|
Focus on the UN
|
|
Promoting Abortion as a Health Right
The High-Level Working Group for Health and
Human Rights of Women, Children and Adolescents presented its pro-abortion
report-Leading
the Realization of Human Rights To Health and Through Health-during the
June session of the Human Rights Council. Two leading entities at the United
Nations- the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Office of the High
Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR)- had convened the Working Group as a
"landmark initiative" to ensure that the promise of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) to "leave no one behind" is achieved. Yet,
individual members of one entire population group-unborn children- will not only
be left behind but will lose their lives by provisions the Working Group
advances in its report.
The Working Group casts abortion as a service necessary for women,
children and adolescents to "enjoy" for their "mental, sexual
and reproductive health" in the section 'Building Momentum for human
rights to health and through health' and presents gains in pro-life policies as
a negative threat to human rights:
"The issues set out in this report are highly relevant for
all countries in all regions of the world, not least because of current threats
to earlier advances in respecting and protecting women's, children's and
adolescents' rights, including their personal autonomy. The High-Level Working
Group is convinced that committed leadership for collective action is urgently
needed to safeguard the full exercise of women's, children's and adolescents'
human rights, including their access to comprehensive information, their rights
to autonomous decision making in keeping with their age-related abilities, and their
enjoyment of services necessary for their mental, sexual and reproductive
health, including safe abortion services."
The report reduces belief in the protection of the lives of unborn
children to a 'sensitivity' and labels it 'discrimination': "Legal or
statutory provisions that impede access to so-called 'sensitive' services, such
as sexual and reproductive health services, including comprehensive sexuality
education, family planning and safe abortion, must be addressed. Harmful
gender, social and cultural norms that restrict access to sexual and
reproductive health services are themselves forms of discrimination."
In Annex B, Human rights-related actions under the Global
Strategy for Women's, Children's and Adolescents' Health, instructions to
achieve an "Enabling environment" in the area of SDG targets 10.3,
16.2, 16.9, 16.10 and 17.18, includes:
"Repeal, rescind or amend laws and policies that create
barriers or restrict access to health services (including sexual and
reproductive health and rights services) and that discriminate, explicitly or
in effect, against women, children or adolescents as such, or on grounds
prohibited under human rights law. This includes repealing laws that
criminalize specific sexual and reproductive conduct and decisions, such as
abortion, same-sex intimacy, sex work and the delivery or receipt of sexual and
reproductive health and rights information.
The Working Group was brought together by two entrenched abortion
activists, Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner, Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner of Human Rights, former Deputy Executive Director of UNFPA
and served as Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International when
in 2007 it adopted a pro-abortion position and Flavia Bustreo, Assistant
Director-General, World Health Organization. Bustreo wrote in the Huffington
Post Women Need To Control Their Health
To Control Their Futures about her participation in the
"She Decides" conference in Brussels which sought to raise money for
pro-abortion NGOs following President Trump's reissuing of the Mexico City
Policy.
Members and advisors of the Group are mainly from pro-abortion
donor countries, academia and organizations who are united in promoting what
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Agenda 2030 could not due to a lack
of global agreement-universal access to abortion as health care or as a human
right.
Parliaments are among those targeted to advance access to
abortion: "As the implementation of Agenda 2030, including the Global
Strategy, moves forward, the High-Level Working Group urges active engagement
by national governments, parliaments, and community and civil society
leaders."
"What we need is more concrete and sustained political
commitment and leadership."
PNCI notes that political commitment to protect the lives of
children at all stages of development, while protecting the lives of women and
girls from the violence of abortion, is strong around the world and is part of
the reason why only 60 countries allow access to abortion on demand.
PNCI urges lawmakers who respect life
at all stages to use extreme caution as their parliaments consider
implementation of, and funding for, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs.
|
|
New Database to Advance Access to Abortion
The United Nations Development Programme, United Nations
Population
Fund, United Nations Children's Fund, World Health Organization
(WHO), World Bank
Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training
in Human
Reproduction (HRP) in collaboration with the Population Division
of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA)
launched the Global
Abortion Policies Database which is designed to "help states
identify and eliminate the barriers that women encounter in accessing safe
abortion services. It is also intended to increase both the transparency of
abortion laws and policies and to ensure accountability for the protection of
women's health and their human rights."
The database will also
"facilitate analyses of countries' abortion laws and policies when they
are placed in the context of WHO guidelines and human rights norms and
standards".
