By Jeanne Head, RN and Rai Rojas
The New York Times and others publications are accusing the Holy See and its pro-life allies of obstructionism during the negotiations on the final document for the United Nations 57th Annual Commission on the Status of Women. They argue that a final agreement is being held up by what it calls an “unholy alliance.”
The exact opposite is true. The European Union, the United States, and their pro-abortion allies are the obstructionists. They are even calling for the deletion of human rights language taken from (and references to) UN founding documents, such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as other human rights instruments.
The deleted human rights language was replaced with references to documents from regional meetings that contain language that can be used to promote abortion and other violations of human rights.
Let’s see an example of what the New York Times is complaining about. The following is from the text of a paragraph offered by the Holy See at last week’s negotiations.
“Reaffirming the obligation of all States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and reaffirming also that discrimination on the basis of sex is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, . . . and other international human rights instruments and that its elimination is an integral part of efforts towards the elimination of all forms of violence against women.”
The Declarations enumerated by the Holy See demonstrate that the instruments for the protection of women are already in place within the structure of UN documents. The Holy See simply asked that these documents be reaffirmed and implemented.
This was not an obstructive act.
What drew the ire of pro-abortionists? Some of these treaties and Declarations include language that recognizes the “inherent right to life, liberty and security of persons.” In response radical and extreme pro-abortion elements within the European Union and the delegation of the United States have blocked it and moved to have these treaties-even a mere mention of them-deleted from the current document.
This is obstructionism, and because of it, the negotiations may now have stalled – not because of the Holy See, but because of the European Union and the US.
Predictably and on cue, the New York Times published an editorial Monday bemoaning the slow negotiating process. Instead of accurately reporting on the proceedings they reverted to invoking a string of rapes in India and shootings in Pakistan and then decried that this type of violence will continue because Russia, Iran, and the Holy See are “trying to eliminate language in a draft communiqué asserting that the familiar excuses — religion, custom, tradition — cannot be used by governments to duck their obligation to eliminate violence.” This is to be taken seriously?
Lost to the New York Times editorial board is that it isn’t just the Holy See, Russia, and Iran who are objecting to new and previously non-negotiated language that would be used to aggressively promote abortion worldwide and do next to nothing to curb further violence against women. Many Muslim, Latin-American, and even some European countries object as well.
The Times also failed to mention that “the stall” has in fact been caused because of American and European Union efforts to continue to push their failed social experimentations on the rest of the world.
Would that the European Union and US delegations not fear the “inherent right to life” of all persons and stop playing politics at the expense of women’s safety worldwide. Would that the New York Times would on occasion report the truth.
What a world that would be.