During the recent 52nd UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board meeting in Geneva, UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima presented a report that shows that the work against HIV/AIDS has been hijacked to include the promotion of the broad sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) agenda, including access to abortion.

She stated that the world is facing major challenges “across a broad spectrum of human rights issues” including “women’s rights, girls’ rights, sexual and reproductive rights” and said, “UNAIDS remains committed to ensuring women and girls are empowered to stay safe from HIV and securing their sexual and reproduction rights is critical for doing so.”

She gives voice to a strategic plan to use the fight against AIDS to advance access to abortion and the SRHR agenda. WHO’s Call to Action to attain universal health coverage through linked sexual and reproductive health and rights and HIV interventions states that there “has been a marked shift in the global development agenda to develop, fund and implement multisectoral interventions that jointly advance both sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and HIV prevention, treatment and care.” It calls for sharing of “the benefits of integrated SRH and HIV services”.

The U.S. is also seeking to integrate sexual and reproductive health, rights and services with HIV as evidenced in Reimagining PEPFAR's Strategic Direction, the U.S. program to fight HIV/AIDS. Up for a 5-year reauthorization by Congress of $30 billion, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has been hijacked and includes in Reimagining PEPFAR that whenever possible PEPFAR programs will “integrate HIV programming into strengthened public health systems to manage tuberculosis, high burden non-communicable diseases, sexual reproductive health, rights and services…”

While PEPFAR is blocked by law from directly funding abortion, it is free to fund international organizations that perform or promote abortion. UNAIDS welcomed Biden’s decision to rescind the pro-life policy that blocked U.S. funds to pro-abortion organizations— Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy, PLGHA, (previously known as the Mexico City Policy)—and called it a show of commitment to supporting women’s “access to sexual and reproductive health and rights information and service”.

Funding for UNAIDS remains critical. Winnie Byanyima recognizes the critical funding from the U.S. as the largest donor to global health in the world and expressed her gratitude to those working to “defend PEPFAR and its budget” as it comes under criticism in the U.S.

Congressional Pro-life Caucus Chair Rep. Chris Smith has raised concerns saying, “Those of us who support the noble goals of PEPFAR are sickened at heart by Biden’s 2022 radical ‘reimagining PEPFAR’ strategic plan that ‘integrates’ abortion promotion with HIV/AIDS projects.”

“In plain language, the Biden Administration further directs PEPFAR to work with organizations seeking to get rid of life-affirming laws in other countries,” Smith continued.

“That is unacceptable. Congress must act to protect PEPFAR—which was created to provide care to those who are ill and tangibly assist women and children—from being radically transformed into a program that promotes abortion on demand.”

The budget UNAIDS seeks and its program is detailed in 2022–2026 UNIFIED BUDGET, RESULTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK (UBRAF). It features work with PEPFAR on developing its country and regional operational plans. In the area of gender equality, it seeks to mobilize “political will and efforts to address gender-based violence and deep-rooted inequalities that deny women and girls information, agency and control over their HIV and sexual and reproductive choices”.

WHO, one of the 11 UN organizations comprising UNAIDS, includes access to abortion in the document Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights stating: “Adolescents across the world face considerable challenges to their sexual and reproductive health and rights. These include…lack of access to health services, especially for contraception and safe abortion.”

Policy makers around the world need to be aware of the attempts to advance access to abortion through the integration of sexual and reproductive health and rights with HIV interventions. All lives, born and unborn, deserve protection and help.

Read more here.

On the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, President Biden issued a statement saying that the decision “has already had devastating consequences” referring to the states which have issued abortion bans to protect the lives of children alive but not yet born. He says that “state bans are just the beginning” and that “Congressional Republicans want to ban abortion nationwide” and take abortion pills off the market. Biden calls the Republican pro-life agenda “extreme, dangerous, and out-of-step” and then declares that his Administration “will continue to protect access to reproductive health care” and he calls on Congress “to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law once and for all.”  Biden thinks it is right to end the lives of unborn children nationwide but wrong to protect their lives nationwide or in individual states.

