On Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding declaration that purported to “strengthen” collaboration and coordination between nations in order to “better prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.” But experts say that buried in the declaration are references that have nothing to do with preventing pandemics, including language to expand abortion, gender ideology, and speech censorship.
The introduction to the declaration states that its purpose is to “implement coherent and robust national, regional and global actions, driven by science and the need to prioritize equity and the respect for human rights to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” But buried in the 52nd paragraph of the 78-paragraph, 13-page document are multiple references to “reproductive health” and “rights,” common euphemisms for abortion rights:
“Ensure, by 2030, universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, which is fundamental to the achievement of universal health coverage, while reaffirming the commitments to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences;” [Emphasis added]
Elsewhere, the declaration appears to reference abiding by controversial ideas based on gender ideology as well as a supposed “gender pay gap:”
“48. Support the provision of adequate remuneration, resources and training to health professionals, especially those cadres typically under-represented in the health workforce, and ensure that they have safe and decent working conditions with adequate protections, including prioritized and timely access to vaccines and personal protective equipment, gender responsive workplace policies, addressing underpayment and the gender pay gap, ensuring equal pay for work of equal value and protecting health workers, particularly women, from violence and harassment, including sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse;” [Emphasis added]
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Still another section targets “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech” without defining what kind of language would fall under these categories:
“18. Recognize the role of governments, international organizations, civil society, non-governmental organizations, community organizations, religious leaders and faith-based organizations, academia, PGA final text as of 1 September 2023 philanthropic foundations, the private sector and pandemic preparedness, prevention and response networks in building trust, raising public awareness and addressing health-related misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, including through primary health care;” [Emphasis added]
Experts are pointing out that language like this indicates that U.N. officials are using the pandemic as an opportunity to incorporate a broad set of left-wing social policies into a future treaty.
“This [declaration] is a roadmap of what the U.N. and the agencies are supporting,” Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “It incorporates everything. … What is ‘gender pay gap’ doing in a pandemic response? They’re rolling in everything. It’s a wish list of socialism and all of their social policies.”
Gacek further observed that “where the rubber’s going to hit the road is in these things like the WHO’s [World Health Organization] international health regulations and the pandemic treaty that’s in the works.”
On the same day the declaration was released, the WHO “welcomed” it, stating that it lays out “numerous requirements” that member states need to abide by. As previously reported by TWS, the WHO has already indicated that it intends to establish “a platform for global governance through health care,” as described by former congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Gacek went on to observe that the declaration was put in place in a highly unusual fashion due to the fact that numerous nations had indicated that they would vote it down if it was taken up for a formal vote.
“There was no vote,” he explained. “People are under the impression that it passed. That usually means that there was a roll call vote of the General Assembly, but there was no consensus on this.” As reported by The Defender, a “silence procedure” was used so that no country could be seen as actually objecting to the text, “meaning that States not responding [would] be deemed supporters of the text.”
As stated in the declaration, the U.N.’s goal is to implement the outlined policies by 2030. The next step will likely take place in Geneva next May, when the declaration could become a formalized treaty.
Arielle Del Turco, director of FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, was blunt in her assessment of what the U.N. and the WHO appear to be doing through the declaration.
“Progressive forces that love abortion will use every avenue to advance their deadly cause,” she told TWS. “Activists are using a declaration about pandemic preparedness to advance ‘universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services’ which we know means universal abortion expansionism. It is dangerous and abusive to pressure countries to expand abortion under the guise of responding to future pandemics.”
“Time and again, the Left co-opts programs that are supposedly meant to save lives, and they are eager to use them as vessels to take lives through abortion,” Del Turco continued. “We see the Biden administration trying to do the same thing with the PEPFAR program which is meant to help people with HIV/AIDS.”
As to what the Biden administration may do in response to the U.N. and the WHO attempting to proscribe a wide-ranging set of “pandemic prevention” policies for the U.S., Gacek was frank: “The Biden administration isn’t going to protect our sovereignty.”
LifeNews Note: Dan Hart writes for the Family Research Council. He is the senior editor of The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.
