Blog

The theme of the 46th Session of the Commission on Population and Development was supposed to be migration. Nevertheless, abortion proponents once again hijacked the discussion to push their agenda. Thankfully, the outcome document leaves very little room for abortion advocates to build upon.

During the week, International Planned Parenthood Federation (PP) launched its “Vision 2020” campaign, which includes applauds illegal abortion providers in Latin American countries, even though these medical abortions are hazardous to the woman and fatal to the baby. They call on all governments to “support a woman’s right to abortion by removing legal and policy barriers to abortion services” in the name of reducing maternal mortality. Evidence shows, however, that countries prohibiting abortion can actually provide higher maternal healthcare standards than countries where abortion is legal.

As always happens at the major UN conferences, PP and its allies divert attention from real, pressing issues to push their agenda of so-called "sexual and reproductive health and rights" which include "youth-friendly" abortion services. The outcome document addressing migrants never once mentions food and only twice mentions employment, but mentions “sexual and reproductive health” five times and ensures “emergency contraception and safe abortion.” Guess where their priorities are?

When the African group opposed the PP agenda, Planned Parenthood sent a private letter to the Nigerian ambassador, rebuking her delegation’s stance as the voice for the African group. In the letter, PP issued a veiled threat that if the Nigerian ambassador did not tone done her opposition to abortion, PP would use its influence to cause the ambassador to lose her position as First Chair at UN Women. The PP took to bullying again when the Filipino vice-chairman of the Commission denied numerous requests to include abortion language in the text. On the final day of negotiations, they pushed to have him replaced as moderator of the negotiations.

Because of the US and EU’s neurotic focus on abortion, the commission could not agree on a negotiated document. The document reverted to a chairman’s text, delivered by the moderator from Moldova. The outcome was not the result of a consultative process of negotiation; it was forced in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion upon the member states.

Nevertheless, the chairman’s text did not allow abortion advocates to make any headway. All references to Comprehensive Sexuality Education (which promotes abortion and early sexual activity to children) from the original draft were deleted in the final outcome document. All six references to “sexual orientation and gender identity” were likewise deleted.

Thankfully, a strong paragraph reaffirmed the national sovereignty of each member state “with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with universally recognized international human rights.” Remember, despite decades of agitation from the abortion advocates, there is no internationally recognized right to abortion. Universally recognized international human rights do include the right to life (though sadly, this right is ignored by the UN when it comes to unborn children).

There is very little in this document to build toward a so-called “right to abortion.” Two major country groups (the African group and the Arab group) and nine specific countries voices specific reservations against abortion in their final statements. Honduras issued a strong pro-life statement, reaffirming their position that “The unborn child has the same right as a child that is born.” Chile emphasized its belief that “Life is protected from conception” and that “no part of this resolution can be interpreted an acceptance of abortion in any of its forms.”

After years of trying, abortion advocates left the 46th Commission on Population and Development with little “progress” to celebrate.

Some pro-lifers have been making noise about Obama speaking at Planned Parenthood. I don't know why such pro-lifers bother. Obama has always been a full-throated supporter of baby-killing. Planned Parenthood and Obama are perfect for each other.

During his pro-abortion speech, Obama, referring to proposed personhood amendments and other pro-life laws, said:

The fact is, after decades of progress, there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century (Emphasis added)

In 1973, when Blackmun and the Supreme Court declared that some human beings (the unborn) didn't count as persons but "private property" and could be killed at will, they turned back the clock to mid 19th century. Obama and Planned Parenthood feel very comfortable not in the 1950s but in the 1850s.

UPDATE: Upon further consideration, the 1850s were too advanced scientifically for Obama. In 1827, von Baer discovered mammalian ova which soon lead to the determination that life begins at conception.  Considering that when life begins in above his paygrade, Obama would feel much more comfortable in the early 1800s.

Hat tip to Personhood USA facebook page

William Petroski, of the Des Moines Register, reports that “21 senators want life to start at conception in Iowa”.  It’s a great title because of its distortion. Conception begins the life of a human being whether or not any Iowa Senators recognize this fact. Rather, some pro-life Iowa Senators have offered Senate Joint Resolution 10, an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that states:

The inalienable right to life of every person at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected.

I like this amendment because it doesn't say when life begins. It certainly doesn't say that life begins at conception.

Obviously, a right to life can't exist where life doesn't exist. If pro-aborts really believe that life doesn't begin until birth, they should support (or at least not oppose) this amendment. But of course, pro-aborts recognize, as William Petroski recognizes, that life begins at conception.

Thank you Senator Dennis Guth and the twenty other Iowa Senators for standing for truth and life.

See Pro-aborts finally discover that life begins at conception

New York University professor Jonathan Zimmerman’s misogynist opinion piece Why Gosnell’s victims went to him caught my eye. I can answer the question far better than he does. Why did Gosnell's victims go to him?

Gosnell’s victims went to him because their mothers took them there. The babies were minding their own business and had no idea that their mothers had walked into an abortuary. When their mothers strapped into the stirrups, the babies had no idea that their lives were about to end. When Gosnell inserted his bladed instruments, forceps and suction device into womb after womb, the babies had no idea why they were being forced to die.

Mr. Zimmerman is correct that Gosnell's victims were “Someone[s] who didn’t have any other choices, that’s who.”