Vice President Harris spoke in North Carolina on the anniversary. She said her first public remarks that day were, “How dare they, “How dare they, “How dare they. How dare they attack basic healthcare. How dare they attack our fundamental rights. How dare they attack our freedom. “

She described pro-life state legislators as extremist “so-called leaders” who “have proposed or passed more than 350 new laws to restrict these freedoms and the right to have access to reproductive healthcare.” She equated access to abortion to freedom while ignoring the tiny precious victims. Harris said, “So, we gather here with knowledge and a deep and profound belief that America is a promise — a promise. A promise of freedom — and freedom for all. A promise that each person can determine their own future, dream with ambition, and live with dignity. A promise that every person truly has the ability to thrive.”

The Biden-Harris Administration also issued a fact sheet listing in detail all the actions taken to enable the killing of unborn children, deceptively called “defending reproductive rights” and protecting “access to reproductive health care. The White House states, “Today, more than 23 million women of reproductive age—one in three—live in one of the 18 states with an abortion ban currently in effect” and proposes that “the only way to ensure women in every state have access to abortion is for Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade.”

The White House announced that the Biden-Harris Administration has been partnering with leaders on the state level to protect access to abortion—both those fighting pro-life state legislation and those advancing pro-abortion policies. VP Harris has traveled to 18 states and met with more than 250 state legislators, health care providers, and pro-abortion advocates to discuss anti-life strategies and policies.

Abortion is to be the front and center issue in the Biden-Harris reelection campaign. Both were endorsed for reelection by three of the nation’s top pro-abortion groups at a D.C. event— EMILY’s List, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood Action Fund. The groups described Biden-Harris reelection as “crucial to the country’s future of healthcare” and to “push anti-abortion extremists out of office.”

During the event, President Biden called their support “a big deal” that was “critical last time around” and said, “I can’t think of three organizations who will do more — have more consequential impact on the right and the ability to regain freedom.” The freedom Biden talks about is the freedom to end the lives of unborn children up to birth.

Biden was emphatic on the importance he places on access to the death of preborn children, “To state the obvious — even though it’s clear by now; it’s almost redundant to say it — this fight really matters. It really, really matters.

“You know, and since that dark June day last year, each of you has worked tirelessly to fight back. In the Dobbs decision, the Court particularly — practically dared the women of America to be heard. They’re going to find out again, I really believe it in my heart,” Biden said.

“The court was betting that all of us would remain silent,” he added. “You all showed up and beat the hell out of them.”

“Republicans in Congress have proposed three national abortion bans just this last year. Well, make no mistake about it: If somehow Congress were to pass a national ban, I will veto it.” 

After expressing his strong support for abortion, days later Biden told a crowd of 100 donors, “I’m a practicing Catholic. I’m not big on abortion. But guess what? Roe v. Wade got it right” and again criticized the more than 20 states that have passed laws restricting access to abortion.

One year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, pro-life laws have changed the landscape of states across the U.S. 23 states now have laws limiting abortion to 12 weeks gestation, 14 states protect the right to life from conception, 5 states protect life after detection of a heartbeat, among others. Numerous states have defended pro-life laws in court and continue to do so. American United for Life’s (AUL) policy paper, “One Year Later: The Landscape of America’s Life-Protecting Laws after Dobbs,” details the policy and judicial victories and challenges. 

“Now that there is no longer a right to abortion under the federal Constitution, Dobbs has emboldened the pro-life movement in their fight for life and reinvigorated many states’ desires to protect the unborn,” said Danielle Pimentel, AUL Policy Counsel. “This has led many states to put forth strong pro-life legislation that protects women and their preborn children, as well as the pro-life community rallying together to oppose anti-life bills. As a result, we are seeing more states boldly protecting life. The pro-life movement won the close to 50-year battle against Roe, and will continue to fight until both law and culture protect human dignity throughout life.”

Thirty Democrat Catholics serving in the House of Representatives issued a “statement of principles” fully supporting the death of unborn children in abortion. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro partnered with the self-identifying pro-abortion organization “Catholics for Choice” in writing the statement which presents abortion as a personal choice and claims that such a choice is consistent with Catholic teaching regarding freedom of conscience. It also suggests that laws restricting abortion may violate the separation of church and state. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California was one of the signers who believe: “The fundamental tenets of our Catholic faith — social justice, conscience, and religious freedom — compel us to defend a woman’s right to access abortion. We are committed to advocating for the respect and protection of those making the decision if and when to have children.”

