Abortionists are Human Rights Defenders? Seriously?
by David Christensen
October 27, 2008
The pro-abortion group Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and its partners requested and were granted a hearing today at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States according to their recent newsletter (see p. 2).
The Commission will hold a hearing today titled the “Risks and vulnerabilities affecting defenders of women’s rights in the Americas,” raising the specter of human rights activists and defenders of women’s rights being “affected”. You can review the Commission program here.
But what is CRR’s goal? Legal rights for women? Is it the legalization of abortion? CRR is more ambitious. Their newsletter references a previous letter they sent to the United Nations which makes it clear that they are not so much trying to protect human rights defenders or defenders of women’s rights as they are trying to get international legal bodies to include abortion providers under the legal designation of “human rights defender.” If they are successful, abortion providers would be protected under the 1999 UN Declaration of Human Rights Defenders.
It would be a travesty for international bodies to equate those who perform abortions, including those who perform partial birth abortions, with those who advocate fundamental human rights of others.
CRR in their letter raises violence against abortion providers as one of their key arguments. Violence against abortionists is wrong and should be condemned. But CRR goes much further. They are in fact making the case that any restrictions that would affect abortion providers’ practices would constitute an abuse of human rights defenders.
Indeed, CRR spends considerable time defending Dr. George Tiller of Kansas, an abortionist known for his late-term abortions (and advertising internationally for his services). It is odd that they would single out Dr. Tiller as a human rights paragon, until you realize that they oppose even peaceful protests at abortion clinics such as his, even when they acknowledge the fact that such protests are constitutionally protected.
CRR also opposes state laws that would require abortion clinics to have the same health standards as ambulatory clinics–regulations that would actually protect the health of women obtaining abortions. Indeed, CRR goes so far as asking the UN to “investigate” the United States for state and federal laws that conflict with their views. Again, violence against abortionists is wrong, period. But peaceful protests? Parental notification laws? Laws ensuring medical the competency of abortion providers? They want a UN investigation. Perhaps even more brazen, CRR wants international bodies to investigate cases of “smear campaigns” against abortion providers, in which any public campaign against such abortionists occur. They oppose the mere existence of legal restrictions because it would be burdensome to the abortionist, something most people think might be legitimate for physicians performing surgery on their patients. What about legal liability? Nope, CRR wants none of that either. The kicker may be that CRR wants these international bodies to impose fines on states that who disagree with them. Why? So they force local law enforcement agencies to implement “human rights teaching” on abortion in their training programs.
And these are people that many pro-choicers in Congress have tried to get you to fund with your taxes. I suppose if you can cast this asprotecting human rights defenders, it might just work.
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
Please remember you don’t speak for the American public, you speak for a small percentage. The majority spoke this election, and I feel we are safe from the likes of you. What a relief!
By: Ligia De Jesus | October 28, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The international NGOs present at the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hearing want the abortion debate minimized and pro life speech silenced. They want the Commission to declare that pro life organizations and religious groups should be prosecuted for opposing abortion on ethical and moral grounds.
Before the OAS, as they have done before other international human rights bodies, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Human Rights Watch will continue to promote the following abortion standards as “guarantees” to women’s reproductive health:
- That abortions should be performed on any woman, at any age, including mentally disabled women and adolescent girls under 18.
- That abortions should be performed at any stage of the pregnancy, both pre-viability and post-viability, up to the time of labor.
- That the unborn child’s disability should be universally accepted as a justification for abortion.
- That abortions should be performed by any method (no consideration given to fetal pain) including but not limited to partial-birth abortion, dilation and extraction, suction/ aspiration, salt poisoning (saline injection), etc.
- That informed consent laws should be abolished.
- That counseling laws should be abolished
- That physicians should not be subject to liability and not be held accountable for malpractice.
- That international abortion NGOs such as CRR and HRW should enjoy “human rights defenders” status and their ensuing legal protections.
- That abortion debate should be silenced in favor of the pro abortion position.
- That pro life organizations should be prohibited to express their views, protest, demonstrate or provide women with information on the moral and ethical implications of abortion.
Unless international human rights bodies support all of the above, they will be persistently told that “women’s access to reproductive health” is being undermined and that anything else would be a violation of international human rights law.
International abortion promoters who want to undermine a proper understanding of regional human rights instruments while trying to force countries to legalize abortion on demand.