Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

Religious Right Groups Work to Defeat Treaty on Rights of People with Disabilities, Falsely Claim it Sanctions Abortion

Conservative organizations have come out strongly against the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, with Rick Santorum leading the charge. The groups are upset about the treaty ensuring that people with disabilities have equal rights because they claim it is “pro-abortion.”

Article 25 of the Treaty reads in part: 

States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation. In particular, States Parties shall:

(a) Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes;

Anti-choice activists are angry about the inclusion of the phrase “reproductive health” in the nondiscrimination clause, according to LifeNews:

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, has previously noted the pro-life concerns, saying abortion advocates put language in the treaty in Article 25 that requires signatories to ‘provide persons with disabilities… free or affordable health care including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs.’” “Translation: the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense” he said. “Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried to neutralize the threat during the mark-up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Unfortunately, his amendment (which would have stopped the treaty from forcing abortion policy on countries that sign) was thwarted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) after a debate.”

Several pro-life groups are on record opposing the treaty, including Eagle Forum, Family Research Council Action, CitizenLink, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, and others.

In addition, the Home School Legal Defense Association and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) have also came out against ratification.

But Perkins’s claim that the treaty “could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled-at taxpayer expense” is simply false.

The State Department makes clear that the treaty “does not include abortion” and the phrase “reproductive health” in Article 25 “does not create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion.”

The Convention is firmly rooted in the principles of equality and non-discrimination. As the Chairperson and many other delegations, including the United States, have noted on countless occasions over the course of negotiations, the treaty reinforces existing rights and is aimed at assuring that persons with disabilities will be treated on an equal basis with others.

This approach was reflected in oral statements and in various places in the written travaux preparatoires, including in a footnote to the draft text of Article 25 that appeared in the report of the Seventh Ad Hoc Committee.

In this regard, the United States understands that the phrase "reproductive health" in Article 25(a) of the draft Convention does not include abortion, and its use in that Article does not create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion. We stated this understanding at the time of adoption of the Convention in the Ad Hoc Committee, and note that no other delegation suggested a different understanding of this term.

Even the National Right to Life Committee reported after the text was adopted that no delegate interpreted “reproductive health” to mean abortion and that “delegates from pro-life nations ultimately accepted this language.” “The committee responsible for enforcing compliance to this treaty would be going way beyond their mandate if they were to interpret the term ‘reproductive health’ to include abortion,” the NRLC said:

The legally undefined and controversial term "reproductive health" remains in the document despite the fact that the term has never appeared in any other UN treaty. However, all parties maintained that the term does not include abortion and that its inclusion in this treaty cannot be interpreted to create any new rights such as a right to abortion.

The final version of Article 25 (a) on health states that nations signing and ratifying the treaty shall: "Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. . . . ."

Delegates from pro-life nations ultimately accepted this language because they were assured and became confident that it does not include abortion or create any new human rights such as a right to abortion.

For example, during the debate the Treaty Chairman, Ambassador McKay of New Zealand, stated repeatedly that the use of the term "reproductive health" in this treaty does not create any new human rights such as abortion. He even added a non-binding footnote to the record of negotiations, not the treaty itself, which he claimed would preclude any such misinterpretation of the term.

Numerous delegates from nations throughout the world including the European Union agreed with Chairman McKay that the term "reproductive health" does not include abortion. No delegate from any nation stated that it does.

In light of all these statements and the language of the treaty, the committee responsible for enforcing compliance to this treaty would be going way beyond their mandate if they were to interpret the term "reproductive health" to include abortion. It is crucial that they do not because nations that sign and ratify a treaty are required to change their laws in order to comply with the treaty.

But for the Religious Right, even definitive evidence that the treaty’s language does not refer to abortion doesn’t change their mind that the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities must be defeated.

Brian Tashman's blog

AFA's Sandy Rios Wonders why Susan Rice Supports LGBT Rights: 'Is She Straight?'

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios interviewed Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) to discuss Ruse’s efforts at the United Nations. Ruse is a staunch critic of the Obama administration’s initiative supporting LGBT rights abroad, even opposing efforts to prevent anti-LGBT violence. While speaking to Rios, he criticized the General Assembly for passing a resolution condemning extrajudicial executions, including killings based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Ruse then mocked UN Ambassador Susan Rice for tweeting, “We will not allow the remarkable progress the UN has made on LGBT issues in the last four years to be rolled back,” leading to Rios to ask: “is she straight?”

Ruse did not know, to Rios’s dismay. Rice is married to television producer Ian Cameron and has two children.

Rios: I remember her only vaguely but I remember bad things about her during the Clinton years, but I don’t remember what those things were. What’s your perception? What do you see in Susan Rice as the UN Ambassador?