U.S. Catholic bishops issued a statement correcting the distortion of Church teaching by the Democrat Members of Congress. Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Bishop Michael F. Burbidge, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop Daniel E. Flores of Brownsville, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine stated:

“Members of Congress who recently invoked teachings of the Catholic faith itself as justifying abortion or supporting a supposed right to abortion grievously distort the faith. It is wrong and incoherent to claim that the taking of innocent human life at its most vulnerable stage can ever be consistent with the values of supporting the dignity and wellbeing of those in need. ‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,’ including through the civil law [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270, 2273]. Abortion violates this with respect to preborn children and brings untold suffering to countless women.

“Conscience rightly enjoys a special regard both in Church teaching and in the public sphere. And policymakers should support the freedom of Catholics and of others to serve the common good in accord with their beliefs in a wide range of areas – from services and assistance to recently arrived migrants, to offering health care and social services.

“Nevertheless, conscience is not a license to commit evil and take innocent lives. Conscience cannot and does not justify the act or support of abortion. In fact, conscience ‘must be informed and moral judgment enlightened’ with the Word of God in faith and prayer, and ‘guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church’ [CCC 1783, 1785]. Moreover, the reality that the preborn are our living sisters and brothers is not only a matter of faith, but is attested to by science and sound reason.



“We once again implore and pray for Congress to join us in working toward the true common good by prioritizing authentic, uplifting support for the vulnerable and marginalized, including mothers and families in need.”

Rep. Chris Smith, chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus delivered remarks on the one-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision which he called “the game changer” saying that it is “God-willing, the beginning of the end of the culture of death.” He called it “an engraved invitation to policy makers at every level including Congress and the President to protect unborn children from the violence of abortion.”

“The sacred burden to double down on our vital life-saving work has never been clearer.

“As we all know far too well, the purveyors of death have aggressively fostered a culture of denial, disrespect and bias against babies and have employed an endless array of deceitful tactics designed to trivialize and mask an ugly reality.

“There is nothing humane or benign about abortion. Abortion is not healthcare, unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child to analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished.”

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejected challenges to the Constitutional Court of Poland ruling in 2020 that eugenic abortion is contrary to the constitutional principles of respect for human life and dignity, which is endowed to every human being from before birth. According to ECLJ, the Court rejected a series of applications against the ruling in Poland on the grounds that the applicants could not personally claim to be "victims" of this abolition, as they were not pregnant or expecting a child with a disability.

ECLJ welcomed the decision which agreed with its written observations that stated the applications to overturn the Polish Court’s abortion ruling were “based on fear and rejection of disability and are an affront to people with disabilities who are stigmatised and discriminated against”. ECLJ rightly proposed that it is possible to overcome the fear of a child’s disability without eliminating the disabled unborn child. It stated, “Eugenic abortion is contrary to human rights. Because of the very nature of the act of abortion, it can never be a right or a freedom. Poland, within its margin of appreciation, recognises the unborn child as a subject of law and grants them legal protection from conception. By granting the child the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of disability, Poland is bringing itself into line with the most recent developments in international law, which prohibit the mentioning of disability as a specific ground for abortion.”

The European Court of Human Rights did not rule on the case as hoped by pro-abortion lobbyists including the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning (FEDERA), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Center for Reproductive Rights, International Commission of Jurists, International Federation for Human Rights, International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network, Women Enabled International, Women's Link Worldwide, and the World Organisation against Torture.

Grégor Puppinck, Director of ECLJ, said, “Despite all their efforts and prestige in the eyes of the world, the pro-abortion groups did not succeed in convincing the Court, which refused to allow itself to be crudely used—and demeaned—for purely political ends…

“Strangely enough, these major human rights NGOs do not ask themselves whether aborting a child at seven months of pregnancy because of Down's syndrome is not, in fact, the actual violation of human rights.”

The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development heard a presentation from MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes International) which relayed to the lawmakers that with Roe v Wade overturned, “we're seeing a rise in anti-choice activities worldwide.” Abortion provider and promoter MSI explained, “When the right to choose is under attack in the US, the global anti-choice movement takes notice.”

