The same radical organization says that this refusal is “an act of violence and discrimination against women and girls,” that violates “sexual and reproductive rights,” which are women’s “human rights.” The terms “gender,” “forced motherhood,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” are euphemisms referring to lesbian activity, sterilization, abortion and contraceptives (including those that are abortifacient).
Other anti-life organizations have gotten involved in denouncing what they deceptively term “domestic violence.” UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women), the United Nations agency that, among other things, funds radical feminist groups in Latin America, and uses the term “forced pregnancy” in the definition of domestic violence posted on its website. As a pro-death organization, UNIFEM also works to promote the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, a UN initiative, which advocates abortion, contraception and sex education.
Oddly enough, this same group, under a section on its website concerning the UNIFEM Trust Fund In Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence Against Women, claims that “the range of gender-based acts of violence is devastating, occurring, quite literally, from womb to tomb. Among other abuses, violence against women includes: prenatal sex selection in favor of male babies.” These statements would appear to admit that the unborn child is, in fact, a person with rights. Yet UNIFEM also asserts that violation of “reproductive rights,” constitutes a crime against a woman’s “human rights.”
According to UNIFEM’s website, the Trust Fund has collected $4.3 million as of July 2000 from governments and private donors to support NGO projects addressing “violence against women.” The group cites the governments of the following countries as contributors: Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, Democratic Republic of Korea, Malta, Mauritius and the United Kingdom.
Of course, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) is also taking advantage of this relatively new “domestic violence” strategy to promote abortion and contraception. In 1998 alone, IPPF received more than $3 million from the William H. Gates Foundation for four projects, one of which was “fighting gender-based violence in Latin America.” The European Commission also contributed $1.67 million.
PLAFAM, IPPF’s Venezuela affiliate, offers counseling for victims of domestic violence that includes “reproductive health services.” IPPF has similar programs in the Dominican Republic, Peru and Brazil.
The UN has also taken steps to include among “gender-based violations” of human rights in its Convention on the Elimination of All Types of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the refusal to allow women to exercise their “reproductive options.” Needless to say, because the anti-life movement claims that denying women the right to contraception, sterilization and abortion constitutes “domestic violence” and is a violation of their basic human rights, all the countries that ratify CEDAW could be forced to change their laws — especially those in Latin America where abortion is illegal, for the most part.
All of these initiatives serve as an insult to those women who are victims of true domestic violence. It is imperative for the pro-life movement to help these women, not only because this should be a pro-life concern, but also in order to keep the anti-life movement from using this strategy — and abused women themselves — to promote the Culture of Death.
(This article appeared in the September 2001 issue HLI Reports, a publication of Human Life International.)
