Blatant bias against pro-life and pro-family NGO’s at UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW60).

The 60^th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women took place at UN headquarters in New York  from March 14^th to March 24^th finishing around 11.00PM on Holy Thursday. There has always been bias against pro-life and pro-family NGO’s at the UN however this year’s session contained a new and pernicious level of bias, not previously experienced by pro-life and pro-family NGO’s. 

This new level of bias first showed it ugly head in the preparations for the session when the pro-life and family NGO’s applied for parallel events and were told that only one event would be allowed per organization and then were either refused outright or given slots on the most unsuitable dates and times. Contrast that with the slots, times, dates and numbers of events given to pro-abortion organizations many of which were given multiple slots for their parallel events, together with more appropriate dates and times. Radical Feminist organizations such as the Asian-Pacific resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW) for example were given approval for three events  -  March 15, 2:30 pm, March 21, 10:30 am, March 21 4:30 pm, while the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) were given 6 events – March 16  8:30 am, March 16 12:30 pm, March 17 6:15 pm, March 21 10:30 am, March 21 4:30 pm, March 24 2:30 pm. 

Second the  CSW approved NGO committee issued a publication for NGO’s condemning what they describe as negativity and yes, you have guessed it, negativity consists of the pro-life and family agenda. The following is and extract from the publication,  'NGOs and Women’s Human Rights Activists at the UN and CSW', which on page 23 sets out some of the so called negative trends that in the view of the committee have impeded their progress:
 

• Narrowing the concept of gender to only refer to women and men

• Dissent between pro-life and pro-choice groups

• Opposition to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, in particular sexual rights

• Opposition to “sexual orientation and gender identity” or (SOGI)

• Opposition to “diverse forms of families”

• Opposition to Comprehensive Sexuality Education.

Thirdly and perhaps more serious than the other problems was that a new level of inflexibility entered into the inter governmental negotiations and despite strong representations from many pro-life NGO’s the CSW outcome document, Women’s Empowerment and the Link to Sustainable Development, (Draft) Agreed Conclusions, contains language aimed at increasing access to contraception and abortion and teaching children inappropriate so called comprehensive sexuality education. The health paragraph also includes a reference to controversial sexual rights.

Human Rights Day: Abysmal failure of the United Nations to protect the rights of unborn babies

Today December 10th the United Nations celebrates Human Rights Day.

The UN, instead of clapping itself on the back at its own perceived success in promoting human rights, should hang its head in shame at its abysmal failure to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of our community, unborn babies. 

The UN, its agencies and organs appear to be more influenced by ideology than in upholding  truth and justice even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenents enacted under it are crystal clear.

It is now fifty years since the UN adopted the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitute the International Bill of Rights that recognize 'the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'. In addition to the foregoing the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in its preamble tells us that 'Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".'

Sound science recognizes that human embryos, from the moment of fertilisation, are new living human beings. To use the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we are all members of the 'human family'. From the moment of fertilisation we all share a common humanity. Human embryos are equal members of the species homo sapiens and each stage of development is equal in value to every other stage.

There is a connection between the self-interest of certain communities and the line to be drawn between recognition of persons and non-persons.  That self-interest may be driven by eugenic, economic, social or political factors such that those a society wishes to exclude are deemed to be non-persons.  History is replete with examples of this phenomenon.

However cleverly the arguments are presented, the taking of a human life, the killing of a human being is a heinous crime, it is called murder. The killing of the most vulnerable human beings, unborn babies, is the most heinous of crimes.

We call on the Secretary General and the United Nations General Assembly to redress this blatant injustice, to uphold its own declared values and to immediately reject the wholesale killing of the unborn.

Denying embryonic and foetal human beings their fundamental and inherent right to live, either by design or by omission, diminishes the whole of humanity, hinders the search for justice and truth and brings the UN, its organs and agencies, into disrepute.

Relentless pressure from pro abortion forces to remove Ireland’s remaining protection for unborn babies

-->

There have been a number of attempts since the passing of the current government’s pro-abortion legislation, The Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act, to increase access to abortion in Ireland.  Socialist TD’s (members of parliament) Clare Daly and Ruth Coppinger have made several attempts to introduce private members bills, either to remove the pro life amendment to the Constitution, or to widen the scope of the government legislation, in order to to kill unborn babies with fetal abnormalities and/or those conceived in rape.

In the wake of the disasterous result in the same sex marriage referendum, pro-abortion forces, buoyed up by that result, have continued to pressure Ireland’s coalition government to remove the pro-life amendment, Article 40.3.3.

The Irish Government, whilst indicating it was not against the idea of a referendum on the issue, has refused to do so this year as all political parties are now gearing up for a general election which must be held by the middle of next year.  Health  Minister Leo Varadkar made this clear recently when he told the Dail that a referendum to remove the 1983 pro-life amendment from the Constitution would be a matter for the next Dáil.

Apart from political pressure from within the country pressure is also being placed on the Government by UN Committees despite the fact that there is no such human right as a right to abortion, and the that International UN treaties protect the lives of all human beings including the unborn.

