NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-life Member States and NGOs Hold Back Pro-Abortion Onslaught at United

by | Mar 20, 2013

By Rai Rojas

Rai Rojas

Rai Rojas

The two-week-long exercise in futility known as the United Nations’ 57th annual meeting of the “Commission on the Status of Women” (CSW) is over. The harangues, the excesses, and the disconnect between the needs of the third world versus the wants of the first world are now a not-too-distant memory.

However the document produced by the CSW–well, that is still with us and those who promote and profit from abortion are claiming it is a “tremendous victory.”  That is nothing but spin. The truth is they did not succeed in advancing their agenda, particularly their goal of establishing abortion as a “fundamental human right” worldwide. 

The outcome agreements that they are cheering resulted from the all-important “theme” for this year’s Commission: “The Elimination and Prevention of all Forms of Violence Against Women and Girls.” This is heady and important stuff–a topic that needed serious contemplation, discussion, debate, and outcomes. 

Instead we listened to delegates discuss why six and eight year old girls should be able to “fully reach and explore their sexual and reproductive rights.”  How this makes these little girls less prone to be the victim of violence escapes me. But logic has never been a strong suit for those shilling for the international abortion lobby.

The bottom line is that this is a non-binding document. It has no legal standing anywhere, and can only be misinterpreted and then used by UN agencies and radical pro-abortion NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) to try to browbeat countries into changing protective pro-life laws.  They, unfortunately, have plenty of those documents already, none of which call for a right to abortion–and this one is essentially more of the same.

The latest and increasingly serious problem is with the process of how the United Nations’ and their commissions are now doing business.

For decades the custom was that a bureau comprised of Commission members and UN agency employees would research and draft a document focusing on that year’s commission theme.  That document called “Agreed Conclusions” would then be released to the entire Commission and be debated and negotiated beginning on the opening day of the Commission Meeting.  More often than not when language in the document was contentious and an impasse was reached, that language would ultimately be deleted or supplanted with previously agreed language. The commission moved on from there. 

However in the last few years–and in this commission meeting in particular– we have seen that negotiating process subverted.  During the course of the debate at this year’s CSW, contentious paragraphs were glossed over and set aside to be discussed later. But as the clock ticked, time ran out and in the 11th hour, when no consensus on the contentious language could be reached, the Chair of the committee offered the Chair’s text (with little contribution from member states) and declared it the outcome document and presented it to  the members for acceptance.

Any one of the 49 member countries on the CSW could have vehemently objected to the language and the end result would have been no document – which is precisely what happened in 2012. But this year there was extra pressure put on member nations by some Western UN member states, UN agencies, powerful pro-abortion NGOs, and their cohorts at the New York Times to reach “consensus” and release a document.  That is precisely what happened. Even though several countries offered reservations to the language, they all agreed to it. 

The process, far from ever being perfect to begin with, has now become more flawed.  As a result, we are dealt these seemingly consensually agreed to documents that do little to really help the women of the developing world and simply offers those who deal in abortion an opportunity to vacuously claim victory.

Categories: United Nations