Dear Colleague:
UN bureaucrats and delegates continue their efforts to insert language
promoting "sexual and reproductive rights" into as many documents as
possible. Does that phrase include the right to abortion?
Steven W. Mosher
President
PRI Weekly Briefing
7 April 2005
Vol. 7 / No. 13
Abortion Politics at the United Nations
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
NEW YORK CITY--Abortion politics pops up everywhere. All this week at
United Nations headquarters, the UN Commission on Population and
Development is meeting to discuss strategy in combating HIV/AIDS. As one
speaker at the conference put it, AIDS has afflicted so many people in
some developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, that
"HIV/AIDS is no longer only a public health issue, but a population and
economic development issue as well." With HIV adult infection rates at
10%, 20%, or even over 30% in some sub-Saharan African countries, the AIDS
epidemic is rapidly altering the demographics and economies of these
nations for the worse. As the epidemic spreads rapidly among girls and
women, who now make up a majority of new HIV cases, the future effects on
African populations will be worse than those experienced thus far.
HIV's devastation has provided the pretext for yet another International
organ, the UN Economic and Social Council's Commission on Population And
Development, to renew the promotion of "sexual and reproductive rights"
and "sexual and reproductive health services" in developing countries.
Not only have these programs worsened the HIV/AIDS crisis by promoting
promiscuity and unnatural practices among youth, teaching people that
condoms prevent the spread of disease (they may slow the spread, but even
this is unclear), and establishing Third World reproductive health clinics
that transmit disease from person to person due to poor sanitary
practices, but the phraseology used to authorize them has been interpreted
to include the"right" to and "service" of abortion. Those of us here in
NewYork attending this conference representing pro-life non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) would like the delegates to make clear that if they
adopt the promotion of sexual and reproductive rights and services, they
do not mean to include abortion. (It would likely be too much to ask them
to drop the promotion of sex education and condom use, and we are not even
trying.)
Anyone who has followed the activities of previous UN conferences such as
those in Cairo, the International Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD), and Beijing should know that the UN has already adopted language
promoting sexual and reproductive rights and services. In fact, delegate
after delegate here has approvingly cited the ICDP plan of action's call
for "universal access to reproductive health services by 2015." So why
are we concerned about such language in the resolutions that this meeting
adopts?
When such language was adopted by UN conferences in the 1990s, we were
assured that it would not be used to promote abortion around the world.
We were told reproductive rights included the right to abortion only in
those countries where abortion was already legal. Since then, we have
seen the lie.
The UN Compliance Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has pressured the
governments of numerous countries to liberalize their abortion laws. The
most recent example is Paraguay. Other nations include Mexico, Colombia,
Chile, Peru, Luxembourg, Ireland, Italy, Croatia, Nepal, and Samoa. The
Human Rights Committees in Geneva have used such language to push abortion
on Poland, Malta, Chile, and Morocco. And pro-abortion NGOs such as the
International Women's Health Coalition cite this UN language in their
efforts to legalize abortion around the globe.
If reproductive rights language is repeatedly inserted into one UN
declaration after another, it could become part of customary international
law, which is often cited by UN bureaucrats to justify interference into
the internal laws of various countries. It can also be cited by activist
judges around the world who like to use international law to trump their
own countries' laws, as the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly inclined to
do.
This is why it is important to amend this conference's draft resolution to
make it clear that it is not endorsing abortion rights. We are asking
that a simple phrase be added to a paragraph of the resolution reaffirming
the ICDP's previously adopted plan of action: "while understanding that
nothing therein creates a right to abortion."
Delegate after delegate has assured us that they do not wish to promote
abortion and that "reproductive rights" does not include a right to
abortion in countries where abortion is illegal. The executive director
of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) told me herself that she
does not want her agency to promote or perform abortions, as it has so
often in the past. So perhaps this amendment will be adopted without
controversy?
Watch this space.
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at PRI.
_________
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, VA 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
_________
© 2005 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
https://pop.org/donate.cfm. All
donations (of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated.
_________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, send an email to:
JOIN-PRI@Pluto.Sparklist.com
or email pri@pop.org and say "Add me to your
Weekly Briefing."
__________
The Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights
abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."
