UN This Week Nov 13-16

The bronze sculpture on the right is a piece designed by the Italian artist Arnaldo Pomodoro. While depicting a sphere growing inside of another sphere, the piece was intended to symbolize the coming of a new millennium, a promise for the rebirth of a less troubled and destructive world.

UN Bodies and Agencies

The General Assembly Social Policy Committee, also known as the 3rd Committee, continued to take action on a number of resolutions this week. At the dissapointment but not surprise of pro-life and pro-traditional-family member states and civil society, references to “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination”  and “access to sexual and reproductive health” found their way into the final texts of several resolutions.

The inclusion of such terminology is not accidental. Pro-life groups see it as a deliberate effort of western countries to advocate for a progressive sexual and abortion agenda, especially even when the primary scope of the resolution pertains to seemingly unrelated topics such as access to food, water, education, and so on.

Nonetheless, over a dozen member states stood up against these progressive efforts. They delivered statements dissociating themselves from those terms and clarifying that they do not understand abortion as a dimension of sexual and reproductive health and that gender is rooted in biology and can thus be only male and female. Such statements show a growing appetite for pro-life and pro-family policies internationally. See some of the countries speaking up on our issues below:

• Senegal 🇸🇳

• Indonesia 🇮🇩

• Egypt 🇪🇬

• Libya 🇱🇾

• Cameroon 🇨🇲

• Malaysia 🇲🇾

• Mali 🇲🇱

• Oman 🇴🇲

• Nigeria 🇳🇬

• Algeria 🇩🇿

• Yemen 🇾🇪

• Holy See 🇻🇦

What does taking action on a resolution within a UN committee mean?

Taking action on a resolution means that the 193 member states will decide whether a resolution will pass or fail. This can be done either by consensus or by a vote.

Passing a resolution by consensus (no vote) is the default strategy and it means that all member states are in favor of the resolution as a whole. However, “consensus” is a term of art and should not be understood to mean that all member states are in support of every detail contained in the respective resolution. Before and after the adoption, countries often make statements dissociating themselves from given sections of the text or clarifying that their understanding of given terms differs from that laid out in the resolution. Such interventions are reflected in the official records of the meeting.

Alternatively, any country can call for a vote on the given resolution thus breaking consensus. In this case, a simple majority is needed for the resolution to pass.

Member State Statements

“The existence of unhealthy families justifies child protection measures, not the denigration of the family as a whole”

- The Holy See

In an effort to counter the stance of traditional member states that reject terminology associated with sexual diversity, Colombia shared the following:

“Intersectionality is not a controversial term and does not go against cultural norms”

This may strike some as an odd remark. The term “intersectional discriminaiton” causes much discussion and disagreement within the UN, thus qualifying as controversial. To deny this is to dismiss the voices of the countries who oppose such terminology based on their customs and values.

See below a great statement from The Holy See, reiterating its conservative stance on life, gender, and family and sharing its disappointment over the inclusion of non-consensual controversial terms in UN resolutions 👏

Thought-Provoking Quotes

We would like to highlight Allison Lind, a youth leader at CounteractUSA, an organization that seeks to embolden Christ followers to counteract ever-changing political and cultural ideologies with grace and truth. In response to the passing of Baby Indi, she shared the following:

“The sad truth is, the ethics of the abortion lobby place an arbitrary value on human life, and they call for legal policy that does the same. It started in the womb, but now we’re starting to see it with the elderly and the sick. “They are going to die anyway, why waste the resources”. If we don’t place an inherent, infallible, God-given value on human life, where will we draw the line? Age? Health? Social Status? Race? Wantedness? The issue with humanity is that out standard for value will always change, but the beauty of God is that His value and love for us never will.”

Other News

• Language matters at the UN! In episode 6 of #FocusedOnLifePodcast, Stefano Gennarini, VP of Legal Studies at C-Fam, discusses how pro-abortion organizations are determined to include abortion language into every UN resolution. “It's part of their strategy. We're holding the line!” Listen to the full episode here.

• UN Women continues to call for more funding for NGOs to combat gender-based violence. Earlier this fall, the EU released an audit report showing their Spotlight Initiative program, costing over $500M and aiming at combating gender-based violence, delivered no tangible results. 

• New Study Shows Google Favors Pro-abortion Over Pro-life Sources  

• 'March for Life' reveals theme for 2024 event in post-Roe United States

Other Facts

New York as seen at around 6 pm from the premises of the UN Headquarters