Once again Trump manages to hold abortion outside the UN Security Council
NEW YORK, 1 November (C-Fam) For the second consecutive year, the United States has made sure that the use of pro-abortion expressions in a UN Security Council resolution is avoided. Women in crises and conflicts. This is a victory for the Trump Administration, which has worked to remove the phrase "sexual and reproductive health" from UN documents. It is a setback for Europeans who want abortion to be financed by humanitarian aid.
The United States has even tried to go further by removing from the resolution any reference to other documents that mention this term.
The UN Permanent Representative for the USA, Kelly Kraft, said after the unanimous vote adopting the resolution: "We can not accept any reference
to" sexual and reproductive health ", any more than references to" the termination of pregnancy
"or any language that promotes abortion or implicitly suggests a right to abortion".
Under the Obama Administration, references to "sexual and reproductive health" appeared in two versions of the permanent resolution on Women, Peace and Security, promoted by France and other European nations and supported by
Women at the UN and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN. This week, the Trump administration has imposed its willingness to break with the usual practice of reaffirming all previous statements in the resolution to prevent any reference to these terms being made.
This is the second time in recent months that Europeans have been rejected in their attempts to include abortion in the Women's Peace and Security Program. They were barred last April when the US threatened to veto the last article of the resolution.
The US position has turned the issue of abortion into a UN. The term "sexual and reproductive health" was allowed to spread as long as it remained ambiguous: the pro-life countries, mostly developing, could declare their opposition to abortion and at the same time accept
financial support for the reproductive health of donor countries.
The diplomatic game of deliberate ambiguity that played out in the corridors of the UN negotiations is not reinforced. Donors, mostly Europeans, for whom the expression includes abortion, include it in their aid to third countries. UN agencies and implementing partners rely on this ambiguity to include abortion, even when it is prohibited, and to support liberalization as a fundamental in no official UN mandate or UN treaty on human rights.
We have a good illustration of this tactic with the statement this week by a representative of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which works for the legitimization of abortion, to journalists, statement in which he assured that this expression refers to the premature delivery, infertility, and sexually transmitted diseases, and described the US position in debates as "bizarre". The US State Department removed this expression from its
annual report on human rights by referring to the double language it conveyed.
The debate in the Security Council shows that the US intends to defend itself against the accusations of its allies, the European nations, including France and Great Britain, its close allies, who accuse it of violating the UN Convention. Geneva. These countries refer to the Helms amendment to the US third country law, which prohibits funding for abortion. In reality, the laws of war make no reference and no control
of the application of domestic laws is provided for.
The United States has even tried to go further by removing from the resolution any reference to other documents that mention this term.
The UN Permanent Representative for the USA, Kelly Kraft, said after the unanimous vote adopting the resolution: "We can not accept any reference
to" sexual and reproductive health ", any more than references to" the termination of pregnancy
"or any language that promotes abortion or implicitly suggests a right to abortion".
Under the Obama Administration, references to "sexual and reproductive health" appeared in two versions of the permanent resolution on Women, Peace and Security, promoted by France and other European nations and supported by
Women at the UN and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN. This week, the Trump administration has imposed its willingness to break with the usual practice of reaffirming all previous statements in the resolution to prevent any reference to these terms being made.
This is the second time in recent months that Europeans have been rejected in their attempts to include abortion in the Women's Peace and Security Program. They were barred last April when the US threatened to veto the last article of the resolution.
The US position has turned the issue of abortion into a UN. The term "sexual and reproductive health" was allowed to spread as long as it remained ambiguous: the pro-life countries, mostly developing, could declare their opposition to abortion and at the same time accept
financial support for the reproductive health of donor countries.
The diplomatic game of deliberate ambiguity that played out in the corridors of the UN negotiations is not reinforced. Donors, mostly Europeans, for whom the expression includes abortion, include it in their aid to third countries. UN agencies and implementing partners rely on this ambiguity to include abortion, even when it is prohibited, and to support liberalization as a fundamental in no official UN mandate or UN treaty on human rights.
We have a good illustration of this tactic with the statement this week by a representative of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which works for the legitimization of abortion, to journalists, statement in which he assured that this expression refers to the premature delivery, infertility, and sexually transmitted diseases, and described the US position in debates as "bizarre". The US State Department removed this expression from its
annual report on human rights by referring to the double language it conveyed.
The debate in the Security Council shows that the US intends to defend itself against the accusations of its allies, the European nations, including France and Great Britain, its close allies, who accuse it of violating the UN Convention. Geneva. These countries refer to the Helms amendment to the US third country law, which prohibits funding for abortion. In reality, the laws of war make no reference and no control
of the application of domestic laws is provided for.
Thank you for your visit