Dear Colleague:
Japan's fertility rate has not improved despite authorities' efforts.
Will euthanasia, so successfully practiced upon Terri Schiavo in this
country, become Japan's method for dealing with a rapidly aging
population?
Steven W. Mosher
President
PRI Weekly Briefing
7 April 2005
Vol. 7 / No. 13
Abortion Politics at the United Nations
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
NEW YORK CITY--Abortion politics pops up everywhere. All this week at
United Nations headquarters, the UN Commission on Population and
Development is meeting to discuss strategy in combating HIV/AIDS. As one
speaker at the conference put it, AIDS has afflicted so many people in
some developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, that
"HIV/AIDS is no longer only a public health issue, but a population and
economic development issue as well." With HIV adult infection rates at
10%, 20%, or even over 30% in some sub-Saharan African countries, the AIDS
epidemic is rapidly altering the demographics and economies of these
nations for the worse. As the epidemic spreads rapidly among girls and
women, who now make up a majority of new HIV cases, the future effects on
African populations will be worse than those experienced thus far.
HIV's devastation has provided the pretext for yet another International
organ, the UN Economic and Social Council's Commission on Population And
Development, to renew the promotion of "sexual and reproductive rights"
and "sexual and reproductive health services" in developing countries.
Not only have these programs worsened the HIV/AIDS crisis by promoting
promiscuity and unnatural practices among youth, teaching people that
condoms prevent the spread of disease (they may slow the spread, but even
this is unclear), and establishing Third World reproductive health clinics
that transmit disease from person to person due to poor sanitary
practices, but the phraseology used to authorize them has been interpreted
to include the"right" to and "service" of abortion. Those of us here in
NewYork attending this conference representing pro-life non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) would like the delegates to make clear that if they
adopt the promotion of sexual and reproductive rights and services, they
do not mean to include abortion. (It would likely be too much to ask them
to drop the promotion of sex education and condom use, and we are not even
trying.)
Anyone who has followed the activities of previous UN conferences such as
those in Cairo, the International Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD), and Beijing should know that the UN has already adopted language
promoting sexual and reproductive rights and services. In fact, delegate
after delegate here has approvingly cited the ICDP plan of action's call
for "universal access to reproductive health services by 2015." So why
are we concerned about such language in the resolutions that this meeting
adopts?
When such language was adopted by UN conferences in the 1990s, we were
assured that it would not be used to promote abortion around the world.
We were told reproductive rights included the right to abortion only in
those countries where abortion was already legal. Since then, we have
seen the lie.
The UN Compliance Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has pressured the
governments of numerous countries to liberalize their abortion laws. The
most recent example is Paraguay. Other nations include Mexico, Colombia,
Chile, Peru, Luxembourg, Ireland, Italy, Croatia, Nepal, and Samoa. The
Human Rights Committees in Geneva have used such language to push abortion
on Poland, Malta, Chile, and Morocco. And pro-abortion NGOs such as the
International Women's Health Coalition cite this UN language in their
efforts to legalize abortion around the globe.
If reproductive rights language is repeatedly inserted into one UN
declaration after another, it could become part of customary international
law, which is often cited by UN bureaucrats to justify interference into
the internal laws of various countries. It can also be cited by activist
judges around the world who like to use international law to trump their
own countries' laws, as the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly inclined to
do.
This is why it is important to amend this conference's draft resolution to
make it clear that it is not endorsing abortion rights. We are asking
that a simple phrase be added to a paragraph of the resolution reaffirming
the ICDP's previously adopted plan of action: "while understanding that
nothing therein creates a right to abortion."
Delegate after delegate has assured us that they do not wish to promote
abortion and that "reproductive rights" does not include a right to
abortion in countries where abortion is illegal. The executive director
of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) told me herself that she
does not want her agency to promote or perform abortions, as it has so
often in the past. So perhaps this amendment will be adopted without
controversy?
Watch this space.
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at PRI.
_________
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, VA 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
_________
© 2005 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
https://pop.org/donate.cfm. All
donations (of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated.
_________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, send an email to:
JOIN-PRI@Pluto.Sparklist.com
or email pri@pop.org and say "Add me to your
Weekly Briefing."
__________
The Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights
abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."