A New York Times editorial has distorted the truth regarding several nations’ insistence on retaining certain human rights language in the final document of the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women.
The editorial has accused the Vatican, among others, of attempting to “eliminate language in a draft communiqué asserting that the familiar excuses--religion, custom, and tradition--cannot be used by governments to duck legislation to eliminate violence.” The Times, however, in its zeal to criticize what it calls “conservative hard-liners,” has twisted the facts.
As Raimondo Rojas of LifeNews.com notes, the Obama administration, the European Union, and their pro-abortion allies are the true obstructionists, for urging the deletion of human rights language taken from several early UN documents, such as the original Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration, and other human rights documents. In fact, the pro-abortion allies do not even want these human rights documents referenced.
The Vatican observes that the original UN Charter and subsequent Declarations need only be reaffirmed and implemented since they already provide for the protection of women. Why do the Obama administration and the EU nations object to phrases such as, “inherent right to life, liberty, and security of persons?”
In fact, the Obama administration and those aligning with it on this issue are the obstructionists, because they have attempted to block this language--even a mere mention of it--from the commission’s current document.
Yet the Times blames the pro-life delegations for obstructing the process for nefarious reasons, such as a desire to “control women”:
Conservative hard-liners seem determined to fight it out again. They have also objected to references to abortion rights, as well as language suggesting that rape also includes forcible behavior by a woman’s husband or partner. Poland, Egypt, other Muslim states and conservative American Christian groups have criticized one or more parts of the draft. The efforts by the Vatican and Iran to control women are well known. It is not clear what motivates Russia, although there is a strong antifeminist strain in President Vladimir V. Putin’s government. He may also be trying to curry favor with Islamic states.
However, as Rojas observes, the US, EU, and other pro-abortion delegations are “playing politics at the expense of women’s safety world wide.”