The most recent attempt to pressurise Ireland came from the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).

The CESCR in it concluding observations, on the third periodic report of Ireland to the Committee, E/C.12/IRL/CO/3, said that the Committee is concerned at what they termed to be ‘Ireland’s highly restrictive legislation on abortion and strict interpretation thereof’.

The Committee recommended that Ireland,

“take all necessary steps, including a referendum on abortion, to revise its legislation on abortion, including the Constitution and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, in line with international human rights standards; adopt guidelines to clarify what constitutes a real substantive risk to the life of a pregnant woman; publicize information on crisis pregnancy options through effective channels of communication; and ensure the accessibility and availability of information on sexual and reproductive health.”

This Committee has a tendency to treat national laws with contempt as they issue instructions to countries under review to change their laws and policies on abortion, regardless of the fact the the Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights never mentions abortion. 

Treaty body mandates create a narrow role for treaty bodies such as the CESCR and those bodies cannot exceed the scope of the authority set forth in the treaty itself.  Specifically, committee recommendations, such as this, issued by treaty bodies are not binding on States Parties because such recommendations and comments are not part of the actual negotiated language of the treaty.

Moreover, treaty bodies do not have the authority to interpret or reinterpret treaties.  Authoritative interpretations of treaties are reserved to States Parties collectively.  Many diplomats have privately expressed concern that these treaty bodies have grossly exceeded their authority in recent years.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) sets out interpretive norms for all treaties. The VCLT in Article 31 says:  "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning (emphasis added) to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose."   In other words, attention must be paid to the actual text of the treaty and, as an aid to interpretation, to its surrounding context. 

UN pro-abortion and sexual rights agenda defeated at major conference

The 48th UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) ended on Friday April 18th with a firm rejection of the anti life and family policies the UN is attempting to impose globally. 

The 48th session of the Commission, was themed, ‘Integrating population issues into sustainable development, including in the post-2015 development agenda’. This was the last Commission before the upcoming negotiations on a new 15 year programme to be known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) and was regarded by UNFPA the UN population fund and their anti life allies, such as International Planned Parenthood (IPPF), as their best opportunity to influence the outcome of the SDG’s by forcing the acceptance of controversial language on sexual and reproductive rights and comprehensive sexuality education.

In recent years the negotiating strategy adopted by Western governments has been to insert controversial issues into documents during the negotiating period and rely on the chair to issue a compromise text which inevitably retains some of those issues.

In this case negotiations on the outcome document over a period of 10 days were similarly loaded up with controversial language and by Thursday evening (April 16th) had become completely unacceptable. Negotiations continued on Friday when a so called compromise text was produced by the chair Ms. Bénédicte Frankinet from Belgium.  The Chair had removed a reference ‘sexual rights’ from the text but it still contained a number of unacceptable references.

Ms. Frankinet made it clear that her so called compromise text was final and demanded that the text be accepted without alteration as a consensus document. The Nigerian Ambassador Usman Sarki speaking on behalf of the African Group informed the meeting that the text needed further work and that in his opinion agreement could be reached in 10-15 minutes given the political will to do so. The chair was  unwilling to accommodate the concerns of the African countries regarding terminology such as ‘comprehensive sexuality education’ (CSE) and reproductive rights. Rather than qualify or delete the controversial terms the Chair withdrew the document.

The decision by the chair to withdraw the document was greeted with a shocked silence by the anti-life and family brigade, when the realisation sunk in that there would not now be any outcome document and that there was no agreement on how to integrate population policies in the post-2015 development agenda, the actual purpose of this year’s commission.

Ambassador Sarki, who had diplomatically tried to persuade the Chair to be more accommodating when he sought time to discuss proposed changes spoke very forcibly following the withdrawal of the document. “We came to the meeting with an open mind,” he said, adding that from the outset they had to deal with drafts “replete with controversial issues that have in the past not only proved difficult to deal with but are also extremely divisive in nature.” He put down a marker for future negotiations saying that member state delegations and UN officials “should refrain from putting language in drafts on which there is no consensus”.  He also said that lack of an outcome document should not be seen as a failure. “Member states”, he said, “have resisted the imposition of unhelpful ideas and concepts on all the membership.”

Mr.Babatunde Osotimehin, head of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) told the meeting, in an obviously crestfallen manner, that he “regretted” that an agreement could not be reached and then went on to criticise countries for not being “tolerant,” because of their resistance to the UNFPA agenda.

The delegate from Nauru, Rennier Gadabe, complained about UNFPA harrassment of his Government during the negotiations “Does UNFPA he said, think they can do this because Nauru is the smallest member state?” UNFPA had pressured the Nauru Government to change its position on reproductive rights and CSE and was critical of the position taken by the Nauru UN delegation. The delegate angrily told the meeting that such tactics were “unacceptable.”

UNFPA has over the last few years spent hundreds of thousands of dollars arranging conferences throughout the world, in places like, Accra, Kuala Lumpur, Ocho Rios, Montevideo and other venues, with the sole purpose of firstly influencing the outcome of this session of the Commission and ultimately the Sustainable Development Goals. 

