Posted on 08/23/2022 9:22:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Delegates at the United Nations General Assembly are finalizing negotiations on a resolution that would require all U.N. agencies to declare abortion a human right, reportedly due to pressure from the European Union and the Biden administration.
The resolution contains language about abortion that has reportedly been rejected in other resolutions over the past decade. As the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) earlier reported, it's being considered for adoption by the end of the month.
According to C-Fam, the resolution declares that governments should secure “access to safe abortion” as a matter of policy and “ensure the promotion and protection of the human rights of all women and their sexual and reproductive health.”
Western countries backing the resolution reportedly forced the inclusion of this language. Although a Japanese diplomat leading the negotiations stated that delegations could not alter the language on abortion, it remained despite repeat objections, according to C-Fam.
The resolution’s language does not outright declare abortion an international human right and includes the caveat “where such services are permitted by law.”
"The European Union and the U.S. government are trying to undermine the long-standing consensus of the General Assembly that abortion is an issue that should be decided at the national level without external interference from the United Nations,” Stefano Gennarini, vice president for legal studies at C-Fam, said in an emailed statement to The Christian Post on Monday.
Gennarini said that both had done this “intermittently” for over 30 years, but he believes they have made it a priority now due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in June.
The high court upheld Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban in a 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, declaring that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The decision returned the power to make laws governing abortion back to the individual states.
“The issue isn't just whether abortion should be accessible as a matter of human rights or not. It is about protecting the integrity of international aid,” Gennarini wrote. “Until now, the General Assembly consensus was that governments should help women avoid abortion.”
Gennarini believes there will be pressure on women to abort if the U.N. considers adopting the resolution as part of its response to sexual violence.
“Abortion is cheaper than providing healthcare and social support to mothers and their children,” he told CP. “There is an inherent tension here. No woman should ever feel pressured to abort by governments or international agencies."
Delegates noted that the EU appeared to be rather aggressive in its negotiations, which is not standard protocol, according to C-Fam. The main sponsors of a resolution typically facilitate negotiations, and they do not negotiate it themselves.
Another apparent break from tradition is the term “safe abortion,” which appears in the resolution, as U.N. member states have not widely accepted the phrase. Roughly half the voting members of the Human Rights Council supported Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s proposed amendments to delete the term. Currently, those countries ban or impose restrictions on abortion.
In Egypt, abortion is prohibited under Articles 260 to 264 of its July 1937 Penal Code. However, the country makes exceptions in cases where the mother’s health or life is in danger. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion advocacy group, Saudi Arabia permits abortion if the mother’s mental or physical health is at risk.
As the World Health Organization reported in May 2017, abortions in Bahrain can only be committed after authorization from a health professional and in an authorized facility. The country also permits sanctions on the woman seeking an abortion, the abortionist and an individual that assists with the abortion.
Progressive Western countries’ efforts to promote “safe abortion” is at odds with the consensus of the General Assembly, defined during the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, according to C-Fam.
The caveats adopted during the Cairo conference state that the U.N. shouldn't make any determination on the matter of abortion. They add that governments should help women avoid abortion and focus on helping them provide for their children before and after birth.
And the UN General Assembly does NOT make law for the United States.
Stop the world I want to get off. Jesus must be weeping.
Except for the victims of the sacrifice to Moloch.
It’s another example of Bastiat’s “seen and unseen“. In this case, rights are conferred only on those people whom progs want to see.
Shouldn’t that be an ‘in-Human Right’?
Next up. Slavery as a human right. Why not; If killing someone is a human right.
That was the worse thing that Truman did was to put the United Nothing in New York City.
This is a big nothingburger. If it passes, just another meaningless piece of paper coming out of the UNGA playpen to be filed away where it will gather dust.
On land owned by the Rockefeller family, IIRC.
“And the UN General Assembly does NOT make law for the United States”
No but the liberals in this country will point to it as a demonic gospel.
Women also have the right to feel unending guilt, shame and remorse.
(they never tell you that part)
Great message on the abortion issue by a speaker named Voddie Baucham:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x82BVdJSVts
Although the action is meaningless (at least, until the progressives achieve their dream of making our Constitution subject to international law), it could create an interesting situation. Assuming the security council can still veto the actions of the general assembly, would Russia veto the resolution?
Murder is a human right ? The UN most go
The UN can KMA
[[Women also have the right to feel unending guilt, shame and remorse.]]
while denying that they feel unending guilt, shame and remorse by screaming angrily that they ‘have a right to abort’- they live in denial- them ore objective ones realize what they did and are sorry- but the partisan ones become angry and vile in an effort to squelch their inner consciences-
The UN was created to vote on Abortion , Global Warming etc etc and the rest of the crap they stick their nose into these days
The UN is starting to act like a world government which is very dangerous
Next up hard core drug addiction is a human right.🤨
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.