“When anti-choice politicians chip away at American women’s rights, the global anti-choice movement takes notice. Emboldened by their victories in the United States, and often supported by US-affiliated groups, they’re pushing for even more restrictions on abortion care around the world.”

It explains that abortion continues “to be one of the most heavily restricted healthcare services worldwide” and that a post-Roe world is different in part because abortion pills have made it possible for women to ‘self-manage’ their own abortion.

MSI believes that after Roe, the pro-life movement is in the U.S. “is better organized, better funded and more pernicious than at any point in history”.

The war in Ukraine and the forced exodus of women and young girls to neighboring countries which protect unborn children and their mothers from the violence of abortion has pro-abortion organizations criticizing laws on abortion in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. The report titled Care in Crisis: Failures to guarantee the sexual and reproductive health and rights of refugees from Ukraine in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia criticizes Poland’s near-total ban on abortion, the absence of abortion pills and procedural requirements including parental or guardian consent for adolescents under 18 in Hungary and Slovakia.

The report calls on concerned governments, the European Union, the United Nations, donors, and the broader international community to urgently implement measures “to protect the sexual and reproductive health and rights of refugees”, especially access to abortion.

Their calls to Poland include legalizing abortion on demand and refraining from endorsing any additional legal and policy measures to limit access to abortion.

In Slovakia, under sexual and reproductive healthcare, they seek telemedicine for abortion via medication and guaranteed “universal coverage of all costs for legal abortion, including abortion on request, under public health insurance schemes.”

Hungary is told as sexual and reproductive healthcare to license abortion pills and repeal requirements for mandatory counseling, 3-day waiting periods, and ultrasound.

In Romania, the use of abortion pills and telemedicine are sought along with universal coverage of abortion, including abortion on demand, under public health insurance.

The groups seek funding for pro-abortion organizations from the EU: “Ensure that EU funding streams address the needs of civil society organizations and human rights defenders working on gender equality, sexual and reproductive health and rights, gender-based violence, Roma rights, and LGBTIQ+ rights within the EU.”

A gaggle of UN Special Rapporteurs attacked the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision on the one year anniversary calling it a “regressive position” that “puts millions of women and girls at serious risk”. Special Rapporteur is a title given by the Human Rights Council to an individual considered to be a human rights expert who advises the HRC on a particular issue. The group of Special Rapporteurs claimed that the ruling results in violations of International Human Rights Law.

Referring to abortion bans in 14 states, the group says that the bans “have made abortion services largely inaccessible and denied women and girls their fundamental human rights to comprehensive healthcare including sexual and reproductive health”. They claimed that the bans “could lead to violations of women’s rights to privacy, bodily integrity and autonomy, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, equality and non-discrimination, and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and gender-based violence.”

The group urged federal and state governments “to take action to reverse the regressive rhetoric seeping through the legislative system and enact positive measures to ensure access to safe and legal abortion”. The Special Rapporteurs issuing the statement are: Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences; Dorothy Estrada Tanck (Chair), Ivana Radačić (Vice-Chair), Elizabeth Broderick, Meskerem Geset Techane and Melissa Upreti, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls; Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; Alice Jill Edwards, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Felipe González Morales, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; Ana Brian Nougrères, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy; Gerard Quinn, Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities; and Ashwini K.P., Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

The Inter American Commission of Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States (OAS), also issued a statement condemning the Dobbs decision and urging the U.S. “to adopt measures to mitigate and compensate for the negative effects on the health and lives of women from the revocation of the protection of access to abortion”. It seeks the “adoption of legislative, budgetary, public policy and any other measures necessary to guarantee access to all reproductive care health services, including abortion services.”

Former pro-abortion senator and presidential hopeful John Kerry serves as President Biden’s first U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate and now his daughter Dr. Vanessa Kerry has been appointed by WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as the first-ever Director-General Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health. In announcing the appointment, Dr. Tedros said Dr. Kerry “will play a pivotal role in amplifying WHO's climate and health messaging and undertake high-level advocacy.” He emphasized, “Climate change is emerging as the greatest health challenge of the 21st century, impacting various aspects of human well-being.”