Oral Statement on protection of the family at the 26th Session of the Human Rights Council—Geneva—June 22, 2014

The following statement was made in During the 26^th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva by an organization GLOBAL HAWC (Helping to advance women and children), under AGENDA item 8, ‘Follow up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of action’. 

I respectfully address the council on behalf of Global Helping to Advance Women and Children and the UN Family Rights Caucus, an international coalition of NGOs.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right, proclaims that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society entitled to “protection by society and the State.”

The Vienna Declaration, in its comprehensive analysis of the international human rights system, also calls for broader family protection since five binding international human rights instruments call for such protection.

Yet until now, the protection of the family has largely been ignored by this Council.

UN consensus documents specify that the family needs to be protected against poverty, disease, substance abuse, unemployment, migration, war, family separation and barriers to reunification, and the worldwide disintegration of the family itself.

We applaud the ongoing dialogue concerning the Protection of the Family resolution, however we are concerned by attempts to change the focus of this historic resolution to individual rights, which numerous other resolutions amply address, rather than focus on the unique role the family plays in fulfilling the rights of its members. 

We hope this council will explore the evidence showing how the rights of individual family members can better be fulfilled when the family is protected.

The UN Secretary General has stated that “the stability and cohesiveness of communities and societies largely rest on the strength of the family” (Secretary General's Family Report 2011 (A/66/62–E/2011/4)).

We call upon States to fulfill their obligations to protect the family. 

Despite the fact that Annie Franklin who made the intervention on behalf of Global HAWC provided 25 copies of the text to the secretariat it was not initially posted as part of the record of the meeting. It was only after three reminders that the text was finally included in the record.

Chile to legalise abortion in certain circumstances

-->

Chile’s UN Ambassador to Geneva H.E Ms Maria Maurás Pérez announced last Thursday (June 19^th), during consideration of the outcome of Chile’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, that its current its pro-life laws will change and that abortion will be decriminalized in the following circumstances, in the case of rape, where a woman’s life is in danger and when a foetus is not viable.’

Pérez told the meeting that following the election of Michele Bachelet, as Chile’s President and the first 100 days of her Government, Chile would introduce a new gender agenda dealing with the rights equality and autonomy of women and will nominate a minister for women and gender equity. Ms Pérez explained that her government is concerned about violence and discrimination against women and will defend further the sexual and reproductive rights of all persons. Pérez continued by stating that her government will decriminalize termination of pregnancy in three areas, where the life of the mother is in danger, where a foetus is unviable and in the case of rape. Abortion is currently

completely illegal in Chile.

Pérez announced Chile’s commitment to implement 180 of the 185 suggestions in the UPR including a number of proposals put forth by other member states that Chile change its longstanding stance on the protection of the unborn.

Among the five rejected suggestions was the appeal by the Holy See that Chile continue its legal protection of the human person from the moment of conception, and that it safeguard marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The basis of the review was set out in two reports A/HRC/26/5 and 26/5 Addendum1. The main report 26/5 shows that 7 European Countries pressured Chile to repeal all laws criminalizing abortion and to take all necessary measures to ensure so called safe and legal abortion in cases of rape or incest and in cases of serious danger for the health of women and a number of countries also called on Chile to make sure that sexual and reproductive rights are respected and protected.

It is clear from both documents 26/5 and 26/5 Addendum 1 that the intention of the previous government was to reject the pressure from other member states

Marianne Lillebleg for Amnesty International welcomed Chile’s rejection of the Holy See’s recommendation that Chile should uphold and respect the rights of the human person from the moment of conception to natural death, which she falsely claimed, could have placed women’s lives in danger.

The onward march of the Culture of death in the international institutions.

Completing our series on the Nigerian pro-life conference held in Abuja, Nigeria, on June 5th and 6, we report on a presentation by Patrick Buckley, UN lobbyist for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). 

Mr. Buckley in his presentation, ‘The onward march of the Culture of death in the international institutions’, told the audience of between 1500-2000 people that no United Nations Treaty or Convention includes a right to abortion, on the contrary he said, they uphold the dignity of every human life from conception to natural death.

Photograph shows Patrick Buckley with Antonia Tully and Jean Fleuron  of SPUC

In brief the agenda, aptly named, by St John Paul ii, the “Culture of Death’ attacks the accepted moral code based on natural law and Judaeo Christian principles, it can and does kill the body and it can also kill the soul.

The agenda in the International Institutions attempts to change society by changing sexual and gender norms through the introduction of, so called, ‘sexual and reproductive rights’ and seeks to:

• ·      Reduce population by making contraception available globally.

• ·      Deny the right to life from conception and attempt to declare abortion to be a human right.

• ·      Promote acceptance of diverse sexual activities, sexual orientations and gender identities.

• ·      Attack marriage and the family and undermine parental rights.

• ·      Sexualise young people by insisting on the teaching of so called ‘comprehensive sexuality education’.

• ·      Attack freedom of speech, religion and conscience.

In his 1993 Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (EV 28), Saint John Paul II wrote:

‘(…) we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the "culture of death" and the "culture of life". We find ourselves not only "faced with" but necessarily "in the midst of" this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life’.

