U.S. Maligned at UN over Concern for Unborn in Conflict Zones
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
 

During debate on a U.N. Security Council resolution on sexual violence in conflict— S/RES/2467 —sponsored by Germany, the U.S. held to its Protecting Life in Global Assistance Policy and insisted that the term "sexual and reproductive health" be eliminated from the text owing to its interpretation by many in the U.N. system to include access to abortion. The final text with elimination of— “need for U.N. bodies and donors to give timely ‘sexual and reproductive health’ assistance to survivors of sexual violence in conflict”— was approved by the Security Council with 13 affirmative votes, including the U.S., with Russia and China abstaining.

The U.S. was maligned and heavily criticized by pro-abortion news entities and others including the Center for Reproductive Rights which stated, “The Center for Reproductive Rights is deeply concerned by the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2467, which has failed to acknowledge the need for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for survivors in conflict settings.  It’s a significant step back from previous Security Council resolutions which specifically called for survivors of sexual violence to have access to these essential services…The U.S. was a key factor in the elimination of text calling for survivors of sexual violence to have access to sexual and reproductive health care, by threatening to veto the resolution if the text remained.”

According to official UN news coverage, a number of pro-abortion countries expressed disappointment with elimination of the controversial term with the Minister for State for the Commonwealth and the United Nations of the United Kingdom, Tariq Ahmad expressing “regret” that the “draft resolution does not include proposed language on providing victims with health services — including sexual and reproductive health care and the safe termination of pregnancy…”  Germany, Spain, France, Belgium, and South Africa also expressed opposition to removal of the term.

According to the news article “Team Trump didn’t try to stop UN from cracking down on wartime rapists,” an accurate depiction of what transpired begins with the fact that Germany as the current rotating chair of the Security Council introduced the long draft resolution without first consulting the U.S. The article explains, “The draft raised several red flags for the Americans. For starters, it contained provisions to which the US and several other member states objected, such as calling on the UN to provide “comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health. Such language has often been used to promote abortion worldwide — something American law prohibits the US government from doing.

As the reporter describes his investigation, “Then, too, as one senior diplomat from a different country told me, “extreme cases” — here, war crimes — “always make for bad law.” France, Germany and other European Union countries, he said, are using wartime rape to “normalize abortion rights as the standard of care” in all circumstances.

“The European Union countries consistently push “the same agenda on everyone else,” this diplomat said, namely contraception, abortion and comprehensive sexual education.”

The article further explains that “Resolutions at the Security Council gain the force of law” and “permitting the Germans to pass their original draft resolution at the council would have codified into ­international law opinions about abortion, gender and sexuality that run contrary to the sense of right and wrong shared by people across ­Africa, Asia and Latin America. Not to mention many Americans.”

Resolution 2467 follows resolution 2106, passed in 2013, on the same topic which included 'reproductive health' and which now is being claimed by abortion activists takes precedence over the newly passed resolution so it can used to advance abortion.

U.N. Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Géraldine Boezio stated, "Resolution 2467 ... re-enforces and works in tandem with the previous resolutions of the Security Council, including resolution 2106 (2013) that calls for comprehensive health care, including the essential reproductive health services that are the right of the thousands of victims who are brutally raped by armed forces and groups in conflicts all around the world."

The Minister for State for the Commonwealth and the United Nations of the United Kingdom, Tariq Ahmad, clarified that in the UK's mind the term does include abortion as he expressed "regret" that the "draft resolution does not include proposed language on providing victims with health services - including sexual and reproductive health care and the safe termination of pregnancy..."  Germany, Spain, France, Belgium, and South Africa also expressed opposition to removal of the term.

C-fam reports on this first time U.S. pro-life veto threat at the U.N. explaining that German Ambassador Heusgen stated at the Security Council press stakeout after the vote that it was a decision by Germany to not include ‘sexual and reproductive health’ saying, “We did not mention the topic (sexual and reproductive health) to make sure that international law remains in place, and that what has already been adopted on sexual and reproductive health care remains valid. Resolution 2106 remains valid. This is expressly stated in the resolution...”

According to C-fam, “Heusgen was explaining to the disappointed activists that the status quo has in fact not changed at all, even though the term “sexual and reproductive health” was not in the resolution...“You have to look at it from a legal point of view,” he said, describing the German government as “overall very happy” with the result.

“When asked specifically if Germany would continue to fight the United States’ position on abortion, Heusgen was adamant. ‘Absolutely, we will push back,’ he said, ‘The question is, do you, because there is one government that does not want anything on this topic, do you stop all your activities?’"

C-fam further explained that during the Council debate, "the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France also emphasized that the absence of an explicit reference to abortion or abortion-related terms in the resolution would not affect the ability of the UN system to continue to promote abortion as a response to sexual violence in war zones."

 

 


 


Back