To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE


SHARE THIS ARTICLE Printer friendly version of this page

Call to Prayer and Action: The UN Pushes for International Law to Make Abortion a Human Right

Stefano Gennarini, J.D. : Sep 29, 2017  LifeSiteNews

Governments should be urged to act by all means possible, whether it is through public statements from politicians, public petitions, or research and publications. No person, institution, or organization that cares about the pro-life cause should sit this one out … The committee must realize that there is real international outrage at what it is doing. The deadline for governments and civil society to express displeasure with the committee is October 6. Details can be found on the committee's website. You can also sign this petition and forward it to others.

[LifeSiteNews.com] Imagine a day in the not-too-distant future when we finally have the coveted fifth vote necessary to strike down Roe v. Wade. Recall the many years of sweat and tears, ups and downs, wrangling about judicial nominations, and arguing about presidential elections. (Photo Credit: Arnaldo Jr / Shutterstock.com)

Then imagine that fifth vote no longer even matters because abortion has been declared a human right by international law. The issue is not just out of the hands of the Supreme Court — it is out of the hands of the American people.

This nightmare is now unfolding before our very eyes as the UN Human Rights Committee wraps up a draft legal commentary on the right to life that excludes unborn children from membership in the human family and the protections of international treaties.

The double standard of the Human Rights Committee

The Human Rights Committee is the oldest and most respected of 10 treaty bodies that record the efforts of states to implement UN human rights treaties. It monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of few such treaties ratified by the United States. In July, it published a draft commentary on Article 6 of the treaty on the right to life and invited comments on the draft from civil society and UN member states.

The committee said the right to life "inheres in every human being" and "should not be interpreted narrowly." It called the right to life the "most precious" right, the "supreme right from which no derogation is permitted." It even made a highly inclusive list of those protected under Article 6 "without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or any other status, including caste, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability albinism and age."

The committee then proceeded to exclude unborn children from the protection of Article 6.

States parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations when carrying a pregnancy to term would cause a woman substantial pain or suffering, most notably when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when the fetus suffers from fatal impairment. (Photo Credit: Pixabay)

And it excluded also the terminally ill.

States parties [may allow] [should not prevent] medical professionals to provide medical treatment or the medical means in order to facilitate the termination of life of [catastrophically] afflicted adults, such as the mortally wounded or terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and wish to die with dignity.
The brackets indicate lack of agreement within the committee on the final formulation.

Leaving aside the entirely laughable attempt to sanction euthanasia on the basis of international law, the mental gymnastics involved here are remarkable. The committee had to ignore the text of Article 6 itself, which prohibits the application of the death penalty to pregnant women. The committee had to also blindfold itself to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; this is the most widely ratified UN human right treaty, cited extensively by the committee in other matters, which expressly states that children are already protected by international law "before birth."

The committee disingenuously applied a double standard in interpreting the history of the negotiations of the treaty, as Thomas Finegan demonstrates in an important article, "International Human Rights Law and the "Unborn": Texts and Travaux Préparatories," in the Winter 2016 issue of the Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law. It is true that a 1957 draft of the Covenant—the final version of which was ratified in 1966 — removed a positive obligation to protect children in the womb from the moment of conception. But Finnegan found no indication in the negotiations that this language was omitted because the right to life was not understood to apply to children in the womb. Rather, it should be viewed as a necessary compromise that allowed countries with permissive abortion regimes to ratify the treaty.

Not only does the final version of Article 6 prohibit the application of the death penalty to pregnant women, throughout the decades-long process of negotiations preceding its ratification, several delegates argued that the right to life applied to children in the womb. Not a single delegate denied that the unborn child has a right to life. In 1947, during the earliest stages of drafting the Covenant, a positive obligation to permit abortion in cases of rape, fetal disability, or for therapeutic reasons was explicitly rejected. Even that rejected proposal did not exclude children in the womb from the protections of the Covenant, but rather carved out a derogation from the right to life in limited circumstances.

Finegan concludes that the omission of the proposal in 1957 should be interpreted not as excluding unborn children from the protections of international law, but as merely leaving a margin of appreciation to domestic legislation on the issue of abortion.