Pope St. John Paul ii, in response to a demarché from US President Clinton in 2004 saying that the Cairo Conference would create a right to abortion on demand, called for civil society organizations to attend the conference and oppose that agenda, resulting in it being halted.

The Beijing conference in 1995 attempted to put a similar agenda in place but once again the attempt to declare a human right to abortion was halted and the gender agenda also included in the Beijing proposals was stopped.

When the attempts to attain the goal of a human right to abortion through the Cairo and Beijing Conferences, failed there was a high level decision in the UN to change the rules and to find other ways to achieve the complete agenda. Two alternative strategies were developed.

The first was a “stealth strategy” which commenced at a round table meeting in Glen Cove, New York in 1996. Participants from UNFPA the UN Population Fund, the office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, representatives from the UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies and select NGOs met and developed a strategy to reinterpret existing treaties in order to find a so called 'right’ to abortion-on-demand, in universally accepted norms, such as the right to life.

The second strategy used by the pro-abortionists was that of attempting to establish customary international law by constant repetition of concepts such as ‘sexual and reproductive rights’.

-->

Both strategies failed to achieve their goal of abortion on demand.

Mr. Buckley told the meeting that we are entering into very challenging times in that a number of UN multi year programmes are coming to an end at the end of 2014 and 2015. The original ICPD (CAIRO) programme ends at the end of this year, 2014 and both the Beijing programme and the Millennium Development Goals finish at the end of 2015. The UN is therefore in the process of arranging the extension of these programmes and at the same time debating a new 15 year programme, which will be known as the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ or SDG’s. Attempts are currently underway to include the entire culture of death agenda in the SDG’s

In a way he said, this period is rather like the time in 1994 when Saint JP ii called Civil Society together to oppose the agenda.

UNFPA and its associates including IPPF and IPAS carried out a review to determine what is standing in the way of implementing their complete agenda which involves abortion on demand, so called sexual rights, and comprehensive sexuality education for minors. They then developed a new plan to remove the obstacles and fully implement their agenda.

Briefly they identified the Holy See as the major obstacle standing in the way of their agenda and they decided to prioritize the sexualization of adolescents and youth.

The new approach can be seen in action when one looks at the recent attacks on the Holy See by both the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on torture, which are a blatant attempt to isolate and silence the Holy See at a critical time in order to ensure their deadly agenda is accepted.

The new approach can also be identified through the seemingly never-ending series of regional meetings on youth held at various venues throughout the world such as the UNFPA, UN ECA and African Union Commission meeting Addis Ababa in 2013, which published the Addis Ababa Declaration on Population and Development in Africa beyond 2014, The Colombo Declaration on Youth Mainstreaming in the Post-2015 Development Agenda’and the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration December 2012, to name but a few.

Mr. Buckley then turned to the issue of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), which he described as a highly controversial, rights-based approach to sex education that encompasses much more than simply teaching children and youth about sexual intercourse and human reproduction.

CSE he said encourages:

•            Acceptance and exploration of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities,

•            Promotion of the use of condoms,

•            Promotion of abortion as acceptable and safe,

•            Encourages youth to advocate for sexual rights,

•            Teaches youth without parental knowledge or consent under the guise of confidentiality or      privacy rights,

•            Promotion of sexual pleasure as a right,

•            Promotion of masturbation as healthy and normal,

•            Claims that access to CSE is a human right,

•            Teaches children and youth they are sexual from birth,

•            Encourages sexual activities too disgusting to mention,

•            Encourages peer-to-peer sexuality education.

Comprehensive sexuality education is completely unacceptable, it is pornographic, it damages young people and robs them of their childhood.

Mr. Buckley finished by making a strong and urgent appeal to the international community to stand firm in the face of these attacks. He told the conference that we cannot let them win, because what we are dealing with is actually the lives of the children of this and succeeding generations, our children and our grandchildren.

Children, he said, have a right to a child hood and programmes like this are completely unacceptable.

The ECLJ calls the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to investigate on children born alive after late abortion

-->

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ELCJ) has announced in a press release that it has lodged an urgent appeal with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture cases on the issue of torture

of babies during late term abortions.

The full ELCJ statement is set out below and can be accessed on this link

In an “urgent appeal”, the ECLJ has called the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to investigate on children born alive after late abortion, and on methods of late abortion, especially in the United-Kingdom and Canada: in Canada, between 2000 and 2011, 622 babies born alive after an abortion were left to die, and 66 in the United Kingdom in 2005. Some cruel methods of late abortion constitute torture, especially the one called dilatation and evacuation: the foetus, still alive, is dismembered to be pulled out of the womb in pieces.

The ECLJ has communicated to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture cases of torture due to late abortion. Appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on Torture can examine questions relevant to torture in all countries. He transmits urgent appeals to States, undertakes fact-finding country visits and submits annual reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

Scientific evidence proves that foetuses and premature babies can feel pain at least as much as adults. Foetuses are responsive to touch at 8 weeks and have the physical structure to experience pain at 20 weeks.