The overall goal of the database is to change laws that protect
unborn children and their mothers from the violence of abortion. In a related
article in the WHO Bulletin,Abortion laws, policies, health standards and
guidelines,legal prohibitions on abortion included in the database are
described as "policy barriers" and include laws that "limit
provision of abortion care to obstetricians and gynaecologists working at
high-level care facilities;conscientious objection by health-care providers;
requirements for third-party authorization(s); unnecessary medical tests;
mandatory counselling; and mandatory waiting periods."
The database includes individual country profiles on "selected
sexual and reproductive health indicators, links to State-ratified human rights
treaties, and links to UN Treaty Monitoring Body Concluding Observations and
Special Procedure Reports that address abortion".
The inclusion of non-binding radical pro-abortion observations by
members of treaty monitoring bodies directed at countries with pro-life laws
and policies seeks to further pro-abortion legal arguments that re-interpret
treaties in an attempt to advance abortion as a human right.
The article also traces the development of WHO's promotion of
abortion including how in 2015 WHO came to view abortion as primary health
care, "emerging scientific evidence led to new WHO recommendations,
which emphasized that safe abortion services in early pregnancy are
primary-care-level procedures and specified which cadres of health workers can
provide this care."
The Director of WHO's Department of Reproductive Health and
Research, Ian Askew, formerly with pro-abortion Population Council, called the
database a "ground-breaking resource" on twitter.
|
|
Rapporteur Seeks to Overturn Pro-Life Laws
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions, Agnes Callamard an embedded pro-abortion activist, issued her first
report in which she condemns laws against abortion- Report
of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on
a gender-sensitive approach to arbitrary killings.
She claims that such laws violate a woman's right to life and
repeats pro-abortion arguments stating: "Treaty bodies and special
procedures mandate holders have consistently condemned countries that
criminalize and restrict access to abortion, making direct links between the
criminalization of abortion, maternal mortality and the right to life. Noting
that such laws violate the right to life of pregnant women and other rights,
the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, for example, have
expressed concerns about restrictive abortion laws, including absolute bans on
abortion, as violating the right to life and prohibition of torture and other
ill-treatment."
Sovereign laws restricting abortion are not only viewed as torture
by Callamard but she believes that States "should remove undue
restrictions on access to safe and legal abortions that may threaten women's
and girls' rights to life and health, and adopt clear regulations and
guidelines on safe and legal abortion for health professionals providing
abortion and post-abortion services."
When countries prohibit unfettered access to abortion, including
restricting abortion except for a life of the mother exception, Callamard
believes that such governments are guilty of "arbitrary deprivation of
life" if a woman dies from an illegal abortion.
In news of the report, pro-abortion NGO Ipas states that Callamard
"drew on input from Ipas" and shows that "violations of the
right to life stem not only from intentional deprivation of life by a state or
a non-state actor, but also from the deprivation of basic conditions that
guarantee life, such as access to essential health care."
Callamard's mandate as Special Rapporteur was extended for another
three years following acceptance of a resolution proposed by Sweden to the
Human Rights Council.
|
|
Working Group Calls for "Resistance"
The UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women
in law and in practice has joined the radical left chorus and called
for "resistance" as it claims the "battle over women's
rights intensifies".
The working group, part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human
Rights Council, states: "The world is at a crossroads, with the very
concept of gender equality being increasingly contested in some quarters. We
feel it is time to reiterate the backlash against the progress which has been
made in promoting and protecting women's human rights. The polarization in the
battle for rights is being demonstrated increasingly, and regressive positions
have become a serious threat to the human rights legal framework. The
international community needs to keep moving forward on setting standards on
gender equality to counter the alarming trends which are undermining human
rights principles and jeopardizing the gains made in women's rights."
The group seeks to repeal all laws that
"discriminate against women on traditional, cultural or religious
grounds and laws that exclusively or disproportionately criminalize action or
behaviour by women and girls" including laws prohibiting abortion.
The group claims that "we are
witnessing efforts by fundamentalist groups to undermine the foundation on
which the whole human rights system is based. Some of these efforts are
based on a misuse of culture, including religion and tradition, or on claims
related to State sovereignty."