Ruse: There was a big vote in the UN General Assembly last week, a new phrase entered into a UN document for the very first time called “gender identity” and I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you can define it. Gender identity has never appeared in a UN document, it appeared in a document last week. Immediately, Susan Rice tweeted that ‘LGBT human rights have made a major stride and we will not go back.’ They are very aggressive on sexual orientation and gender identity and Susan Rice is leading the charge.

Rios: Is she straight?

Ruse: I have no idea.

Rios: We don’t know do we [sigh].
Brian Tashman's blog

CPAC: Austin Ruse Condemns Efforts to Stop Violence against LGBT Community

During a CPAC panel on supposed U.S. spending “to promote abortion and homosexuality worldwide,” Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), attacked protections for people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in United Nations studies on violence and execution. Ruse first lamented that an initially-removed reference to sexual orientation was restored to a resolution condemning summary, extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, and went on to bemoan a decision by the Human Rights Council to study “discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world.” He argued that such a resolution is “just the nose of the camel under the tent” and lashed out at supporters of LGBT rights, maintaining that “their theory of international law is that it’s done by lying, coercion and trickery.”

Watch:

In 2010 there was a debate about summary execution that entered sexual orientation and gender identity into the equation, that was defeated and then it was accepted, and then the Human Rights Council last summer called for a report on violence against homosexuals. This was hard fought, it was barely lost, and the reasons that countries oppose this idea, ‘what’s wrong with having a study on violence against homosexuals,’ it’s because they’re introducing language which we know is just the nose of the camel under the tent. When this vote took place calling simply for a study, it was heralded in the New York Times as a great victory for human rights of the LGBT community, it was nothing of the sort it was a vote to have a study. See, this is the drumbeat that they use, ‘oh it’s a victory for human rights’ and then it happens again ‘and it’s another victory for human rights’ and it happens again ‘and it’s another victory for human rights,’ and the water gets warmer and warmer and warmer until the frog is boiled. This is their theory of international law: their theory of international law is that it’s done by lying, coercion and trickery.
Brian Tashman's blog

Religious Right Reacts To Komen's Latest Statement with Confusion, Anger and Warnings of God's Wrath

In the world of Religious Right activists, waging a campaign to convince the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding to breast cancer exams at Planned Parenthood clinics is an admirable exercise of public advocacy, but when people join a campaign to convince the Komen foundation to continue their partnership with Planned Parenthood to fight breast cancer, it’s “gangsterism.”

After Komen released a statement that opened the door to maintain its ties to the women’s health organization, Planned Parenthood said it is “heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women” and “enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria.”

The uproar not only resulted in a huge black eye to Komen but also helped Planned Parenthood raise over $3 million to protect their breast health program from cuts. Moreover, the controversy exposed the Religious Right’s unabashed glee that tens of thousands of women would lose access to breast exams and gave them another opportunity to rekindle the debunked claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

But their excitement at women losing access to cancer screenings seems to be fading with the new statement from Komen.

Mona Charen of the National Review Online lamented that “it’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved” but “it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days,” and NRO’s Daniel Foster charged Planned Parenthood with “gangsterism.” Of course, just days prior Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO hailed Komen’s initial decision as a major victory, noting “this Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists.”

Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam) president Austin Ruse told LifeSiteNews called potentially successful effort to have the Komen foundation reverse their decision defunding Planned Parenthood a “mafia shakedown”:

Pro-life leaders say that the exact import of the statement is not yet clear, and that Komen seems to be asking for breathing room, possibly with the intention of caving in definitively to pro-abortion pressure.

Austin Ruse of C-Fam told LifeSiteNews.com Friday morning that, “The mafia shakedown tactics may have worked, but we’re not sure.”

Ruse advised that pro-lifers should “take a wait and see attitude” to discern whether the pro-abortion pushback against Komen would succeed.

Kristen Walker of Live Action called it a “terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood” and wondered what will happen to all the money people gave to Komen to reward them for dropping Planned Parenthood:

If raising money to cure breast cancer were their primary concern, they would not have reversed this decision. Their donations went up 100% in the short time since they announced the halting of grants to PP as pro-lifers who have refused to donate to Komen opened their wallets to thank them for their decision, happy to finally be able to give to their good work of fighting breast cancer with a clear conscience. I wonder if Komen has given any thought to the fact that those people gave money in good faith believing it wouldn’t be used to fund abortions. Will they refund that money? I guess we’ll see.

…

It is a terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood. It is a terrible shame they’re allowing PP and its followers to compromise their mission to cure breast cancer.

Evangelist Bill Keller warned that the latest move by the Komen foundation may well lead to “the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment”:

Keller said, "It only shows the level of spiritual decay in this nation when a private foundation who made a decision to stop giving money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, causes the media, politicians, and the supporters of killing babies to go into a wild frenzy. The Catholic Church has always stood for the sanctity of life, yet Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, were livid that the Komen Foundation decided to stop giving a $250,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood."

