Speaking here tomorrow.

Please pray for me.

Nice day at Church , and off to London for a week

Today, Monday 24 April, I will be getting the train to London. I have several meetings there and I will be preaching at a large Christian meeting next Saturday near London.

Nice shed full of seasoned wood.

Painted woodshed today.

The SPUC team at CPD

Selfie with Maria Madise ( Director SPUC International Operations ), Matthew McCusker ( Assistant Manager SPUC International operations,) and Patrick Buckley who lobbies in New  York and Geneva.

No Document 

So around 6 pm last night the Chair from Qatar announced that there was no agreement and therefore no document. So in the past three years, they have only agreed on a document once. In 2014, no document, in 2015 these was a document agreed, and in 2017 no document. 

Our understanding of what occurred is that deep into last Thursday night the Chair from Qatar agreed on a chairs text with the EU and UNFPA. The Chair wanted family language in the document, and she allowed very bad pro-abortion wording into the document, with a strong sovereignty paragraph. 

When we got the Chair's text we created a firestorm of protest amongst the pro-life countries. Then the US came up with a very poor compromise on paras OP35 and 40. However, the EU was just not happy and there was no agreement.

Then there was the most insane two hours of lamenting and congratulating people. But the most bizarre comment came from the Chines delegate. He was bragging about how low their pre-natal mortality was. I guess he was not counting their hundreds of millions of abortions as mortalities. He was also expressing China's love of UNFPA.

This reminds me of a small discussion I had late last year with the new Chines delegate. He had been avoiding me for most of the year. However last October I was in Conf room 1 and the meeting ended 20 minutes early. When I approached him he tried to claim he had to be at another meeting. I felt like calling him a liar but refrained. I explained that the meeting ended 20 minuted early and he could not possibly have another meeting. I then opened with a very leading question, " Do you think the world would be better off with more Chinese people or less ". An obvious illusion to their one child policy!  He thought for a moment and said he thought more Chinese would be OK. I concurred and we were all happy. I then asked about his personal life. He said he was an only child ( he is in his early thirties ) and his wife is an only child. They have a son and his mother-in-law is there to help with the baby. So he is eligible for getting a second birth permit. I asked , what was your wife's response. He told me she said NO THANKS. 

So the Communist Chines government thinks it can turn off the fertility tap in their country, then turn is back on, they are in for a big shock. LORD HAVE MERCY ON THEM.

The compromise

Around 3,30pm the USA offered a compromised document with changes to paragraphs OP35 & 40., see below

OP35. Urges Governments, the international community and all other relevant stakeholders to give particular attention to the areas of shortfall in the implementation of the Programme of Action, including, the elimination of  preventable maternal morbidity and  mortality through strengthening health systems, equitable and universal access to quality , integrated and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health-care services , and by ensuring the access of adolescents and youth to accurate information and education on sexual and reproductive health including age-appropriate , evidence - based education on human sexuality , and promotion respect and protection of all human rights , especially the human rights of women and girls , and by addressing the persistence of discriminatory laws and the unfair and discriminatory application of laws :

OP40 . Reiterates the need for Governments to recognise the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly  the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so , and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health, as well as the right of women to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality , including sexual and reproductive health free from coercion discrimination and violence as expressed in ICPD and Beijing.

These suggestions were a little better than the Chair's next but not much better.

Last hours of CPD

Here we are in conf room 4. The meeting was called to order at 3pm  yesterday , then suspended until 4.30pm.

Lawyers at work.

Early yesterday morning I gave Prof Collett and her law students a small legal task to critique two paragraphs in the Chair's text.

April 7, 2017

To:      Peter Smith

FR:     Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law

            University of St. Thomas School of Law[1]

RE:     Analysis of OP35 and OP40

OP35. Urges Governments, the international community and all other relevant stakeholders to give particular attention to the areas of shortfall in the implementation of the Programme of Action, including, the elimination of preventable maternal morbidity and mortality through strengthening health systems, equitable and universal access to quality, integrated and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, and by ensuring the access of adolescents and youth to full and accurate information and education on sexual and reproductive health, including age-appropriate, evidence-based comprehensive education on human sexuality, and promotion, respect, protection and fulfilment of all human rights, especially the human rights of women and girls, including sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, and by addressing the persistence of discriminatory laws and the unfair and discriminatory application of laws;

Abortion and other contested practices related to human reproduction

OP35 in the Chair's Text incorporates the ambiguous and contested term "comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services" with no limitation. Absent the limitation "where legal", past history of various UN Expert Committees and UN organs indicates that this paragraph will be used to assert that member states must legalize abortion and other practices that are inconsistent with their domestic law. 

The text relies on an inaccurate understanding of the Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5-13 September 1994, which expressly recognized the sovereignty of each state in determining whether abortion should be legal. In paragraphs 7.24, and 8.25 makes clear that abortion is not intended to be considered a "right." The Programme expressly call upon governments to "reduce" and "eliminate the need for" abortion. This language establishes that abortion was not viewed as a human right, but rather a tragic practice the legality of which was to be determined by the domestic law of the member states. 

More specifically both the Cairo and Beijing documents include the language that "Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process. Cairo, P. 8.25, Beijing 106(k). This language is completely absent from the Chair's text.

