U.S. Signs Disabilities Treaty, Sparking “Reproductive Health” Concerns

Late last week, United States (US) Ambassador to the Untied Nations (UN) Susan Rice signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – the first binding UN treaty to mention "sexual and reproductive health" – on behalf of the US. While this has prompted concern among certain advocates for the unborn, veteran pro-life UN observers counsel that the term should not be construed to include abortion.

At the time of the treaty’s adoption in 2006, delegates debated including the phrase amid worries among pro-lifers that certain pro-abortion organizations like the Center for Reproductive Rights might claim that the term was elastic enough to include abortion.

An official report of the proceedings, however, noted that this phrase was "not intended to alter" policies with regard to "family planning or related matters." The treaty does not affect the pro-life laws of member states that signed or ratified it.

To underscore this point, at least 15 nations made statements in the UN General Assembly at the time interpreting "sexual and reproductive health" as excluding abortion. No nation made a statement contradicting such an interpretation. Two pro-life European nations that signed the document, Poland and Malta, made formal reservations that the term did not include abortion.

The US, in its closing statement, affirmed that the term "cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion."

Certain pro-life critics worry, however, that the US closing statement was made under the Administration of President George W. Bush, and that there has now been a policy change at the White House. They point to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee this past April that she interprets the term "reproductive health" as including abortion.

Although such a statement from the Secretary of State indicates a US policy shift, it has no binding juridical status in international law. Abortion advocates often favor repetition of such statements, however, calculating that this will shift popular perceptions towards acceptance of a definition that includes abortion.

Jeanne Head, R.N., UN representative for National Right to Life Committee, noted that the term "reproductive health" has never been defined to include a right to abortion in any negotiated UN document, including the Disability Convention. She told the Friday Fax that abortion advocates "appear to think that if they keep repeating this false interpretation often enough, they can make the world believe it is true."

Following last week’s signing, the treaty now moves to the Senate for its "advice and consent," per the role specified in the US Constitution. If it gains the support of two-thirds of the Senators, it is then presented to the President for ratification. The Bush Administration had refused to sign the treaty, arguing that it could weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In general, the United States has been reluctant to seek ratification of treaties, due to concerns that treaties interfere with principles of federalism and infringe upon the rights of individual states. The Obama Administration has indicated it nevertheless would push for ratification of several treaties, including the Conventions on the Rights of the Child and Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Pingback: U.S. Signs Disabilities Treaty, Sparking “Reproductive Health” Concerns | Pelican Project Pro-Life()

  • joanspage

    I wish some background on the treaty and the lot of disabled worldwide had been given. Then the need for a treaty could be seen and this phrase could have been discussed in context.
    I am not pro-choice nor am I saying we should ratify this treaty. But as one who os disabled and who knows we are often the last to be heard no matter where we live. I know we need A treaty.

  • dennisofraleigh


    Like many seemingly benign UN treaties, this one will probably prove before too long to be just another means by which militant population control factions, both within and without the UN, will try to coerce women in developing countries that the best way to deal with “disability” is to contracept/sterilize/abort.
    I would not be at all surprised if the UN organization responsible for addressing the “needs” of the truly disabled is eventually co opted by population controllers and its funding goes more and more toward the forced sterilization or contracepting of disabled poor women in developing nations in order to prevent their passing on their “disability” to any future offspring: e.g. blindness, deafness, retardation, etc.

    For an interesting analysis of UN population policies (and their origins in the “birth control” movement founded by Margaret Sanger) read Dr. Angela Franks’ book “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy.” I think you’ll find it a real eye-opener. I know I did.

  • joanspage

    Dennis, we must address the lot of people with disabilities who are alive nowe as well as those who may be aborted. Don’t you agree?
    I know about Sanger and eugenics/

  • dennisofraleigh

    Yes, I agree.
    And I would hope the UN would address the lot of disabled people in ways that do not violate their human rights or dignity as persons; however, considering the UN’s track record on “aid” to the peoples of the developing world (especially the female populations), I would not put it past UN policy makers to try to advance under whatever guise they can, their “reproductive rights” agenda (UN codeword for coerced sterilization or permanent contraception [Norplant]) as the best means to help address the “needs” of the disabled.
    Oh, the disabled who request aid will be offered wheelchairs, hearing aids and physical therapy….but with the proviso that they agree to a permanent contraception implant or sterilization, so as to prevent (or so they will be told) future offspring who may carry the genes responsible for the disability.
    These UN population-control crusaders (and their NGO counterparts like IPPF) have a one-track mind. They’re not so much interested in aiding the needy now living as making sure there are a lot fewer of them to follow in the next generation. This is a sad reflection on a world organization that has so much potential to do genuine good, and at times in the past has. Anymore now (when it comes to aid to developing nations) it has all the appeal of the Angel of Death passing over Egypt (Ex. 12).