Dueling Petitions on Abortion Target the UN
Almost a year after one of the world’s biggest private abortion providers launched a global “safe abortion” drive, an online petition intended to be handed to the United Nations in two months’ time has been signed by fewer than 600 people.
Another petition, launched by pro-lifers as a counter-move, obtained more than 17,400 signatures in its first week.
Both initiatives have their sights set on the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the bedrock of international human rights.
The organizers of the two petitions plan to present them when world governments gather for a special U.N. General Assembly session to mark the anniversary, on December 10.
But the similarity ends there.
The “Global Call to Action” advanced by Marie Stopes International (MSI) and partner non-governmental organizations calls for “women’s access to legal, safe abortion to be recognized as a fundamental human right.”
The “U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child” being promoted by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), urges U.N. member states to interpret article three of the UDHR – which upholds “the right to life” – as protecting the unborn child from abortion.
The MSI-led campaign originated from a “global safe abortion conference” which it organized in London last October, and was attended by 800 public health experts, government representatives and activists from more than 60 countries.
MSI, which describes itself as “the world’s leading provider of safe abortion services,” launched the petition at the conference, and many of the signatories were conference participants.
“Organizers plan to continue to collect signatures online and will also seek institutional endorsement of the Call to Action, which will then be introduced at key inter-governmental meetings as a tool to influence policy and generate funding to tackle the issue of unsafe abortion,” it says on a Web site dedicated to the drive.
Invitations to MSI to comment on the number of signatures its initiative has garnered – 585 as of Tuesday – drew no response. MSI was also asked about the extent of support received to date via non-electronic, paper copies of the petition.
C-FAM president Austin Ruse was upbeat Monday on the progress of the pro-life petition.
“The pro-life world internationally is very tuned in to the dangers to the unborn child coming from the United Nations and its attendant agencies, committees, and non-governmental organizations,” he said.
“We have known all along that our message is supported by the people on the ground. The pro-abortion message is supported by and large by elites. This is why our petition is doing better than theirs.”
Ruse is urging more and ongoing support for the petition, which has been translated into French, Spanish and Dutch and will shortly be available in other language versions too.
’When do human rights begin?
C-FAM and other pro-life campaigners have long voiced concern about attempts by U.N. agencies, reproductive rights NGOs and academics to inject a “right” to abortion into the UDHR and other international rights instruments.
The debate effectively pits the “human rights begin at birth” argument against one that maintains that “human rights begin in the womb,” and arises from the dispute over when human life begins.
The issue emerged in the U.S. presidential campaign in August when Saddleback pastor Rick Warren asked the candidates at what point each believed a baby is entitled to human rights.
“At the moment of conception,” replied Republican Sen. John McCain, adding that “this presidency will have pro-life policies.” Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said that “answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” and went on to say that he was “pro-choice” and that his goal would be to reduce the number of abortions.
Reproductive rights advocates say that, since the UDHR begins with the words, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and does not explicitly refer to life in the womb, it applies therefore only to individuals once born.
A woman’s right to life, as well as other human rights, are at risk in situations where restrictive abortion laws are in place, they argue.
Other U.N. treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), are similarly interpreted as not clearly attaching human rights to an individual prior to birth.
And, they contend, a reference in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to the right of women to “decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights” presumes the right to choose abortion.
Among the counter argument is that none of these treaties explicitly refers to abortion as a right, and that “the right to life” enshrined in the UDHR should apply to the unborn baby’s life as well.
Moreover, pro-lifers note that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which invokes the UDHR, states that “the child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
The Bush administration has on several occasion clashed with other parties at the U.N. over vague terms like “reproductive rights,” “sexual rights,” and “reproductive health services” in international documents – terms interpreted by some to refer to abortion.
In some cases, despite supporting the broader measure under consideration, the U.S. has opposed resolutions after failing in a bid to have such wording amended or removed.
“There is no fundamental right to abortion,” U.S. ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey told a press conference in New York in 2005. “And yet it keeps coming up, largely driven by NGOs trying to hijack the term [“sexual rights”] and trying to make it into a definition.”
In internal memos not intended for public consumption – but introduced onto the Congressional Record by a pro-life lawmaker – the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) in 2003 said, “We are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the [pro-life] opposition.”
“These lower profile victories will gradually put us in a strong position to assert a broad consensus around our assertions,” CRR said. “[The] overarching goal is to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of an understanding that they are bound to do so.”
Contact: Patrick Goodenough
Source: CNSNews.com
Source URL: www.CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 7, 2008
Click here to view this article
Click here for more articles like this one.