A recent
successful effort at the Human Rights Council by countries seeking to
protect the family appears to have triggered the group's statement which
included, "Under the disguise of protecting the family, some States are
taking initiatives aimed at diluting human rights. We obviously recognise that
the family is the fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection, but we insist on the need to re-assert women's right to equality in
all aspects of family life and recognise that diverse forms of families
exist."
The members of the working group are "Special Rapporteur in
the field of cultural rights Karima Bennoune; Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief Ahmed Shaheed; Independent Expert on sexual orientation and
gender identity Vitit Muntarbhorn; and Special Rapporteur on violence against
women, its causes and consequences Dubravka Simonović."
|
|
|
Pro-Life Actions
|
|
Holy See and U.S. Object to Abortion as Health Care
Both the United States and the Holy See, during separate meetings
at the United Nations in Geneva, voiced objection to abortion as health care.
Speaking for the Holy See, Permanent Observer Archbishop Ivan Jurkovič
explained the Holy See's position following the ECOSOC Humanitarian Segment
approval of the resolution entitled "Strengthening of
the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations".
The Holy See insisted
"that healthcare services must never be intended - or operate - against
the life of the most defenseless or the unborn." Specifically, the Holy
See objected to the inclusion of Minimal Initial Service Package
(MISP) in section 68 under the title "Sexual and reproductive
health". The Holy See explained:"The Minimal Initial Service
Package (MISP) is a set of priority activities, provided by UNFPA, and includes
13 types of Reproductive Health Kits designed for women and girls of
reproductive age, some of which entail abortion. Among them, "KIT 10"
provides the well-known "vacuum extractor", which is the most common
method to procure abortion, and which brings serious risks also to the mother's
health. Our Delegation would like to insist that healthcare services must never
be intended - or operate - against the life of the most defenseless or the
unborn. The application of the right to life must never discriminate based on
the various stages of life."
The Holy See's
statement expressed concern for women and children in humanitarian emergencies
contexts and for their needs but affirmed that the Holy See "cannot accept
as an appropriate solution those services that provide and/or promote
abortion."
In addition, the Holy See reiterated its
reservations on terms and concepts commonly found and debated in documents
during U.N. meetings stating, "The Holy See does not consider abortion,
access to abortion, or access to abortifacients as a dimension of the terms
'sexual and reproductive health' and 'sexual and reproductive healthcare
services'."
The Holy See also explained that with reference to
the term "gender", "the Holy See understands the term to be
grounded in biological sexual identity and difference."
The United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva
confirmed the words of pro-life U.S. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley that "there
is a new sheriff in town" in a statement of position that demonstrated
beyond any doubt that this "new sheriff" is wearing a shiny pro-life
badge, to the dismay of pro-abortion governments and activists.
The United States
explained its pro-life objection following adoption by the Human Rights Council
of a resolution by Canada on the elimination of violence against
women,A/HRC/35/L.15: Accelerating efforts to eliminate violence against
women: engaging men and boys in preventing and responding to violence against
all women and girls declaring that "the U.S. 'must dissociate from the
consensus' specifically on access to safe abortions."
The U.S. opposed section 9 (d) which included "safe abortion
where such services are permitted by national law" in the list of
"health care services" that are needed to ensure "the promotion
and protection of the human rights of all women and their sexual and
reproductive health and reproductive rights". The US explained that there is no international right to abortion
and that the US does not support access to abortion in reproductive health
assistance, affirming President Trump's Protecting Life in Global Health
Assistance, the expansion of the Mexico City Policy.
Read more PNCI coverage: U.S. Takes Giant Pro-Life Step at
the UN.
|
|
Latin America: Legislators Affirm Life, Family and Faith
Legislators from eighteen countries in Latin America gathered in
Mexico ahead of the General Assembly meeting of the Organization of American
States (OAS) for the first meeting of the Hemispheric Congress of
Parliamentarians to express their support for the American
Declaration on the Independence and self-determination of peoples in matters
related to life, family and religious freedom, supported by 600
parliamentarians in Latin America.In so doing, they expressed concern for
sovereignty in light of aggressive activist actions by the Inter American
Commission on Human Rights and the Inter American Court of Human Rights.
The Declaration included a reminder "that the American
Convention in its article 4 enshrines the right to life "from the moment
of conception"; Article 17 states that "the family is the natural and
fundamental element of society and must be protected by society and the
State" and recognizes "the right of man and woman to marry and to
establish a family;" and article 12 states that "everyone has the
right to freedom of conscience and religion."
