Three Predictable Problems at the Commission on the Status of Women

Posted: Mar 09, 2007 10:19 AM
Three Predictable Problems at the Commission on the Status of Women

The United Nations (U.N.) continues to be predictable and manipulative, as revealed in the first draft of the “agreed conclusions” released this week at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). To read the document, one would conclude that to end “violence against the girl child” means universal abortion-on-demand and teaching girls about their “sexuality.” It also means, according to the draft of agreed conclusions, that all this should be accomplished in a shroud of confidentiality; don’t let parents know what their daughters are doing.

1. Pushing a radical sex agenda through language — “forced pregnancy” and “sexuality education.”

The 21-page draft of agreed conclusions contains numerous instances of coded language. The attempt to push “reproductive health services” or “reproductive health rights” — terms that the left has admitted refers to abortion — rather than the term “reproductive health care” (the health care and hygiene that women need to remain healthy during pregnancy) is not unusual. That cloaked effort to promote abortion is on-going. New language, though, has popped up. “Forced pregnancy” can mean being unable to get an abortion when one is desired. It also means that any unexpected or unwanted pregnancy is a “forced” one. Obviously, using the word “forced” brings another connotative dimension and conveys additional emotional power to the abortion issue. All this may seem like merely innocuous changes of terminology, but it is in the same vein as the feminists recasting themselves as being proponents of choice, a softer more agreeable term than the more graphic term abortion. It brings to mind the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s reminder that the side that wins the language battle wins the war.

The abortion language continues to get more “loaded,” but those who see through the manipulation are also getting more savvy, and the voices against such callous disregard for life are not limited to those working at the U.N. “Any serious discussion of ‘violence against the girl child’ must address the world-wide practice of abortion and infanticide,” said the Rev. Dr. James V. Heidinger II, president and publisher of Good News, an evangelical renewal ministry within the United Methodist Church. “While many countries believe abortion is helpful in their nation overcoming poverty, the first responsibility of a government is the protection of its people and that would surely include the most vulnerable — the unborn and the newborn. If CSW is really serious about ending violence against young girls, it must speak out against the modern-day horror of abortion in which millions of pre-borns and newborns are disposed of like unwanted garbage. No end can justify this means.”

The worst of the new language being pushed in the agreed conclusions is the phrase “sexuality education” instead of “sex education.” It is clear that the left wants the girl child to learn to “explore her sexuality.” A group of 8th graders from a private school in Rhode Island attended the first week of the CSW. The girls related a conversation with one of the delegates who advised them to “experiment sexually;” otherwise they would “miss out on fun.” Experimenting with sex is a mantra for the left. One has to wonder why they are so passionate about girls being initiated into sex during very young adolescence. Following the money makes it clear that there are thousands whose organizations are not just dependent upon the revenues from abortion for survival, it is their raison d’être. But as Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearing House said to us, “If the U.N. truly cared about the girl child, they would teach them to abstain from sex until marriage, and they would teach boys and men to respect that.”

Another dimension of the term “sexuality education” is that we should not be “confined” to a heterosexual orientation. This slight shift of language from “sex” to “sexuality” has dramatic consequences when applied to comprehensive sex education programs in the U.S. and other countries’ schools and in the propaganda spread around the world through U.N. programs and expectations in developing nations. It also has significance in terms of “matters related to sexuality” in terms of HIV/AIDS and in terms of “access” to “sexuality education.”

2. Pushing children’s rights through “confidentiality” agreements.

Among the “rights” being promoted for the girl child is the right to “confidentiality” in all matters related to her “sexuality.” Thus, a girl can get birth control pills, morning after pills and even an abortion without parental knowledge, much less consent. This, of course, has been promoted for several years through non-government organizations. Among those most involved are mainline church women. Faye Short, president of ReNew, a renewal movement within the United Methodist Church reports, “The Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries of The United Methodist Church is one of the staunchest supporters of United Nations’ policies. The Women’s Division-owned Church Center for the United Nations, located across the street from the delegates’ entrance to the United Nations building, provides invaluable in-kind services for liberal/radical Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). For example, at the 2006 U.N. CSW there were 149 parallel events organized by various NGOs (mostly leftist) held at the Church Center for the U.N.”

“Confidentiality” is now included in the draft of agreed conclusions for the 51st CSW. Throughout the draft, educators are linked with parents –– with the implication of equal responsibility –– in the partnership to care for, train and safeguard girls. Generally, too, “confidentiality” is linked with “reproductive health services” and “reproductive health rights.” Parenthetically, the words “easily accessible” are also usually in the same sentence. So, with the “confidentiality” understanding, girls can have access with assured “confidentiality” to “sexuality” indoctrination and advice to experiment with their “sexuality orientation.”

3. Pushing Monitoring and Reporting Mechanisms.

Even more alarming than the new developments in the CSW’s draft of agreed conclusions is the unprecedented emphasis on “rigorous” monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Clearly there is intent to force and coerce countries to comply with the provisions of the U.N. documents. Thus, appointed members of accountability councils will have the power to “rigorously monitor and report” on a nation’s adherence to the provisions in U.N. documents –– a decidedly chilling proposition! This is especially troubling in light of the expressed “flexibility” that national officials have in interpreting the U.N. documents. So, a nation is required to conform to provisions that can be interpreted by the accountability council to mean things that a particular nation endorsing the documents never intended to read into the agreed conclusions. All of the new language gives exceptional power to committees at the U.N. whose appointed staff frequently come from countries that are some of the worst abusers of human rights.

While all the formal deliberations were going on, a group of 200 girls were meeting. Interestingly, when they spoke at a panel and news conference on issues that concern them, they spoke about sex trafficking, prostitution, education, child labor and HIV/AIDS. They are not yet indoctrinated, but they were all chosen for participation by members of the U.N. missions in their countries. For instance, a 17 year-old-girl from Zambia, Chinyanta Chimba, said, “The main thing I would say to all the girls out there is that they should know that they have their own rights, and it is time that we all stand up as young girls and speak out.” Before coming to the U.N., she reported that she had believed women would never stand up for their rights. After experiencing the girls’ sessions, she said, “Looking at what is happening today, it really gives me courage."

Looking at what’s happening today at the U.N., both with the draft of agreed conclusions and in the indoctrination of girls, I recognize anew that the forces working assiduously to subvert Judeo-Christian values are powerful indeed. If we want a future for the girls of the world that is not burdened with leftist baggage, we have our work cut out for us.

Sarah Rode, an intern with Concerned Women for America’s Ronald Reagan Memorial Internship Program, assisted with the research for this article.