Written by Carlos Polo, South American Director of Population Research Institute
4th March 2026
The Abortionists Want to Stop a Beating Heart—
Even as a Woman is Giving Birth
When the abortion-minded tell you who they really are—in public and on camera—you should listen.
Such was the case during the International Conference on Family Planning 2025, held in Bogotá last November. Josefina Miró Quesada, a member of the Latin American Consortium Against Unsafe Abortion’s Legal Network, explained that access to abortion “should not be conditioned by time limits.”
Beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy, she went on, fetal asystole can be used to prevent “the fetus from resulting in a live birth.”
What is fetal asystole?
Translated into plain language, it is a lethal dose of potassium chloride, injected directly into the heart of the unborn child, to kill the child while he or she dies before leaving the womb.
Quesada’s statements, recorded on video by the Population Research Institute, is neither a slip of the tongue nor a personal opinion. It is a rare public admission of the truth behind a carefully designed strategy of the regional abortion network CLACAI (Latin American Consortium Against Unsafe Abortion). The strategy, outlined in its series of documents titled “The Timing of Abortion”, has a clear objective: to dismantle any and all time limits on abortion and normalize the killing of the unborn even in advanced stages of pregnancy—even up to the point of parturition.
“The Timing of Abortion”: When Time Limits Become an Obstacle
CLACAI does not hide its ghoulish goals. In these documents, published between 2023 and 2024, it argues that gestational limits are an “unjustified barrier” to abortion. It demands that abortion should be guaranteed “regardless of the duration of the pregnancy,” only provided it does not result in a live birth.
And they give exact instructions in how to make sure that it does not.
The organization explicitly promotes what it calls fetal asystole—a highly technical euphemism for killing by lethal injection that most people will not understand—arguing that this is justified as a matter of providing proper healthcare: “quality in abortion care.”
The irony that quality in healthcare results in the death of a human beings is lost on these people.
Instead, their logic is brutally consistent: If the fetus is already viable and could survive outside the womb, it must be killed first. Not because it represents a risk to the mother, but to avoid at all costs what they call “the problem of the live birth.”
CLACAI’s document states plainly that fetal asystole is “fundamental to ensure that induced abortions in advanced gestational stages do not result in a live birth,” aligning with a recent redefinition of abortion by the World Health Organization (WHO).
You probably don’t know that in 2022 the WHO redefined abortion in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). According to this new definition, abortion is the “intentional loss of an intrauterine pregnancy (…) that does not result in a live birth.” It intentionally makes zero reference to gestational age.
This redefinition marked a radical change in the understanding of abortion.
For more than 180 years, medicine understood abortion as the interruption of pregnancy before fetal viability (approximately between 20 and 22 weeks).
The WHO’s redefinition broke with that historical consensus. As has been documented, it did so through protocols promoted by a small group of abortion radicals with minimal medical input who were insulated from the deadly consequences of their action.
This conceptual shift redefining abortion as an intentional act that does not result in a live birth was not an academic discussion. It is the “scientific” foundation now used to justify abortions in the seventh, eighth, or ninth month of pregnancy. Brazil is the most dramatic, and best documented, example of how this strategy translates into concrete policies.
Brazil: When Theory Becomes Crime
In 2024, Brazil’s Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) approved Resolution 2.378/2024, prohibiting fetal asystole because it considered the procedure cruel, inhumane, and contrary to medical ethics. The procedure, injection of potassium chloride directly into the fetal heart, is even forbidden to be used in animals because it causes extreme pain before death.
But this resolution did not last long. Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court, through an individual decision by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, suspended it provisionally in the case ADPF 1141.
His argument: The prohibition did not align with the “best scientific standards,” he said, referring to the WHO protocols discussed above.
The consequences were immediate. According to data presented in two public hearings held in December 2025, one in the Chamber of Deputies and another in the Federal Senate, between 900 and 1,200 viable babies may have been killed through fetal asystole since the suspension of the resolution.
Every day three more are being killed.
The Brazilian hearings provided a complete picture of the issue. In the Chamber of Deputies, speakers argued that deliberately killing fully viable babies is not abortion but homicide, and that its systematic practice under state protection fits the classic definition of a crime against humanity. They reminded listeners that the Nuremberg trials determined for all time that formal “legality” does not legitimize the elimination of innocents.
In the Senate, the focus was more technical and legal. Doctors and jurists dismantled the supposed scientific basis of the WHO’s position. They explained that Brazilian law does establish gestational limits, clearly defined by Ministry of Health regulations since 2005. They also denounced Justice Alexandre de Moraes abuse of power: a single judicial decision capable of nullifying medical criteria and opening the door to a silent massacre.
Both hearings agreed on one central point: fetal asystole is not a medical necessity but an ideological tool to ensure that nothing—even the viability of the unborn child—can stop an abortion from being performed.
A Scandal That Is Only Beginning
What Josefina Miró Quesada’s video in Bogotá exposes is how CLACAI intends to promote late-term abortion throughout Latin America. CLACAI trains lawyers, doctors, and activists to abandon common sense and accept that killing an unborn child, even a full-term unborn child, is required as “essential health service.”
Brazil demonstrates how far this logic can go when international activism, WHO backing, and judicial decisions without democratic oversight combine. This is not merely a debate about time limits. It is the normalization of prenatal and perinatal infanticide.
There is no longer any doubt that this dehumanizing and deadly strategy exists. It is already happening in Brazil and is being promoted elsewhere. The evidence is public, written, and recorded.
The real question is how many more countries will follow the same path, and how many viable unborn children will be sacrificed, before someone dares to call murder by its proper name.
