Once again a United Nations treaty monitoring body has issued a statement interpreting a treaty abandoning internationally recognized agreements for something that sounds as if it was written by a pro-abortion NGO. This time the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has issued ‘General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the Right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)’ that promotes access to abortion and claims that the denial of abortion “can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

The UN press release on the General Comment (GC) states in part, “The right to sexual and reproductive health is not only an integral part of the general right to health but fundamentally linked to the enjoyment of many other human rights, including the rights to education, work and equality, as well as the rights to life, privacy and freedom from torture, and individual autonomy, UN experts have said in an authoritative new legal commentary.”

The release by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights declares, “The General Comment codifies the Committee’s views on this issue to give States that have ratified the Covenant a clear understanding of their obligations and to highlight to government officials, legal practitioners, as well as civil society, where policy, laws and programme may be failing and how they can be improved.” 

The so-called “improvements” in the radically pro-abortion GC include, “Ensuring the availability of trained medical and professional personnel and skilled providers who are trained to perform the full range of sexual and reproductive health care services” and  “essential medicines should be available, including…medicines for abortion.”

The push for abortion via drugs can also be found in the GC section on ‘Quality’ which states, “…failure or refusal to incorporate technological advancements and innovations in the provision of sexual and reproductive health services, such as medication for abortion…. jeopardizes the quality of care.”

The CESCR’s 18 independent members seek to have Member States “liberalize restrictive abortion laws” which it declares are “discriminatory” and seeks to “guarantee women and girls access to safe abortion services” which it describes as necessary for the “realization of women’s rights and gender equality”.

Especially troubling is the section ‘States Parties’ Obligations’ which lists pro-abortion actions that State parties must undertake in order to not be in violation including: “…requires States to repeal or reform laws and policies that nullify or impair certain individual’s and group’s ability to realize their right to sexual and reproductive health. A wide range of laws, policies and practices undermine the autonomy and right to equality and non-discrimination in the full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health, for example criminalization of abortion or restrictive abortion laws.”

Under an ‘Obligation to respect’ States are expected to “reform laws that impede the exercise of the right to sexual and reproductive health. Examples include laws criminalizing abortion”. The GC details its opposition to any and all laws regulating or restricting abortion stating: “The obligation to respect also requires States to remove and refrain from enacting laws and policies that create barriers in access to sexual and reproductive health services. This includes third-party authorization requirements, such as parental, spousal and judicial authorization requirements for access to sexual and reproductive health services and information, including for abortion and contraception; biased counselling and mandatory waiting periods for divorce, remarriage or access to abortion services; mandatory HIV testing; and the exclusion of particular sexual and reproductive health services from public funding or foreign assistance funds.”

The last point, “exclusion of particular sexual and reproductive health services from public funding or foreign assistance funds” appears directed at the United States foreign assistance policy— known as the Helms Amendment— that bans direct funding for abortion.  Pro-abortion activists are desperate to see this policy reversed in the final months of the Obama administration.

The GC also addresses what it considers to be an obligation to protect the so-called right to reproductive health by requiring health providers who object to abortion to refer for abortion, “Where health care providers are allowed to invoke conscientious objection, States must appropriately regulate this practice to ensure that it does not inhibit anyone’s access to sexual and reproductive health care, including by requiring referrals to an accessible provider capable of and willing to provide the services being sought, and the performance of services in urgent or emergency situations.”

The GC details what it considers to be “violations” of the right to sexual and reproductive health by States and includes the adoption of legislation, regulations, policies or programs the in its view “creates barriers “to the realization of the right to sexual and reproductive health”.

PNCI notes that the commentary conflicts with section 2a of Article 12 which seeks to reduce stillbirth and infant deaths and ensure healthy development of the child: “The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child”.

General Comments are used by treaty bodies to promote “its interpretation of the provisions of its respective human rights treaty” and are increasingly used to further the radical pro-abortion agenda.