…

Keller concluded, "You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress? Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."

UPDATE: Liberty Counsel Action is now urging its members to cancel any donations they made to Komen, with Matt Barber arguing that the group should change their name to “Susan G. Komen for the Cause,” pushing the discredited charge that abortion is linked to breast cancer:

The reversal comes on the heels of news that Komen’s donations jumped 100% after deciding to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider that is currently under criminal investigation in multiple venues. Liberty Counsel Action is encouraging its members to cancel any checks and credit card contributions made in the wake of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood and asking any pro-life participants in Komen’s June 2 Global Race for the Cure run in Washington, D.C. to withdraw.

Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, says that anyone who sincerely wants to contribute to the fight against breast cancer has dozens if not hundreds of other options from hospitals to other nonprofit organizations, but Komen should be off the list.

“It’s a sad day for those who both seek a breast cancer cure and who respect the dignity of all human life,” said Barber. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure should recognize that abortion is not a cure for anything. Perhaps they should change the name to Susan G. Komen for the Cause. What a tragic paradox. There is mounting medical evidence that indicates abortion significantly increases the risk for breast cancer.”

Calling Komen’s decision “the coward’s way out,” Barber said that the decision to once again partner with Planned Parenthood was nothing more than capitulation to “tremendous left-wing political pressure.”

“They have chosen death over life – cancer over cure,” said Barber. “Instead of showing courage, they caved. Komen is now part of the breast cancer problem rather than the solution.”
Brian Tashman's blog

Religious Right Reacts To Komen's Latest Statement with Confusion, Anger and Warnings of God's Wrath

In the world of Religious Right activists, waging a campaign to convince the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding to breast cancer exams at Planned Parenthood clinics is an admirable exercise of public advocacy, but when people join a campaign to convince the Komen foundation to continue their partnership with Planned Parenthood to fight breast cancer, it’s “gangsterism.”

After Komen released a statement that opened the door to maintain its ties to the women’s health organization, Planned Parenthood said it is “heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women” and “enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria.”

The uproar not only resulted in a huge black eye to Komen but also helped Planned Parenthood raise over $3 million to protect their breast health program from cuts. Moreover, the controversy exposed the Religious Right’s unabashed glee that tens of thousands of women would lose access to breast exams and gave them another opportunity to rekindle the debunked claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

But their excitement at women losing access to cancer screenings seems to be fading with the new statement from Komen.

Mona Charen of the National Review Online lamented that “it’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved” but “it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days,” and NRO’s Daniel Foster charged Planned Parenthood with “gangsterism.” Of course, just days prior Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO hailed Komen’s initial decision as a major victory, noting “this Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists.”

Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam) president Austin Ruse told LifeSiteNews called potentially successful effort to have the Komen foundation reverse their decision defunding Planned Parenthood a “mafia shakedown”:

Pro-life leaders say that the exact import of the statement is not yet clear, and that Komen seems to be asking for breathing room, possibly with the intention of caving in definitively to pro-abortion pressure.

Austin Ruse of C-Fam told LifeSiteNews.com Friday morning that, “The mafia shakedown tactics may have worked, but we’re not sure.”

Ruse advised that pro-lifers should “take a wait and see attitude” to discern whether the pro-abortion pushback against Komen would succeed.

Kristen Walker of Live Action called it a “terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood” and wondered what will happen to all the money people gave to Komen to reward them for dropping Planned Parenthood:

If raising money to cure breast cancer were their primary concern, they would not have reversed this decision. Their donations went up 100% in the short time since they announced the halting of grants to PP as pro-lifers who have refused to donate to Komen opened their wallets to thank them for their decision, happy to finally be able to give to their good work of fighting breast cancer with a clear conscience. I wonder if Komen has given any thought to the fact that those people gave money in good faith believing it wouldn’t be used to fund abortions. Will they refund that money? I guess we’ll see.

…

It is a terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood. It is a terrible shame they’re allowing PP and its followers to compromise their mission to cure breast cancer.

Evangelist Bill Keller warned that the latest move by the Komen foundation may well lead to “the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment”:

Keller said, "It only shows the level of spiritual decay in this nation when a private foundation who made a decision to stop giving money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, causes the media, politicians, and the supporters of killing babies to go into a wild frenzy. The Catholic Church has always stood for the sanctity of life, yet Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, were livid that the Komen Foundation decided to stop giving a $250,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood."

…

Keller concluded, "You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress? Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."