As early as 16 weeks, an infant can survive for a while out of the womb, and it is considered viable at 22 weeks. However, in Canada, there is no legal limit for abortion, even if medical rules recommend limiting abortion on demand to 22 weeks. In the UK, abortion is legal until 24 weeks, and until the end of pregnancy in case of foetal anomaly.

British Department of Health figures show that 2860 abortions at 20 weeks or more were carried out in England and Wales in 2012. In 2012, 160 abortions were done after 24 weeks, including 38 between 28 and 31 weeks, and 28 after 32 weeks. 66 babies were thus aborted after 28 weeks, which was the viability limit defined by the WHO until 1975: an infant born at that gestational age can survive without medical help.

In Canada in 2011, there were 823 abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, 549 after 21 weeks[1]. These figures are severely underestimated since they do not include Quebec (more than 26,000 abortions a year, including over 1500 after 14 weeks) nor clinics, though more than half abortions are done in clinics.

Late abortion being difficult to perform, it happens that babies are born alive after an abortion. In 2007, a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology[2] concluded that about 1 in 30 abortions after 16 weeks’ gestation result in a born-alive infant. At 23 weeks’ gestation, the number reached 9.7%. In that case, they are left to die without any care, or killed. The Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists[3] recommends killing these babies by lethal injection. When they are not killed, they are not fed, not even covered, no care is given them even if they were wounded by the attempted abortion. They are left to suffer and die alone. According to official statistics, between 2000 and 2011 in Canada, 622 babies were born alive and left to die after an abortion. They were 66 in 2005 in the United Kingdom, where no statistics were published on this issue the following years.

Concerning Syria, the Special Rapporteur recently stressed that deprival of food, water, shelter and medical care constitutes a crime against humanity. Depriving newborn babies of elementary care, whatever the conditions of their birth, constitutes torture and should also be considered a crime against humanity.

Some methods of abortion, especially dilatation and evacuation, should be banned because of the inhumane suffering they cause for the foetus. According to the statistics of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 1226 abortions in 2010 and 1341 in 2011 used the method of dilatation and evacuation in Canadian hospitals (except Quebec and not including clinics)[4], while among the 160 late abortions in England and Wales in 2012, 43% were by dilatation and evacuation.

In the case of dilatation and evacuation, the cervix is dilated, then the “content of the uterus” is pulled out with a clamp. In the end, the pieces are examined to make sure everything has been removed. This means that the body is gathered like a puzzle, because in many cases it has been dismembered during the operation. If there was no feticide injection first, or if the injection did not cause death[5], the foetus was alive while its members were being torn off one after the other. This frightfully cruel method is inhumane and constitutes torture.

[1] http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_11_ALLDATATABLES20130221_FR

[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01279.x/abstract

[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html and http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/66-british-babies-survived-abortion-all-were-left-to-die-without-medical-ai

[4] 2010: http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_10_ALLDATATABLES20120417_FR; 2011: http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_11_ALLDATATABLES20130221_FR

[5] According to a study, the injection effectively induced fetal death in 87% of women. This means that 13 % survived. Nucatola D, Roth N, Gatter M. A randomized pilot study on the effectiveness and side-effect profiles of two doses of digoxin as fetocide when administered intraamniotically or intrafetally prior to second-trimester surgical abortion. Contraception. 2010 Jan;81(1):67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.08.014. Epub . Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004276

Major clash on abortion and sexual rights at UN conference

The 47^th session of Commission on Population and Development (CPD 47) held at UN headquarters in New York last week was a controversial process from start to finish

This year’s CPD has to be viewed through the lens the original Cairo Conference on Population and Development (also known as the ICPD or Cairo Programme), during which an uneasy balance was reached between the radical western sexual rights agenda and the more generally accepted societal norms for life and family issues, but that did not stop the anti life brigade from endeavouring to implement their complete agenda of sexual and reproductive rights, which includes among other things, abortion on demand, comprehensive sexuality education for children and adolescents and acceptance of every form of sexual practice including sexual orientation and gender identity.

Despite the fact that it had been agreed during a previous session there would not be a negotiated outcome document this year nevertheless it transpired that there would after all be a document but this would be procedural only. In the final analysis the draft document produced for the purposes of commencing negotiations was is fact much more than a procedural text and included controversial paragraphs which if accepted would have expanded the scope of the original Cairo agreement despite the fact that it was purported to be simply, an ‘Assessment of the status of Implementaion of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development.’

The ugly, anti life agenda was all too evident during the negotiations.  The gloves were off and a deadly war was waged against the unborn, marriage, children and the family.

In what could be termed a marathon session even for the UN, the attempt to expand the carefully crafted Cairo Platform language to include sexual rights came to an end when, in the early hours of Saturday morning, it finally dawned on the anti-life brigade that they would not succeed this time in obtaining their cherished pro-abortion and sexual rights language in the CPD outcome document. The tactic of stringing out the negotiations in order to tire out ones opponents and get them to agree controversial issues, simply to bring matters to a conclusion failed miserably and the Holy See, the African Union member states and some others bravely held the line to the end.

