An article posted on the indispensable C-FAM with my emphases and comments.
Volume 12, Number 35
August 13, 2009
Radical NGO Paints Abortionists as Human Rights DefendersBy Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) In a recently released report from the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the advocacy group is appealing to the United Nations (UN) to formally recognize abortion-providers as "human rights defenders." In "Defending Human Rights," CRR presupposes that abortion is part of the accepted human rights framework and targets legal restrictions on abortion, funding restrictions on abortion and "failure to reduce abortion-related stigma" as "human rights violations." [These people are monstrous wackos. They are, however, clever. You see, they surely have no realistic hope that this will go through. They know this will not be accepted. So, what is their real motive? They seek in introduce new terms, a new notion. They are trying to bump the paradigm in a direction… their direction… just a little bit. They will keep bumping it a little bit. Imperceptibly, as in the case of the frog in the pot of water to be boiled, they will try to more people to their way of thinking.]
CRR asserts that abortion providers should be recognized as "human rights defenders" because the targeting of abortion providers directly infringes on women’s fundamental human rights by restricting "women’s ability to realize their right to reproductive healthcare, including safe abortion."
According to the website of the UN Office of the High Commission on Human Rights, "human rights defender" is a term used to describe people who "individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights." To be a human rights defender, a person "can act to address any human right on behalf of individuals or groups" and "seek the promotion and protection of civil and political rights as well as the promotion, protection and realization of economic, social and cultural rights."
Critics point out that none of the binding UN human rights treaties mention abortion or "reproductive rights" [Yet.] and that CRR is using the non-binding recommendations of UN committees and a creative interpretation of existing human rights to claim that there is a global right to abortion.
CRR’s interpretation of international law attaches abortion to recognized and established human rights. In the paper, CRR asserts that the human rights to dignity, liberty and security "require that women have reproductive and sexual self-determination." This right to "reproductive autonomy" includes "women’s ability to control the number and spacing of their children," the rights to information, privacy and confidentiality. In addition, the right to health necessarily comprises the right to sexual and reproductive health, including "reproductive healthcare services" – which include abortion, according to CRR. ["abortion" = "healthcare"]
CRR charges that policy and legal measures to regulate abortion qualify as discrimination against abortion providers, who are acting as "human rights defenders." CRR cites mandatory delays and counseling laws as a human-rights-defender violation that "prohibits" the exercise of providers’ "rights to practice."
CRR also seeks to make governments portray abortion in a positive light, claiming that governments failure to address the "deeply rooted stigma" of abortion is tantamount to condoning and encouraging "the targeting of providers for harassment and legal restrictions on their work." CRR also charges that funding restrictions on abortion are discriminatory because they "single out one category of medically necessary services for elimination."
CRR’s recommendations include creating measures to increase the number of physicians performing abortions (including by teaching abortion in medical school), advocating the repeal of laws restricting abortion and repealing funding restrictions.
The report is just the latest attempt by CRR to get abortion-providers recognized as "human rights defenders." In 2008, CRR led the charge at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to get abortion-providers classified as defenders of human rights.
Great, huh?
Perhaps they will come to claim that they want to reduce the number of abortions too.
Loading ...
The deathcare enthusiasts strike again.
George Orwell would be very proud of this.
Bill Donohue from the Catholic League had (another) release today (August 14) that stated the danger as clearly as I have seen, whether it is with the healthcare bill, or legislation at the United Nations:
“Let’s be frank: abortion is no more mentioned specifically in these bills than appendectomies are, but because both are legal, both are understood to be included. That is why attempts to exclude abortion were made. That they failed should settle the issue.”
Can we change it from Reproductive Healthcare to Prenatal Deathcare? It’s far more descriptive.
That’s right, Fr. Z, by introducing the new vocabulary, people start thinking about abortion in a different way. Hmmm….abortionists may not be human rights defenders, but hey it’s not all that bad, so long as it’s not my daughter, right? Next will be the Holy Father on trial for “violating human rights”. Well no, they’ll say, but the Church sure is archaic in the defense of women’s freedom, isn’t it? And that Obama, he said he’d reduce the number of abortions, so what’s all the griping about?
Monstrous wackos about covers it.
Vocabulary is a powerful thing. I’m reasonably well educated (at least secularly), but I still fell for the rhetoric in the last election. Hook, line, & sinker. Mea culpa.
From now on, when people tell me they are “pro-choice”, I’m going to respond with an incredibly polite, but stupid look and ask them what that really means. At some point, I’ll probably be able to say, “Oh, i get it now. You mean you’re pro-abortion. Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?”
If they called it what it really is, people might think twice before supporting it. Choice is so warm and benign, it is hard to oppose. That’s why all the euphemisms to hide something horrible and ugly, and then infanticide becomes just another choice. Monstrous defines this perfectly.
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
Isaiah 5:20
Reading this article one thinks of Josef Piper and “The Abuse of Language”
Father Corapi, after the election: The American people have now made it abundantly clear who they want to lead them, and the policies and practices that this president-elect has represented for some time, they can now claim as their own. Actions have consequences, and I am sure God has duly noted what our priorities are in the US of A. Economic matters would seem to take precedence over moral matters; money more important than life itself to most people (I guess they don’t consider almost 50,000,000 innocent children murdered by abortion part of life).
Now we shall see what the fruit of such a tree will be. I predict that we won’t have to wait long. In recent months we have seen “corrections” in the stock market, housing market, and banking industries. Now we’ll see if God orchestrates a “correction” in a country and a world that has demonstrated quite clearly that it prefers convenience and wealth to life itself.
Regardless of whatever happens next, remember there is still a God in Heaven and He loves you. He is infinitely merciful—and He is infinitely just as well.”
It seems the financial bankruptcies are mere reflections of the moral bankruptcy.
Oh, it’s so impossible to defeat this kind of language re-engineering when the forces of evil dominate the positions of power. Whenever I hear the term “reproductive rights,” it occurs to me that there isn’t a lot of reproducing going on at all.
In my very large city, we have a “No Kill Policy” for four-legged animals. So I suppose the next language tinkering, following the trend toward an overemphasis on animal rights, will be include “defenders of species rights.” Humans would have no more worth than animals, and in fact, already don’t in many cases.
After all, it really is more humane to put that frog into tepid water than into boiling water.