The tone of the Declaration demonstrates the growing irritation
and impatience by lawmakers worldwide that treaties and rights are being
re-interpreted by unelected members of international and regional bodies with
no regard for national law or established international law, in this case by
entities at the OAS. Legislators admonished: "Whereas, in accordance
with article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the OAS, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights are obliged to interpret the American Convention as well as any other
treaty of the Inter-American System "in good faith in accordance with the
current sense to be attributed to the terms of the Treaty in the context of
these and taking into account its object and purpose".
The lawmakers declared their "dismay at the aggressive and
continuing efforts of the OAS, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to advance and impose on Member
States certain ideological policies and perspectives that undermine the right
to life, family and freedom of expression, association and religious."
|
|
|
Pro-Abortion Actions
|
|
IPPF and MSI Sign Abortion Agreement
International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International (MSI) announced during a
meeting with donors that they have signed an Organizational
Agreement to work together in order to respond to the "challenging
environment in delivering sexual and reproductive health services and
rights", including abortion.
The two international abortion giants, which refuse to divest from
abortion in order to qualify for U.S. funding under the Mexico City Policy,
stated that they will "look at a joint effort to develop national plans in
12 countries".
Tewodros Melesse, IPPF Director General, said, "It is
evident that the global environment for sexual and reproductive health and
rights services has changed. This means that we have to find new ways to
improve how we drive services at country level. Simon Cooke, CEO of Marie
Stopes International, said: "We look forward to working in greater
collaboration with IPPF on specific projects, to ensure that many more women
and girls in developing countries are able to receive the contraception and
safe abortion services that will help them take control of their futures.
The agreement covers three areas of cooperation: operations,
advocacy and data.
|
|
|
Legislative News
|
|
Dominican Republic: Senate Votes against Legalizing Abortion
The Dominican Republic's Senate rejected a bill to amend the Penal
Code and permit abortion in cases of rape, incest and fetal handicap. This is
the latest move in the ongoing battle to legalize abortion in the country. The
proposed changes are supported by President Danilo Medina, who vetoed a Penal
Code Congress passed last December that would have banned all abortions except
when the mother's life is at risk. The legislation is now under consideration
in the Congress' lower chamber.
|
|
|
Executive News
|
|
UK Department of Health to Pay for Abortions of Northern Ireland’s Babies
Reversing
past decisions to not undermine the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to
determine national policy on abortion, the UK Department of Health announced
that it would cover the cost of aborting the children of women from Northern
Ireland who travel to England for the act.
The surprise
decision resulted after an opposition amendment to force the policy
was introduced by a coalition of MPs led by Labour MP Stella Creasy and was on
its way for a vote supported by more than 100 MPs. DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr was
reported to have said: “I think it is important the house recognises this is
not a matter for Belfast. This is a matter for NHS England.”
The
measure was thought to have gained enough support that it would pass and be
seen as a vote of no confidence in the new government of Prime Minister Theresa
May. Following the loss of a conservative majority in the recent election, May
had reached out to the pro-life Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in Northern
Ireland to form a government resulting in pro-abortion fears that the DUP might
attempt new limitations on access to abortion.
In
reaction to the decision, pro-life leader John Smeaton of SPUC said:
“This is a black day for unborn children, for mothers and for democracy.
It’s a great day for the abortion industry – which cares nothing about unborn
children and for the welfare of women...This is a betrayal on the grandest
scale imaginable. Innocent unborn babies are being treated treacherously
by this Government which has chosen death over life in an effort to save their
skin...It is nothing less than lethal meddling in affairs which do not concern
it designed to thwart the political will of the people of Northern Ireland at
the expense of the unborn who don’t seem to matter at all to our political
masters."
|
|
Ireland: New Taoiseach Calls for Abortion Referendum
Ireland's new Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar has announced
plans for a referendum on Ireland's abortion laws next year. He said health
minister Simon Harris will be in charge of bringing forth legislation on the
Eighth Amendment in 2018. The Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution
protects the right to life of the unborn child from the moment of conception.