The final statement in explanation position made by the Holy See Negotiator the Rev. Fr Justin Wiley at 7am on Saturday morning is reprinted below.

Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations 

Statement in Explanation of Position on the Resolution

“Assessment of the Status of Implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development”

47th session of the Commission on Population and Development

of the United Nations Economic and Social Council

New York, 12 April 2014

Mr. Chairman,

My delegation is convinced that only a truly human-centered approach to development can function as the authentic starting point for policy on population and development. Through its unparallelled global network of institutions, the Holy See unceasingly manifests its commitment to serving the poorest and most vulnerable populations in working to achieve their integral human development. This includes physical, social, and spiritual development – keeping the focus on those most essential factors for development, including: quality and affordable education and health care, access to food and nutrition, water and sanitation, the rights of migrants, as well as policies that support the family as the fundamental and most basic contributors of this development.

My delegation acknowledges with thanks your efforts and those of your bureau and the Secretariat for all the hard work during this Commission. The resolution just adopted contains many helpful contributions for advancing integral human development, and we are appreciative to you for including quite a number of our proposals. However, as already expressed on several occasions by many delegations, including my own, the balance of this resolution remains heavily skewed towards peculiar interests of certain developed countries, as evidenced by undue emphasis on selected rights over the real development priorities consistently elaborated by major regional groups, particularly those from developing regions.

I refer in particular to the heavy focus on sexual or reproductive mores. In this regard, the Holy See requests that its reservations on the following paragraphs be formally entered into the record of this meeting: PP16, OP9 and 9bis, OP10 and OP11.

With reference to “sexual and reproductive health”, so-called “reproductive rights,” “family planning” and other language on which the Holy See has registered reservations at Cairo, we reiterate these reservations as set out more fully in the Report of the ICPD. In particular, the ICPD rejects recourse to abortion for family planning, denies that it creates any new rights in this regard and recognizes that this is a matter subject to national legislation. Abortion is always gravely illicit and can never be called safe for the child who is killed or the mother who is brutalized. Yesterday Pope Francis publicly condemned yet again what he calls this “unspeakable crime” in the following terms: “[F]rom the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care.” “Therefore,” the Pope pleaded, “it is necessary to reaffirm our strongest opposition to any direct offence against life, especially ... the unborn child in its mother's womb.”

With respect to so-called “education” or “counselling” on “sexuality”, we reaffirm the “primary responsibility” and the “prior rights” of parents, including their right to religious freedom, when it comes to the education and upbringing of their children, as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are a State Party.

By “gender” my delegation understands to mean “male or female” only, and to have no meaning other than the customary and general usage of the term.

We also were disappointment by the methods of work that led to this resolution. What was promised to be a concise, procedural approach without renegotiation of the issues ballooned into a partisan substantive jamboree during a week in which very little time was set aside for actual multilateral negotiations. We regret that the series of general comments for which we were solicited never matured into a full and robust negotiation of a true compilation text. We share the concerns expressed by the distinguished delegate from Bangladesh and others regarding the transparency and inclusivity of this final session. As a final procedural irregularity, you have inexplicably preferred to give me the floor next to last, despite the fact that requested the floor in third place, if I am not mistaken (it might have been second place). This manner of proceeding should not serve as a precedent for future Commissions.

We ask that the text of this statement be included in the official records of this meeting.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Controversy at 58th Commission on the Status of Women brings the United Nations into disrepute

This year’s annual Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW58), held during the past two weeks at the UN Headquarters in New York ended in controversy when the 45-member Commission adopted an outcome document entitled “Challenges and achievements in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals for women and girls”. These negotiations are supposed to be based on consensus and the outcome document or agreed conclusions is meant to represent just that, genuine agreement.

Following two weeks of negotiations that had become deadlocked, the Chair produced a new text just before midnight on Friday, which still contained some of the more controversial paragraphs on which there was no agreement. Given the lateness of the hour, Member States were given less than a minute to voice any last minute objections before the Chair adopted the 24 page text in its entirety.  This type of farce is precisely what brings the UN into disrepute.

Twenty - two, (22) Member States, some of which represented large groups of member states, made reservations to the text, the implication being that around half the countries in the world were unhappy and do not support the outcome. The rich countries lamented the fact that the document included a reference to " the family " as they wanted a reference to "various forms of the family". They were also upset that there was no reference to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)

The controversial document includes references to “comprehensive evidence-based education for human sexuality”, so called emergency contraception and “safe abortion” where such services are permitted by national law. It also includes “reproductive health care services, commodities, information and education.”

Abortifacients and abortion are not health care, and the fact that they are included in the document says more about ideology than any genuine effort to reduce maternal and child mortality and morbidity.

The term “reproductive rights” which appears in three places has been qualified by referencing the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which is intended to protect countries’ sovereign rights to determine their own national laws on reproductive health.

Needless to say UNFPA, The pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, welcomed the so called agreement claiming that it clearly reaffirms the international community’s commitments to gender equality and the empowerment and human rights of women and girls and the Commission’s reaffirmation of the importance of the ICPD Programme of Action.

