Thirty-Two Nations Sign Statement Declaring There is “No Right to Abortion,” But the Statement Puts Feminism Before Babies

By Julio Severo

The United States, Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia and Uganda on October 23, 2020 co-sponsored a nonbinding international pro-life declaration, in a rebuke of United Nations human rights bodies that have sought to increase abortion access.

The statement was signed by 32 countries in total, representing more than 1.6 billion people, and was titled “Geneva Consensus Declaration.”

“There is no international right to abortion,” said U.S. State Secretary Mike Pompeo.

The declaration states the signing countries “emphasize that ‘in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning’” and that “the child… needs special safeguards and care… before as well as after birth.” It also says states have no obligation to finance or facilitate abortion.

Pompeo said in his remarks, “Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States has defended the dignity of human life everywhere and always. He’s done it like no other President in history. We’ve also mounted an unprecedented defense of the unborn abroad… Today, we’re taking the next step, as we sign the Geneva Consensus Declaration. At its very core, the Declaration protects women’s health, defends the unborn, and reiterates the vital importance of the family as the foundation of society.”

In September 2020, Trump told the UN General Assembly, “America will always be a leader in human rights” and he added, “My administration is advancing religious liberty, opportunity for women, the decriminalization of homosexuality, combating human trafficking, and protecting unborn children.”

Trump put religious liberty in first place. But in a misguided decision, the Trump administration gave its highest religious freedom award to a Brazilian left-wing sorcerer who has persecuted conservative evangelicals, including black evangelicals, in Brazil. It was one of the most absurd awards I ever saw, even after years witnessing many absurdities from the left-wing Obama administration.

And Trump put the decriminalization of homosexuality before protection of unborn children. To put decriminalization of homosexuality in a conservative speech is by itself a nonsense, but to put it before protection of unborn babies is a greater nonsense. Is it any wonder that gay activists say that Trump is the most pro-gay president in the U.S. history? Even so, his evangelical supporters are reluctant to criticize it.

This is not the only controversy. Trump also believes that unborn children victims of a rape deserve no legal protection.

Even though the Geneva Consensus Declaration presents a pro-life defense against abortion, it never called abortion murder. It said,

“Reaffirm that there is no international right to abortion, nor any international obligation on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion, consistent with the long-standing international consensus that each nation has the sovereign right to implement programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies.”

Murder is always inconsistent with the right to life. If abortion had been mentioned clearly as murder, nations would understand that “programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies” would never condone any murder, including abortion.

Besides, in a feminist tone, the document put women and their rights before family, even saying,

“Improve and secure access to health and development gains for women, including sexual and reproductive health.”

“Sexual and reproductive health” is a UN jargon for the feminist, homosexualist and even abortion agenda. So how can a pro-life document condemn abortion and at the same time uses one of its UN jargons?

Then how “improve” “sexual and reproductive health” for women? Under “sexual and reproductive health,” girls have received plenty of immoral sex education and birth control around the world, resulting in abundant sexual activity, with many girls concluding that there is no need for marriage. Under “sexual and reproductive health,” girls are led to feminism, not marriage and family. And does the document propose to increase all of this?

The document was signed by Pompeo and Alex Azar, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If abortion is a matter of human rights and murder, why did a health secretary sign a pro-life document? After all, is abortion really murder or a health issue? If it is a health issue, it follows that pro-abortion feminists are right because they have managed to frame abortion as a health issue.

The pro-life document should never be signed by the HHS secretary. It should be signed by the Attorney General, because abortion is not a health issue, but a criminal and legal issue.

Among seven important items, the statement put family in the sixth place. Abortion was put in the third place. The other items were dedicated to the advancement of women — when clearly it should have dedicated to the advancement of the rights of unborn children.

The document mentions women 13 times, family 7 times and children 2 times. In fact, the first item of the “pro-life” document says,

“Ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and equal opportunity for women at all levels of political, economic, and public life.”

This is a fulfilled feminist dream or nightmare. In the vision of this document, which represents the feminist vision, if men can be generals, women have equal right to be general and occupy any other male job.

While in a feminist document there is no room for pro-life words, in a pro-life document should there be plenty of feminist words?

So in a pro-life document, which should be dedicated totally to defend unborn life, there is feminist advocacy.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration is much more feminist than pro-life.

Feminist papers address not only abortion, but also the advancement of women. In contrast, a pro-life document addresses abortion without mentioning murder and promotes feminist issues putting family in second place. This is a feminist victory among pro-lifers. The Geneva Consensus Declaration did not also show any importance to the role of authority God gave to men in family and society.

NSSM 200, a paper prepared by the CIA in 1974 for a Republican administration, had guidelines and plans for the U.S. government to implement around the world to reduce the population of several nations, including Brazil, for the purpose to increase U.S. influence. One of these plans was to make the United Nations and the nations promote the advancement of women to reduce families and children.

For women, their advancement in male jobs reduces their chances to form families and have many children.

For men, their advancement in homosexuality equally reduces their chances to form families and have many children. In fact, when women occupy men’s jobs and roles, the only role left for men is… to be “women.”

So even though the Geneva Consensus Declaration condemns abortion without saying that it is murder, it contains many suspicious mentions of advancement of women, which contributes to population control and its natural effect sooner or later: abortion.

With information from LifeNews, HHS and UPI.

Portuguese version of this article: Trinta e duas nações assinam declaração afirmando que “não existe direito ao aborto,” mas a declaração coloca o feminismo na frente dos bebês