NEW YORK (C-Fam) Abortion advocates have finally publicly admitted their ongoing plot to impose abortion and sexual rights on the world. It came during a discussion about the upcoming UN Summit of the Future.
Pro-life groups have warned about this strategy for the past two decades but rarely do abortion advocates admit this in public. During a discussion linked to the upcoming UN Summit for the Future, pro-abortion delegates and journalists admitted that they have inserted coded language such as “sexual and reproductive health” in every area of UN policy as a pretext to get more funding and leverage to promote abortion.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
Julie Garfieldt Kofoed specifically highlighted how important it has been to add sexual and reproductive health language “beyond the confines of the third committee of the UN General Assembly” where these issues were discussed almost exclusively only ten years ago.
The former delegate from Denmark who now works for the UN Foundation, confirmed that the purpose of adding the controversial terms in UN policy areas ranging from human rights to gender to climate and energy was always to generate more funding, programs, and positions from which to promote abortion access and sexual rights, and eventually their recognition.
Tweet This: Abortion advocates admitted their plot to impose abortion and sexual rights on the world during discussion on the UN Summit of the Future.
Another panelist at the event hosted by international development site Devex, the global affairs journalist, Column Lynch, who reported extensively against the pro-life diplomacy of the White House while Donald J. Trump was in office, observed that traditional countries find it harder to defend “traditional family values” in new policy debates since “they are fighting yesterday’s battles.”
Garfieldt Kofoed explained that the ambiguous terms are very important for abortion and sexual rights promotion because they provide “a framework for NGOs and agencies to secure funding” and implement programs aligned with these norms, regardless of what countries actually agree to or not. This in turn, Garfieldt Kofoed, explained, gives leverage to the organizations to pressure countries to adopt discrete elements of the abortion and sexual rights agenda. She called this the “diplomatic impact” of including ambiguous terms related to abortion and sexual rights in UN policy.
“The continuous inclusion of such language in diplomacy not only changes the conversation but also pressures entities to adapt their policies, reflecting a shift in global norms,” she said.
The former Danish diplomat tacitly admitted that the abortion and sexual rights agenda is not very popular at all. She pointed to an ongoing “emphasis on acknowledging and addressing the privileges of developed nations when engaging with the Global South”, especially in the context of Danish diplomacy and foreign assistance.
She called for a shift in “power dynamics” that would achieve a “more equitable distribution of power and privilege in international relations, aiming to empower less dominant voices in global policy-making.”
The strategy abortion groups have adopted over the years reflects the political reality of developing countries, which represent mostly traditional societies. Abortion advocates can’t count on enough countries in the General Assembly to support abortion and sexual rights openly. Every time controversial issues like abortion rights or sexual orientation and gender identity come up at the United Nations there is strong opposition.
Editor's note: Stefano Gennarini writes for C-Fam. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-Fam (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. This article appears with permission.