The Commission also negotiated a resolution on “Women, the girl child, and HIV/AIDS.” Presented by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Malawi, to bring to the attention of the international community the challenges of realizing MDG 6 on HIV/AIDS.

The draft resolution on HIV/AIDS as proposed supported the idea of fidelity and delay of sexual debut. The Netherlands during the debate in the plenary presented controversial oral amendments, which included deletion of the term “early sexual debut” and adding “comprehensive evidence-based education for human sexuality,” The amendments also referenced controversial references from outcome documents of regional conferences organized by pro-abortion organizations

 The amendments proposed by the Netherlands were supported by Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Costa Rica, Norway, Australia, Iceland, and Paraguay.

Because of the fact that resolution had been arbitrarily changed the African Member States withdrew co-sponsorship of the resolution, followed by Russia and China. Malawi then called for the withdrawal of its sponsorship.

Despite the fact that there were no sponsors remaining the amended resolution was brought to a vote. The results of the vote were 22 in favor and 16 abstentions, while 7 did not vote.

The African Member States expressed disbelief and disappointment at the fact that the resolution they had proposed had been hijacked, and it was significant that in the final analysis none of them accepted the amended resolution as it ran counter to their experience in how best to tackle HIV/AIDS.

UN OPEN WORKING GROUP ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The final Open Working Group meeting which took place at the UN in New York during the first week of February was attended by my Colleague Vincenzina Santoro, Main United Nations Representative for the American Family Association of New York, who reports that the session covered a panoply of topics including: oceans, seas, forests, biodiversity, equality (social and gender), women’s empowerment, conflict prevention, peace, peace-building, rule of law, and much more. In other words: everything for everyone everywhere.

Vincenzina continues,

The MDG process took place behind closed doors and rubber stamped at the General Assembly in 2000. This has been heavily criticized and so now the entire global community has been asked to participate in the formulation of the SDGs. After all the OWG meetings and other fora that have been held, the two co-chairmen of the OWG process, the Ambassadors of Hungary and Kenya (who in my view are rather exceptional for UN ambassadors) will have to cull hours and hours of utterances by delegates, inter-governmental organizations, UN agencies, and civil society and produce a final report sometime in the near future.

Among the voices that were heard was the Executive Director of UN Women who featured prominently on the third day with a major address reiterating what she has said at other venues during her brief tenure. Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, economic adviser to the Secretary-General, was a no show due to his inability to be at two places at once on a snowy day.

Among the delegates who spoke, two could be considered “friendly.” The delegate from Trinidad &Tobago who spoke on behalf of the Caribbean Community included supportive and family friendly references in his statement. (I subsequently learned he had received input from one pro-life, pro-family NGO!)

Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the Papal Nuncio, spoke eloquently in defense of the dignity of life at all stages from the preborn to loneliness in old age.

One of the worst was a long statement delivered by the delegate from Uruguay with repeated pejorative references to the sexual and reproductive rights agenda.

The United Nations has created “major groups” among the NGOs that represent and advocate the same message/agenda. These include women, youth and others. A young person spoke on behalf of the “youth group” and in her first sentence advocated equality for the LGBT community followed by all sorts of sexual and reproductive matters for youth with services to be available without parental consent. (A similar message had been heard at a previous OWG meeting in June.) While she made no effort to be ‘inclusive’ it was clear that she did not represent the entire global youth community.

The danger of all these meetings remains that ideologues are everywhere. They are forceful in advocating certain language that will find its way to the stand alone goals for the SDGs. By sheer repetition they hope to get their way.

Among the novelties heard were several calls for developing data on gender this and that, an initiative that is likely to generate jobs for statisticians somewhere. There was even a reference to creating a “rule of law index” although this was not explained.

“Side events” always are part of any major UN agenda. These usually take place at 1:15pm, interfering with lunch! Duty called to “Achieving Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment for Sustainable Development” but this only gave some dignitaries and one NGO (out of nearly 4,000) a second chance to state their same message.

Several side events occur simultaneously so one has to pick and choose. When I saw something potentially positive (there aren’t too many) on the program I chose to attend. On Tuesday, the program listed “How can tourism contribute to the sustainable development agenda?” organized by the UN World Tourism Organization. The quick answer is “immensely!” Today more than one billion people travel across borders for leisure, business, family visits, pilgrimages and more. International tourism receipts exceeded $1.1 trillion in 2012 and nations big and small benefitted.

A book was distributed entitled: “Tourism Stories: How Tourism Enriched My Life” which tells 14 stories of individuals and couples who started a successful tourism enterprise. One story was of a Vietnamese woman who ferries visitors in typical boats along a river that runs in a scenic area called Trang An. Today more than 1,000 boats travel the route and their rowers enjoy significantly higher wages and living standards in a tourism venture that started with the idea of one woman with one boat.

A delegate from Samoa spoke of the importance of tourism to her country which later this year will host a UN meeting of the SIDS (Small Island Developing States). This year Samoa is celebrating its “graduation” from the LDC (Least Developed Countries) group as that small country now has achieved middle-income status, thanks in part to the tourism industry.