Pressure to amend the Irish constitution has been relentless. For the second
time in a year, the UN has criticized Ireland's pro-life laws, calling them
inhumane and degrading to women, and called on the country to legalize
abortion. Taoiseach has said he supports a change to the law: "I don't
agree with abortion on request but I also am very sure the Eighth Amendment is
too restrictive...I think there are circumstances in which we should allow it
that does means replacing the Eighth Amendment with something else."
|
|
Canada: Abortion "at the Core" of Foreign Assistance
According to Canada's Foreign
Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, abortion
is "at the core" of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's foreign
policy. The minister said that Canadian values include feminism and women's
rights. "That includes sexual reproductive rights. That includes the
right to safe and accessible abortions," said Freeland. In a speech to
parliament, Freeland announced the focus for Canada's foreign policy as the
"first feminist international assistance policy" in the hopes of
making the country "at the forefront of this global effort".
|
|
|
Judicial News
|
|
UK Supreme Court: No Free Abortions for Northern Ireland Women
The UK's Supreme
Court has ruled against
women from Northern Ireland seeking free abortions in England. The UK
Department of Health reports that last year over 700 women traveled from NI to
England for abortions. The case was filed by a woman and her mother who
traveled to England in 2012 for an abortion. The ruling said it was not for the
court to rule on the differences in abortion law in Northern Ireland and
England and that the health secretary was in the right to defer to Northern
Ireland's law and restrict access to NHS abortions. The ruling stated that the
secretary was "entitled to afford respect to the democratic decision of
the people of Northern Ireland not to fund abortion services". The mother
and daughter now plan to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
|
|
EU: Court Rejects Appeal to Continue Life Support for Critically Ill Baby
The European Court
of Human Rights has rejected an appeal to allow a critically ill baby to
receive experimental treatment, ruling the hospital may withdraw life support.
The 10 month old baby, Charlie Gard, suffers from a rare genetic condition
called mitochondrial depletion syndrome. His parents want to take him to the
United States for experimental treatment and have raised £1.3m for medical
expenses. However, the hospital challenged them in court, arguing against
maintaining life support because of Charlie's poor quality of life. His parents
argued they only want to give their son a chance at life. The European Court
upheld the UK Supreme Court's ruling against moving Charlie or continuing life
support.
The Vatican's
Pontifical Academy for Life issued a statement,
acknowledging the parents' pain and the complex nature of the situation. It
states, "we should never act with the deliberate intention to end a
human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration, so that death might
be achieved," but that "we do, sometimes, however, have to
recognize the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in
the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs."
|
|
|
Issues
|
|
Denial of Burial for Unborn Babies before 24 Weeks
In Hong Kong, a legal battle ensued when a couple fought a public
hospital to gain permission to obtain the remains of their son, miscarried in
the 15th week of pregnancy, for burial. Preborn babies who die
before 24 weeks are not routinely released to their families for burial and are
considered to be "clinical waste" according to the legal requirements
issued by the Environmental Protection Department.
The hospital had
agreed to release the body to his parents but without the documentation
required for a proper burial and recommended that the parents take their son's
body to a pet crematorium. The parents'
lawyer objected to the fact that the hospital was following directions
from the abortion law which stipulates that 24 weeks is the gestational age
above which the baby is considered stillborn and allowed to be released for
burial. (Hong Kong prohibits abortion after 24 weeks except for a life of the mother
exception.) It is reported that 18 similar appeals to give babies who die
before 24 weeks gestation a burial have been made this past year; 14 were
approved.
The local Catholic Diocese intervened to assist the couple and
agreed to set aside space - called "Angel Garden"-in its private
cemetery for babies from Catholic families who die before 24 weeks of
pregnancy.
The baby's father explained that the solution offered by the Roman Catholic
Church is something that the Islamic cemetery has been doing for decades but he
wants all families in Hong Kong, regardless of religion or background, to have
the option of taking their deceased children for burial or cremation.
"I don't think it should be
available only to people of certain religions or certain backgrounds," he
said. "I want to see the government change this policy, or for lawmakers
to change the law."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues
Advancing global respect and dignity for life through law
and policy.
|
www.pncius.org |
Visit us on the web!
www.PNCIUS.org
has been updated with expanded information on Human Dignity and critical
issues including: Abortion, Bioethics, Child Mortality, End of life issues,
Infanticide, Maternal mortality and Sex-selective abortion.
|
Contact PNCI |
|
Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues
P.O. Box 20203
Washington, DC 20041
703-433-2767
info@pncius.org
All news articles include links to original source. PNCI cannot verify that the
information contained in the news articles is accurate.
|
|
|