Rights by stealth

Unfortunately, the Human Rights Committee does not subscribe to textualism or consider original intent in its interpretation of international treaties. Most committee members, and the UN bureaucrats who service the committees, are realists who believe human rights treaties are living instruments. And the committee is not alone. (Photo Credit: Human Rights Committee)

No UN treaty mentions abortion, and no UN treaty can be fairly interpreted as recognizing a right to abortion. In fact, international law has a presumption in favor of protecting life in the womb, as the San Jose Articles, which were signed by over thirty experts in international law, explain. UN member states continue to say in UN resolutions that abortion is an issue to be dealt with exclusively in national legislation.

Yet nearly all treaty bodies have fallen prey to an elaborate scheme, first documented by my colleague Susan Yoshihara, to establish a de facto international right to abortion by reading abortion into every possible human rights treaty with the help of abortion groups and the UN bureaucracy. Their output on the matter is prodigious, with hundreds of recommendations to countries to liberalize or decriminalize abortion…

Click here to continue reading, and to find out what you can do.







SHARE THIS ARTICLE Printer friendly version of this page

To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE

Other Recent Articles from Breaking Christian News

American Evangelicals among 'the Last Ones Standing with Israel'

IDF Poised at Gaza Border, Braced for Iran Attack as US Warns Americans to Stay Near Israeli Cities

Exposing Corruption at FBI: Whistleblowers Share Their Stories

Senate Passes Resolution Nullifying Biden's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rule

Youngkin Vetoes 'Disastrous' Bill Expanding Ranked-Choice Voting In Virginia

President Trump Drops Bombshell Letter from Stormy Daniels…'I Am Denying This Affair Because It Never Happened'

'Absolutely Disastrous' for Biden: Voter Panel On 'Morning Joe' Skewers Bidenomics, Says They Long for Trump's Economy

Wall Street Journal Poll: Trump Has Nearly Doubled Support Among Black Men and Women Since 2020

Blue City Plans to Defund Its Police Force to Pay for Illegal Immigrants

Iowa Joins Texas: New Law Allows State to Deport Illegals

World War II Hero Who Left Hollywood to Fight for America: Incredible New Look at 'It's a Wonderful Life' Star Jimmy Stewart's Story

Brazil Supreme Court Justice Launches Investigation into Elon Musk When He Refuses to Back Down from Free Speech

Canadian Intelligence Commission Finds China Interfered in Last Two Elections

Say Their Names! ABC/CBS/NBC Ignore Victims Killed By Illegals

[Video]: Chuck Schumer Violating Senate Rules by Not Holding Impeachment Trial of DHS Sec. Mayorkas; He Knows It Will Expose the Crimes

Washington School Principal Says No to Interfaith Student-led Prayer Club, But Allowed a 'Pride' Club a Week Earlier

Idaho Governor Signs Laws Defining Sex as Male or Female, Banning 'Gender Language' and 'Preferred Pronouns' in Government, and Schools

Christian and Legendary Yankees Pitcher Mariano Rivera Officially Endorses Donald Trump for President

Upcoming Hearing: CA Bill to Protect Minors from Online Pornography via Age Verification

Vatican Denounces 'Gender Ideologies' and Bans Gender Surgeries as 'Grave Violations of Human Dignity'



Search the Articles Archives

Keyword:  
Author:  
Words Posted On:  
Day Month Year



BCN Plus

Follow BCN on Twitter
Are You Praying for Our Government Leaders?
BCN Staff

Steve Shultz
Steve Shultz, Managing Editor
Founder and Owner


Aimee Herd
Aimee Herd, Editor


BCN Plus
Are You Praying for President Trump?
 
 

All articles on this site and emails from BCN are copyrighted property of Breaking Christian News. Permission is given to link to, or share a BCN story if proper attribution is given to both the original writer and summarizer of the story. Breaking Christian News 2005-2019. All Rights Reserved.


Breaking Christian News is a division of Elijah List Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Disclaimer: Articles and links, as well as the source articles linked to; do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Breaking Christian News.

editor@breakingchristiannews.com