Isn’t it nice for once to end a UN report on a constructive note?

Significant pro-life, pro-family success in the UN General Assembly

Our colleague Peter Smith reports on a significant pro-life, pro-family success at the UN General Assembly as follows:

Under the inspired leadership of the Holy See's Nuncio, Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the culture of death took a significant stumble at the Third Committee of the UN in New York last week.

There are around forty resolutions crafted by this UN committee in October and November each year. The worst resolution this year was on “Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRD)” . Now to the uninitiated this resolution sounds like a fine thing. However it is just a smoke screen used by those promoting both a right to abortion and the radical homosexual agenda.

To see what the opposition said about this resolution please see a quote from the “The international Coalition of Women Human Rights Defenders” own website  : 

“Also contentious were important references in the initial draft acknowledging the risks faced by those working on issues of sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights and matters related to sexuality. [Such words are always used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control.] These references were excluded in later drafts of the resolution as a result of the opposition voiced by a number of States from Africa, Asia and the Holy See. It is regrettable and disappointing that the main sponsors and others were not able to secure specific language related to women human rights defenders working on these critical issues in the final text of the resolution.” 

The African group stood very strongly together , and  introduced L-docs , which are amendments that tabled just before the resolution is accepted. These were then accepted by the sponsor Norway as they did not want a vote , but a resolution accepted by consensus. This unusual step was taken because Norway and the EU  were not willing to accept changes of any significance during the long and protracted negotiations.

This very good result, was obtained for many reasons. Myself and my colleague Patrick Buckley, were there at the negotiations helping out as we usually do. Sharon Slater and Marie Smith both did a fine job even though not in New York. The African Group held together as I heard the South African president had upset some African leaders and as a penance agreed not the split this group at the UN. Another very clever tactic of Archbishop Chullikatt was to have several Africans on the Holy See delegation. They also helped keep the African Group on side. There was  help given by Muslim countries and Russia as well.

So the pro-aborts and LGBT advocates got no advancement of their agenda at this session of the Third committee. As I have said many times before, the Holy See at the United Nations is the conscience of the world on issues of life and the family as well as many other things.

Women who had UK abortions to bring case against Ireland to the United Nations

In a new attempt to broaden the basis on which terminations of pregnancy may be obtained in Ireland the Journal reports that a group of Irish women who each decided to abort their babies following a diagnosis of fetal abnormality are taking a case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee with the assistance of an international pro-abortion law firm the Centre for Reproductive Rights (CRR).

It is understood that the lodgement of petitions to have their case considered by the committee will take place next week.

There is no such right as a so called 'right' to abortion in any International UN Treaty, quite the reverse in fact, the right to life of all members of the human family is protected in the Universal declaration of human rights and its associated covenants.

There has however been much criticism of treaty monitoring committees, such as the committee in question, that they bring the United Nations into disrepute by reinterpreting the texts to find so-called non existent rights.

It must be stated, whist one has every sympathy with a woman who finds herself in this appalling predicament abortion is not the answer. Despite the pressure placed on women in this difficult situation to abort their babies and the tendency to describe the unfortunate children as monsters, abortion is not the way forward, there is a better way, a caring way of dealing with the devastating news that an unborn baby has not developed fully and is suffering from a terminal condition.

It is essential for women in this awful predicament to have support such as that which can be provided by perinatal hospice care.

The perinatal hospice approach is one that walks with families on their journey through pregnancy, birth, and death, honoring the baby as well as the baby's family. Perinatal hospice is not a place; it is more a frame of mind. It is a way of caring for the pregnant mother, the baby, the father, and all involved with dignity and love. Even in areas without a formal program, parents can create a loving experience for themselves and their baby, and health professionals and family and friends can offer support in the spirit of hospice care.

Many Irish women have taken the decision to cherish every day of the life their baby without ever having heard of the perinatal hospice concept as is presented in this BLOGPOST and video

The following is the text of the Journal report

THE GROUP REPRESENTING women who travelled to the UK to terminate unviable pregnancies are to bring their case to the United Nations.

Terminations for Medical Reasons (TFMR) and the Centre for Reproductive Rights will file three petitions alleging human rights violations with the UN Human Rights Committee next week

The mothers have campaigned since last April – when some of them appeared on the Late Late Show - to change the current situation in Ireland which sees women travel to other jurisdictions for terminations if their babies are suffering with fatal foetal abnormalities.

Various pleas and protests directed at government members failed to garner the necessary support to be included in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 because of fears that the provision would be unconstitutional.

Another demonstration will be held outside Leinster House on Wednesday afternoon ahead of a press conference to discuss the petitions being filed.

Members of TFMR were devastated of the omission from the legislation this year but vowed to take their cases to Europe and beyond.

The women have shared the trauma of having to travel to Liverpool and other English cities to undergo terminations to journalists and politicians in the past eight months.

“We are looking for nothing extreme here. Just decency, dignity and compassion,” Deirdre Conroy, the woman at the centre of the ‘D’ case which was heard at the European Court of Human Rights, said earlier this year.