance between these two actors was summarily visible, and the press could have directed public attention to the fact that these two institutions united to deny Paulina an abortion. The PAN's literature has indicated for several decades that the party seeks to “secure the right to life from conception in the Constitution”, which concurs entirely with the Church's position. And if that were not enough, the Baja California officials who denied Paulina an abortion were PAN members and made use of religious arguments to justify their actions.

The headlines that mention the Church and the PAN together not only show the agreement between these two institutions on abortion but also that the press seems to perceive this relationship negatively (Table 6

Table 6 Headlines about the Catholic Church and the PAN

Headline	Newspaper	Date
Mochismo,^amachismo and PANismo	Milenio diario	10/8/2000
Monotheism dressed up as the PAN	La Jornada	12/8/2000
Integrismo^bin the PAN	Reforma	12/8/2000

a Mochismo is a colloquial term, which roughly translates as extreme religious tendencies. The headline is saying the PAN members are ultra-Catholic and that they undervalue women.

b Integrismo is a Spanish political party founded at the end of the 19th century to preserve national traditions and way of life. Comparing the PAN with this party is equivalent to saying that the PAN is ultra-conservative.

).

Mexico was established as a secular state in 1857 and no political party is supposed to represent the interests of any religion. For this reason the PAN is criticised, and the press has expressed fears that the Church's views on abortion could become law, even though Mexicans, the majority of whom are Catholic, have very diverse opinions on this topic [6]. According to the most recent poll, the majority accept abortion in specific circumstances. Furthermore, almost the entire Mexican population (93%) believes that the position of the Catholic Church should not be taken into account when developing laws regulating abortion [8].

Pro-life Association: mostly absent

The National Pro-life Association is one of the actors whose identity is intimately related to abortion, and as such its participation in the debates on the issue has been intense and ongoing [7]. This identity is so strong that the mere mention of Pro-life serves as a reference of opposition to abortion. Thus, its limited presence in discussion of the Paulina case and the fact that it appears in only ten headlines is unexpected. However, many articles reported that two Pro-life members illegally entered the hospital where Paulina was admitted to show her a video similar to The Silent Scream to attempt to persuade her not to have an abortion.

Pro-life is given hostile treatment by the press when it is mentioned and its actions are by and large characterized negatively in newspapers with a liberal viewpoint on abortion. Of all those involved in the case Pro-life was subject to the strongest criticism and their authority in the case was rejected. Their members were esteemed “deadly hordes” and they were accused of using “deceit as an anti-abortion method”. One headline even suggested that they could become politically isolated for their radical posture on abortion, in direct contrast to how the Catholic Church hierarchy is treated, in spite of the similarity of their views.

This is not the first time that Pro-life has been strongly criticized; for approximately 10 years, its actions have been the target of ridicule in the liberal media. Its director in particular is exemplified as an intolerant person for his opposition to contraceptives, especially to condom use. Perhaps their poor presence in the media was the reason why the organization appeared to avoid the press during the Paulina case.

National Human Rights Commission

The majority of the 13 headlines in 13 different publications that mention the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) were published in September 2000 when they made their recommendations to the Baja California government. This was one of the few “events” of the case that received ample media coverage, the others being the birth of Paulina's son and the alleged connection between the Paulina case and the failed attempt at legislative reform in Guanajuato in August 2000, when the PAN tried to pass a proposal to revoke the legal right to abortion if pregnancy results from rape. The CNDH's recommendations were reproduced in some daily papers that did not consistently cover the case, often almost without comment. Most stressed that Paulina was finally going to get some compensation. The ruling in favour of Paulina in September 2000 was for the press the culmination of a story they had helped to put into the public domain more than a year earlier.

Discussion

Discourse analysis of headlines and articles in the media has been valuable in understanding how the media in Mexico portrayed abortion in a very special case. Many organizations that support the right to decide on abortion include working with and influencing the media as one of their goals, yet published analysis of abortion discourse in the press remains rare in Mexico.

In the Paulina case, the Mexican media proffered great support for the need for abortion as a result of rape, and the majority of articles presented what happened as a story of injustice and violation of a young girl's rights. Although the case was reported most often by the four daily newspapers with liberal tendencies, the rest of the print media joined them in condemning some – though significantly not all – of those who denied Paulina an abortion. The question of why the most powerful institution that opposes abortion, the Catholic Church, was not criticised for opposing abortion in cases of rape is a subject for research in itself.

The impact of the Paulina case is demonstrated in three subsequent events:

•	In August 2000, when public interest in the Paulina case was just beginning to die down, Congressional representatives from the PAN in the state of Guanajuato approved a law to criminalize abortion, including for rape survivors. The press cited the Paulina case time and again as evidence of the unjust nature of this proposed law, and the number of articles that referred to Paulina increased dramatically during this period. In the end, the law was not passed and abortion for rape survivors continues to be the only legal exception for abortion that is valid in the entire country.
•	Also in August 2000, new legislation on abortion was passed in Mexico City that included a maximum waiting period of 24 hours for a legal abortion where pregnancy is the result of rape. This regulation ensures that health service providers cannot delay access to this procedure, as happened to Paulina.
•	In July 2001, in the state of Sinaloa, the mother of an adolescent who was suffering from developmental problems and who had been repeatedly raped by her father, requested an abortion for her daughter. Although health authorities at first attempted to deny her the service, the abortion was performed a few weeks later.

It is probable that, with the help of the press, the large emotional weight of the Paulina case has accomplished more in terms of changing public opinion in support of the right of women to decide on abortion than any other single event to date.

Acknowledgements

This article presents part of my research on abortion and discourse in the Mexican press for an MA in social anthropology, Language Studies Programme, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologı́a Social (CIESAS), Mexico City, under Dr Teresa Carbó. This work could not have been carried out without the support of Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida (GIRE), with whom I have collaborated for five years and who generously gave me access to their library and information on the Paulina case. Thanks also to Jennifer Paine of GIRE for reviewing and translating this paper from Spanish to English.

Notes

1 These include: La Jornada, Reforma, El Universal, Milenio diario, Excélsior, La Crónica, El Heraldo de México, El Sol de México, Proceso, El Economista, Unomásuno, El Dı́a, Ovaciones, La Prensa, Siempre!, El Financiero, Época and Novedades.