Beatriz v. El Salvador: a loss for eugenic & health grounds for abortion in international human rights law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beatriz v. El Salvador is an international judgment issued in December 2024 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights involving a claim against El Salvador’s abortion ban. The Inter-American Court is an international tribunal with jurisdiction over most Latin American and Caribbean countries including El Salvador that oversees enforcement of the American Convention on Human Rights. The treaty contains a unique provision that establishes a “right [to life of every person to] be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception”. That provision has been repeatedly challenged in cases against Costa Rica and El Salvador. Beatriz is the latest judgment in that line of cases. Poised to become the regional court’s first abortion ruling, Beatriz v. El Salvador challenged El Salvador’s full ban on induced, elective abortion, similar to that of eight other Latin American and Caribbean states parties to the Convention. The case was litigated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in conjunction with abortion advocacy organizations for more than a decade, leading to a mixed decision by the Inter-American Court that endorsed a progressive interpretation of the right to health and the concept of obstetric violence, but stopped short of creating abortion rights in the American Convention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".