Perhaps the ultimate example of bureaucratic double-speak is developing at the United Nations, where officials are set to adopt a new definition of the “right to life.”
It apparently now will include a “right to abortion.”
The Human Rights Committee’s proposed revision regarding the right to life in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says, “States must provide safe access to abortion.”
The European Center for Law and Justice, which has a presence at the U.N., has submitted a statement in opposition, charging the proposal is an “attempt to create a universal right to abortion.”
“Indeed, the Human Rights Committee, in its last draft general comment on Article 6 on the right to life, is trying to impose the legalization of abortion and euthanasia against the will of states parties, against the letter of the text, and in contradiction with its mandate.”
The organization points out “the draft fails to mention the right to life of the unborn child, and presses states to legalize abortion on demand and without limitations.”
“Any limit on abortion is seen by the committee as a potential violation of women’s rights,” ECLJ says.
“As to euthanasia, the committee is openly promoting assisted suicide.”
The organization argues it is “absurd and unacceptable to draw from the right to life a ‘right to kill an innocent human being’ or a ‘right to be killed.'”
In a statement submitted to the committee, ECLJ reminds the committee it’s job is “to interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, not to create new rights or obligations.”
“Article 6 was never intended to give ground to the idea that the life of the unborn is not worthy of protection; quite the contrary. Interpreting the article in a way that creates a right to abortion violates both the Covenant and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”
ECLJ says these “lobbies of the ‘culture of death’ are about to win a decisive victory, in the greatest discretion.”
“The final text will be adopted in the upcoming months. It is still possible to stop this maneuver.”
The committee receiving the comments, comprised of 18 experts, is charged with writing an official interpretation of the components of the covenant.
“This interpretation, called ‘general comment,’ has a considerable power on legislators and national jurisdictions for this committee also has the power to ‘judge’ the states on their respect of this treaty,” ECLJ points out.
The original Article 6 states: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
But the revision, the ECLJ explains, denies “any protection to human life before birth and urges the 168 state parties to the covenant to legalize abortion on demand. The text gives no real condition or time limit to the ‘right’ to access to abortion which should be available as soon as carrying the pregnancy ‘would cause the woman substantial pain or suffering,’ whether ‘physical or mental.'”
“Moreover, the draft condemns, without defining them, the requirements that states impose to legally access abortion insofar as they would be ‘humiliating or unreasonably burdensome.'”
ECLJ states: “In a previous version of 2015, the text recognized at least that states could adopt measures aiming at protecting the potential human life or the dignity of unborn children. Abortion was hence still a form of exception. But the majority of the committee decided in March 2016 to remove any reference to the child, reckoning, according to one of its members, that ‘it did not appear necessary to mention the right to life of the fetus,’ as if human life started but at birth!”
ECLJ notes that when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written in 1947, the plan was to protect the “right to life … from the moment of conception.”
However, China, the United Kingdom and the USSR insisted on allowing abortion.
“The current draft on general comment is thus opposed to the intention of the writers of the Covenant, to the will of states and even to the letter of the treaty. It is also hardly compatible with numerous other international treaties,” ECLJ says.