Vanessa Kerry has been clear in her support for abortion stating in an interview with the Telegraph that she has been greatly concerned by the Dobbs decision. Kerry stated, “The Roe v Wade decision was one of the most painful, stark and appalling pieces of legislation in modern history. And I will say, this was not a judicial decision. It was entirely politically motivated. And the impact on women's health is going to be profound.”

WHO expects that through Dr. Kerry’s leadership, she “will contribute to WHO's work in shaping policies, fostering collaborations, and driving transformative action to protect and promote the health of populations in the face of climate challenges.”

WHO is a leading global promoter of abortion as health care. It recent publication, Clinical practice handbook for quality abortion care, instructs health works in abortion and supplements the clinical recommendations from its Abortion care guideline. During COVID-19 WHO called access to abortion “essential medicine”.

The UN’s CEDAW Committee reviewed Germany’s report and told Germany to rescind regulations on abortion requiring mandatory counseling and a three day waiting period. CEDAW cited its general recommendation No. 24 (1999) on women and health and instructed Germany to:

“Ensure that sufficient numbers of adequately trained medical professionals are available to perform abortions and reduce regional disparities in this regard, and that medicines needed for non-surgical abortion are available;

“Ensure that women have access to safe abortion in compliance with the World Health Organization guidelines on abortion care, which recommends the full decriminalization of abortion, and without subjecting them to mandatory counselling and a three-day waiting period, and that safe and legal abortion services are reimbursed by the health insurance, and carry out a study to assess the reasons for women to travel abroad for abortion with a view to addressing their needs.”

While a new proposed law seeks to make abortion available in Malta, the pro-life country’s government has made it clear it is only in very limited circumstances. The new government bill will permit abortion in cases when the mother’s life is at risk. Additional amendments have been added to clarify the abortion is only permissible if all other medical interventions have been exhausted, the pregnancy is not viable, and that three doctors approve it. Malta’s pro-life laws came under international scrutiny when an American tourist claimed her life was at risk when she was denied an abortion. Doctors and consultants have maintained the American was treated appropriately and that her life was never at risk. Malta’s president George Vella has repeatedly vowed he would resign before signing a law legalizing abortion.

UK parliamentarians have called for the reinstatement of in-person appointments for medical abortions. Virtual consults and DIY abortions with abortion drugs were approved temporarily during the lockdown of 2020 due to Covid-19 as evidenced in the case of a British woman who took abortion pills to abort her baby at 8 months gestation. Pro-abortion MPs and peers pointed to her case as a reason to remove all limits on abortion and permit it up to birth. However, pro-life legislators and activists have called for removing the DIY policy and requiring in-person consults to assure a baby’s gestation is accurately calculated and the mother is given services she needs. Dr Hilary Jones MBE, a GP, said, “Clearly, this woman needed professional help, she needed counselling, she needed support, she needed guidance at a very, very difficult time for her … the bottom line is that this child was born at a time when it could have been living independently … premature babies can survive from 26 [weeks], even younger, and this child would have been 32 weeks, 34 weeks, somewhere around that period.”

New legislation in the Scottish parliament would criminalize peaceful pro-life protests. The Proposed Abortion Services Safe Access Zones (Scotland) Bill would institute a 150 meter “safe access zone” around every facility that offers abortion services. Within this “safe access zone”, it would be against the law to repeatedly occupy space, to impede the entrance, seek to influence a person concerning abortion, hold up any posters, pictures or leaflets related to abortion, among others. In effect, any type of peaceful pro-life protest would be against the law and punishable by fines or imprisonment. The bill is expected to be debated this fall. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) is working to lobby and educate MPs on this bill, which goes even further than other similar bills in other parts of the UK. “It is part of a continued campaign to punish pro-life people for attempting to be present to women in need and to witness to the humanity of the unborn. It would represent a massive overstep, and an infringement on fundamental freedoms,” said Alithea Williams, SPUC’s Public Policy Manager.  

The Argentine government has announced the morning-after pill will be made available over the counter without a prescription. The health ministry claims the new initiative will prevent unintended pregnancies by removing “difficulties of access to health services, contraception supplies, and education.” The new policy also removes age restrictions making abortion drugs available to minors. Pro-life group Dergui X la Vida opposed the move and said the government was “essentially orienting itself towards promoting abortive measures.”