In short by adopting the language “promotion, respect, protection and fulfilment of all human rights, especially the human rights of women and girls, including sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights," nations will be pressured to legalize and fund abortion and other deeply contested practices such as sex reassignment surgery. As more nations succumb to this pressure, activists will then use their coerced compliance with this incorrect interpretation of international documents to argue that abortion and other disputed practices are now an obligation under customary international law.

Education on Human Sexuality

The incorporation of "evidence-based comprehensive education on human sexuality" is equally troubling. There is no international agreement on what this phrase would include. Activists in many nations argue that it would include instruction on genital contact between members of the same sex as well as sexual practices with multiple partners. "Evidenced-based" education abandons the prior language of the Cairo Programme of Action calling for "integrated approach" Cairo 4.20. 

Absent from the Chair's text is language that recognizes the role of parents and the objective of safe, secure and harmonious family lives. See Cairo, 4.29. Similarly unlike the Convention of the Rights of the Child which recognizes that parents are to be deeply involved in any instruction on this sensitive topic, this Chair's text fails to acknowledge that rights of parents in this area. "Support should be given to integral sexual education and services for young people, with the support and guidance of their parents and in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . . Educational efforts should begin within the family unit, in the community and in the schools at an appropriate age . . ." Cairo, 7.37. See also Cairo 7. 47 “Adolescents must be fully involved in the planning implementation and evaluation of such information and services with proper regard for parental guidance and responsibilities. The Beijing Platform for Action similarly recognized the rights and duties of parents in the development and dissemination of information on sexual health. The Beijing Platform for Action, Strategic Objective C2.107).

I recommend that this language be rejected absent substantial modification and limitations.

OP40

OP40. Reiterates the need for Governments to ensure that all women and men have comprehensive information about, and access to, a choice of the widest possible range of safe, effective, affordable and acceptable modern methods of family planning, including long-acting methods and male and female condoms, and to ensure the right of all individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health, and the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as expressed in human rights documents; 

Similar to the concerns expressed about OP35 this paragraph introduces ambiguous language that is inconsistent with the more narrow language found in the Cairo and Beijing documents. By using the word “reiterates” the text appears to restate current international agreements. This is simply false.

Completely absent from the chair’s text is any reference to sovereignty, yet this limitation is explicit in both  Beijing and Cairo documents (“in accordance with the law”).(“Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level”) (Cairo 8.25).

Even more troubling is the second clause creating a “right of all individuals” (highlighted above), which purports to create a right that  would include children and youth of all ages to “have control over and decide freely” on “matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health . . .” This is not the current state of international law. There is no limitation as to age or development of the children, nor are the rights and duties of parents acknowledged in the OP40.

I recommend that this language be rejected absent substantial modification and limitations.

I would be happy to discuss this further with you at your convenience

---

[1] University of St. Thomas School of Law, 1000 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN USA 55403. University affiliation is provided for identification purposes only.

This opinion was sent to many delegates that we knew would be instrumental in accepting or rejecting this terrible document.

Our good friends at Family Watch International , Sharan Slater and Annie Franklin sent the following e-mail to delegates yesterday morning.

Dear all:

Regarding the 50^th session of the Commission for Population and Development:

The defunding of UNFPA by the US has been mentioned in nearly every meeting here with rancor towards the US. Our group of pro-life, pro-family NGO’s have been seeing UNFPA and IPPF lackeys scurrying about to the African delegates and NGO’s.

Find attached the terrible chair text that was released this morning.

Find below the email we just sent to the CPD family and life friendly delegates to get them mad enough to do something about the Chair text that was just released. Feel free to forward any of this to friendly government contacts you might have.

Dear Friends of the Family:

NO DOCUMENT IS BETTER THAN A BAD DOCUMENT THAT HURTS CHILDREN!

The chair's text (attached) is completely unacceptable. It includes among other things:

• SRH and RR with no caveats

• CSE in the usual deceptive formulation of "comprehensive education on human sexuality" with the deceptive and supposed  "age appropriate" modifier which is totally meaningless since CSE proponents including WHO encourage sexual activity for children at the youngest ages.
•  
• It grants sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights a a human right for "girls" (as young as 10). 
•  
• It grants the right to control of sexuality "to all individuals" (which includes children) and implies this is a right in "human rights documents."
•  
• It calls for "comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services" with no caveats whatsoever
• It takes note of "the outcome documents of the regional review conferences on population and development"  a number of which promote SOGI, CSE, SR, RR and more. 
• It makes no mention of parents or parental rights or the role they have in directing their education and instead grants autonomous rights to children. 

The 3 min. video linked to below is a brief excerpt from the UN webcast of the historic CPD 48 debate where the African Group refused to be coerced into accepting CSE and RR. 

This was a major victory for children and family!

And this chair's text is much worse then the CPD 48 document that the African Group rejected. 

See https://vimeo.com/127884947 (You may need to use password "2")

FOR THE SAKE OF CHILDREN. PLEASE STAND STRONG AND REJECT THIS CHAIR'S TEXT

Sharon Slater & Annie Franklin

On behalf of the UN Family Rights Caucus and Family Watch International

I believe our friends at C-Fam and ADF were doing very similar things with their contacts.

Nice meeting at Nigeria mission this morning.

Students at the UN.

Again Prof Teresa Collett ( right side back row) is here with some of her law students , and some who study Catholic thought. They will be helping out at a nasty little pro-abortion meeting called the Commission on Population & Development. Please pray for us to have an impact for life.I am also very unwell with a very heavy cold I have had for nearly 2 weeks. Please pray for healing.