 |
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 50th 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:
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. |
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Lawyers at work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment