The United Nations and Abortion


The more you study the UN and its agendas, the clearer its modus operandi becomes. The UN thinks in terms of decades. If you want to make abortion a human right, you start by wrapping this uncomfortable subject in brightly-coloured gift paper by calling it “sexual and reproductive rights” or, more generally, “health care”.

Hardly anyone will dare to attack a “right” or to speak out against “health care”. This lends the UN a certain cloak of inviolability, enabling it to set up global political programmes and lobby organisations that “fight for these rights”. There are no longer any particularly strenuous attempts made to conceal the fact that it is always the same left-wing ideological forces that are involved in these. Who has the time to read through all these documents and agendas?
To avert this advance, we must recognise the principle behind it all and resist it on that level. Once it has been clearly established that abortion is wrong, since it is the murder of innocent human beings, there is no longer any need to refute a thousand-page document point by point. We must not let ourselves be impressed by the apparent professionalism of these organisations. We must face them openly and confidently in order to protect humanity from the omnipotence fantasies of international “population regulators”.

To understand the abortion agenda of the United Nations, it is necessary to familiarise oneself with the so-called Cairo document of the “International Conference on Population and Development” (ICPD) of 1994.

The “International Conference on Population and Development” (ICPD) was held in Cairo in 1994 and it was there that the abortion agenda of the United Nations and all the organisations associated with it, such as the WHO, was first drawn up. The „Programme of Action“ (PoA) of the ICPD lists abortion as an integral part of „reproductive health“: “All countries should strive to make accessible through the primary health-care system, reproductive health to all individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015. Reproductive health care in the context of primary health care should, inter alia, include: … abortion as specified in paragraph 8.25; … ”(PoA 7.6).

In 2019 the Nairobi Summit, organised to mark the 25th anniversary of the ICPD, was held from 12 to 14 November. Its motto was “Accelerating the promise“ (a reference to the „promise“ of the Cairo conference). It was convened by the governments of Kenia and Denmark and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the declared goal of which is to contain the “explosion” of the world’s population. The final report declares in its Preamble that the great problems of the world can be at least partially solved by letting women and girls take control over their bodies, their decisions and their future: „Strengthening our societies, growing our economies and combating climate change all depend on women and girls taking control over their bodies, their choices and their futures.“ The presentation of the three main objectives of the summit (no. 1: reaffirmation of the “ICPD Programme of Action”; no. 2: building the financial and political moment to enforce the demands; no. 3: networking) also includes a reference to the 2030 Agenda, which demands a stricter enforcement of the ICPD agenda.

The first topic of that document is headed: “Universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights as a part of universal health coverage.” (For the meaning of the UN term “reproductive health”, which includes abortion, see Agenda 2030). The introduction contains a remark to the effect that the work of the UN and its organisations has been instrumental, in recent decades, in helping to shape the discourse on human reproduction and abortion, and to change the underlying assumptions: “We changed the conversation! At the Nairobi Summit, enthusiasm for a “next generation” conversation on sexual and reproductive health and rights reached an all-time high. Consensus was strong. We need bolder demands to realise sexual and reproductive health and rights. “

In the chart on page 18, which depicts the “essential package of sexual and reproductive health interventions” we find “safe abortion services” in one segment; “Access to safe abortion is essential to sexual and reproductive health and rights” is one of the bullet points on the list following it. Page 39 contains excerpts from the statements of the participants. Nepal, for example, declares that it intends to incorporate “comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services” into its health system, and states explicitly that this also includes the provision of abortion services. The attached “Nairobi Statement” is intended to be a model declaration that governments can use to commit to the goals of the Nairobi Summit. It is, of course – like so much of the United Nations output – not binding, at least not officially. Here again, this time in section 3, we find the declaration of a commitment to ensure ”safe“ abortion.

To emphasise the urgency of the demands, emotionalising and unobjective statements of various “personalities“ have been included in the text, such as a quote from Mamello Makhele, an abortion activist representing the left-wing platform “She Decides” (which is supported, among others, by Planned Parenthood: “Stop leaving young women and girls behind; they die because we don’t want to talk about sexuality education and safe abortions.“

In other words, abortion is now openly treated as a right and a component of health policy measures. As also expressed through the enthusiastic appeal cited in the introduction, it is the endeavour of the discourse-leading forces within the UN to make abortion into a “human right”, either directly or indirectly.

The final document of the Nairobi summit reflects the tenets of gender theory in its most progressive form (see Agenda 2030, which is primarily about social equality between men and women). The term “LGBTQ community” is mentioned several times and the “essential package of sexual and reproductive health interventions” includes the statement that “comprehensive sexuality education must reach every young person, including through technology, and emphasise transforming discriminatory gender norms.” In other words, the aim is a sex education that ensures a global, merciless propagation of the gender theory. More details can be found on page 31, where legal recognition is also demanded: “Laws must guarantee equal rights for LGBTQI people. Health services must meet their needs. Information and education on sexual and reproductive health must include diverse gender identities and sexual orientation, diversity and the protection of rights.”

According to Elyssa Koren, the UN specialist of the Christian advocacy organisation ADF-International, the Nairobi meeting was nothing more than an “abortion summit“. She admits, however, that Nairobi was not a full-fledged UN event. While the Cairo Conference (ICPD) was actually attended by official representatives of almost all governments, which means (at least from the UN’s perspective) that that meeting was “authorised” to set up and implement a global agenda, the Nairobi summit was intended from the outset to be limited to the more progressive forces within the UN. Nonetheless, it presents itself as a full-fledged UN conference in order to lend weight to its “resolutions”.

A glance at the list of participants will show the meagre attendance of actual representatives of the nation states:

Of the so-called permanent representatives to the United Nations (“UN ambassadors”), only Denmark, Kenya, Bulgaria, Egypt, Peru, Sierra Leone, Jordan and the Philippines sent people to attend the conference, with Denmark and Kenya appointed as “co-chairs”. Two other nations (Ireland and Malaysia) were represented by (national) parliamentarians. There were no other representatives of nation states; there were, however, plenty of representatives from UN sub-organisations (UNFPA, “UN Secretary-General on Youth”, Bureau of Health, HIV and Development, etc.), international and pan-African organisations (African Union), a representative of the European Union, as well as representatives from NGOs and “philanthropic” foundations, such as the “Deputy Director” of the “Family Planning Program” of the “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”, who would not, of course, have missed such an occasion for the world.

Elyssa Koren from Adf International is convinced that funds from the UN’s COVID19 aid package will be used to promote and enforce abortion. $ 120 million of the aid package will go to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the goal of which is to limit the world population explosion. On the UNFPA website, we read that: “Women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health choices and rights must be respected regardless of whether they are infected, or have been infected, with COVID-19. This including access to contraception, emergency contraception, safe abortion where legal and to the full extent of the law, and post-abortion care.”