On September 2, the UN General Assembly can decide on a resolution that could be an important stepping stone for the international acceptance of abortion as a human right. It is very worrying that  Botswana, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Morocco are misrepresenting Africa by being among the supporters of the resolution on behalf of the continent!

The UN General Assembly is scheduled to adopt a resolution on the right to justice for survivors of sexual violence on September 2, 2022. The provision of access to the so-called "safe abortion" worldwide appears in the text of this resolution.

The resolution  declares "access to safe abortion"  as a policy that governments  should pursue "to promote and protect the human rights and sexual and reproductive health of all women  ."

Currently, a few countries are misrepresenting you on behalf of Africa by being among the supporters of the decision.

Please join me and help convince members of these African countries and the African Union to stop supporting the resolution and vote against including abortion in the resolution.

The resolution would mark a major victory for so-called  " abortion rights "  after years of stagnation in UN debates and would give UN agencies a clear mandate to push abortion even harder with resources and political tools.

Enforcing pro-abortion language has become a top priority for progressive Western countries, including European Union superpowers and the Biden administration.

It is also important to note that the term "safe abortion" has been rejected by member states in several other resolution negotiations over the past decade. 

There are still countries in the world that know and admit that safe abortion does not exist.  In every abortion, an innocent, developing human being is killed. No abortion is safe for him. All abortions have serious psychological consequences, as well as many health risks for the mother.

In the General Assembly, this term has so far only appeared in the biennial resolution on violence against women supported by France and the Netherlands. Both delegations openly support the recognition of the international right to abortion.

Promoting access to abortion as a human right would undermine the General Assembly's consensus, established at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, that abortion should be decided in national legislation, without outside interference. And governments should help women avoid abortion and ensure the well-being of mothers and their children before and after birth.

Through the work of UN agencies, advanced Western countries have been trying to ignore and circumvent these basic principles laid down at the Cairo Conference for nearly three decades.

UN agencies regularly promote abortion under the banner of "reproductive health and rights", particularly the World Health Organization, the UN Population Fund, and the UN Women's Agency. So far, they have done this largely on their own initiative, without the authorization of the general assembly.

The pro-family delegations not only objected to the wording on abortion in the resolution but also expressed concern about terms such as "gender-based violence". This term is interpreted in the UN as including " sexual orientation and gender identity", so it is often used to promote the aspirations of the LGBTQ lobby.

The Japanese diplomat who led the negotiations on the resolution firmly insisted that the delegations could not delete or add anything from the language on abortion!  This essentially stopped the negotiations. Therefore, despite repeated objections during the summer, the text remained unchanged in the draft.

Insiders close to the negotiations told the staff of the C-Fam organization that not a single paragraph of the entire resolution was reached by consensus, deviating from the long-standing diplomatic procedure followed in the General Assembly negotiations. Fifteen countries, therefore, tried to prevent the submission of the resolution, without success.

The pro-family delegates also reported that the European Union had manipulated the negotiations. Indeed, the EU member states that were among the presenters of the resolution negotiated aggressively, not at all according to the established protocol of the General Assembly negotiations. As you know, according to customary law, the presenters of the decision do not actively participate in the negotiations, since they have already said what they have to say through the text of the draft.