UPDATE: Liberty Counsel Action is now urging its members to cancel any donations they made to Komen, with Matt Barber arguing that the group should change their name to “Susan G. Komen for the Cause,” pushing the discredited charge that abortion is linked to breast cancer:

The reversal comes on the heels of news that Komen’s donations jumped 100% after deciding to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider that is currently under criminal investigation in multiple venues. Liberty Counsel Action is encouraging its members to cancel any checks and credit card contributions made in the wake of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood and asking any pro-life participants in Komen’s June 2 Global Race for the Cure run in Washington, D.C. to withdraw.

Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, says that anyone who sincerely wants to contribute to the fight against breast cancer has dozens if not hundreds of other options from hospitals to other nonprofit organizations, but Komen should be off the list.

“It’s a sad day for those who both seek a breast cancer cure and who respect the dignity of all human life,” said Barber. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure should recognize that abortion is not a cure for anything. Perhaps they should change the name to Susan G. Komen for the Cause. What a tragic paradox. There is mounting medical evidence that indicates abortion significantly increases the risk for breast cancer.”

Calling Komen’s decision “the coward’s way out,” Barber said that the decision to once again partner with Planned Parenthood was nothing more than capitulation to “tremendous left-wing political pressure.”

“They have chosen death over life – cancer over cure,” said Barber. “Instead of showing courage, they caved. Komen is now part of the breast cancer problem rather than the solution.”
Brian Tashman's blog

Planned Parenthood did not Teach Girl Scouts how to Lead Happy Sex Lives while Living with HIV

Amid the news that the Susan G. Komen Foundation may (or may not) be reversing its decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, it is worth taking a moment to realize just how ridiculous yet effective the right-wing campaign against Planned Parenthood has been.

For instance, back in 2010, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute alleged that during a United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, the Girl Scouts "hosted a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations ... where Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute a brochure entitled 'Healthy, Happy and Hot' [which] contains explicit and graphic details on sex, as well as the promotion of casual sex in many forms."

The only problem was that it wasn't true.  As the Girl Scouts explained, all the organizations at the conference had been using the same rooms and so if there were any Planned Parenhood brochures present in the room when they held their meeting, it was only because they had been left behind after previous sessions.

As we pointed out back in 2010, the enitre allegation doesn't even make sense as the purpose of the brochure in question is aimed at teaching people about how to lead sexually fulfilling lives while living with HIV?  Are we really supposed to believe that the Girl Scouts kicked everyone out of the room so that Planned Parenthood could present this information to a bunch of young girls? 

But the fact that the entire thing is fundamentally absurd, all of the Religious Right's anti-Planned Parenthood crusders ate it up and have repeated it ad nauseum until it has gotten to the point where it is now so accepted as fact that Girl Scout leaders have to spend time repeatedly swatting down the rumor while losing sales:

For decades The Girl Scouts of America has been dedicated to helping young girls learn life skills. But now the organization is having to defending itself against a rumor that they say is disrupting sales of their biggest fund raiser - cookies.

The rumor started two years ago and connects the Girl Scouts to Planned Parenthood.

The CEO of the Silver Sage Girl Scouts Council, Shelli Rambo Roberson says the rumor has been fueled by social media sites and blogs, and for some reason, it's gaining traction this year.

Roberson says the rumor started at a global forum in Europe about the status of women in the world.

“Out of that came a rumor that there was some training given to girls from Planned Parenthood, and there is absolutely no merit to that,” said Roberson.

The rumor claims sexually explicit information was given to the Girl Scouts by members of Planned Parenthood.

“There's no partnership or interaction between Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood,” said Roberson.

Even though the incident allegedly happened two years ago, they're now seeing more people reacting.

“We have girls report to us that people have said they won't support them,” said Roberson.

Within the four Girl Scout offices in south Idaho, they've received over 200 phone calls from concerned citizens and e-mails continue to fill their in boxes.

And it is no wonder that the Girl Scouts have to keep dealing with this considering that groups like the Family Research Council, which employs the wife of the president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute which started the rumor in the first place, continue to spread it:

It looks like liberals finally got caught with their hands in the cookie jar! After people like FRC's Cathy Ruse started exposing the connection between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood, more customers are pulling their support from the annual fundraiser. One news outlet in Idaho, says more than 200 people have complained, bringing cookie sales to one of their lowest points. Shelli Rambo Roberson, the CEO of the local Council, claims there's no partnership. It's just a "rumor," she told reporters.

Not so, says Cathy, who has plenty of documentation from a special U.N. "Girls Only" workshop co-hosted by Planned Parenthood and the Girl Scouts. The workshop included a graphic sex manual called "Healthy, Happy, and Hot," full of ideas too pornographic to repeat. It's part of a joint project to bring "better sexual health" to girls as young as 10. And while some troop leaders are committed to raising women of integrity, we can't turn a blind eye to the Girl Scout headquarters, which is bombarding girls with topics like abortion, contraception, and homosexuality.

Kyle Mantyla's blog
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious