Merriam-Webster defines “newspeak” as “propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution and the inversion of customary meanings.”
It’s a subject with which Olivier de Frouville, a French member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee must be familiar, as he recently proclaimed that legalizing abortion worldwide “is at the heart of the issue of the right to life.”
His statement was part of an abortion-promoting agenda that surfaced at the committee, which is tasked with monitoring the global implementation of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The covenant includes a statement affirming the right to life, but WND reported last month the commission was proposing to revise Article 6, making it read, “States must provide safe access to abortion.
At the time, the European Center for Law and Justice, which has special consultative status before the U.N., 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 warned then.
ECLJ pointed 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 said.
Now ECLJ’s American affiliate, the American Center for Law and Justice, is warning that the committee is moving forward with its pro-abortion agenda and “is about to impose a universal legalization of abortion by manipulation and in the name of the right to life.”
While the decision isn’t expected to be final for some time, since discussion is scheduled to continue at meetings in March 2018, where assisted suicide and euthanasia will be added to the ideology protected by “the right to life,” the move is cause for concern, ACLJ said.
It said the Tunisian representative on the committee noted that society bears the burden of caring for disabled people “once they are born.”
The representative suggested the requirement does not mean “we have to accept to allow a fetus suffering with impairment to live.”
ACLJ said the recommendations of International Planned Parenthood “have been followed literally by the committee in its drafting of the general comment.”
“Using the motto of this organization, the committee members have declared that abortion should be decriminalized and its access made ‘safe, legal and affordable,’ without any real condition or limitation of time. They also adopted the organization’s argument that prohibition of or difficulty in access to abortion would amount to violating the woman’s right to life.”
The report continued: “However, this argument is a complete moral inversion of the meaning of the right to life. It follows materialistic thinking according to which only those with intelligence and will are genuinely human and hence, worthy of protection. According to that argument, as long as a person does not have ‘will’ or ‘intelligence’ they are just bodily matter under the power of those who are ‘human’ because capable of imposing their intelligence and will on others.”
ACLJ said, therefore, it is “no longer ‘human life,’ as a defined by scientific and biological reality that would be protected under international law, but the new social definition of ‘human life’ as intelligence and will, (i.e. strength).”
“Yet, it is mainly to protect against eugenics that the universality of the right to life was reaffirmed in the post-war period. The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly refused to tolerate any eugenic abortion, recalling its use by the Nazi regime. It was only under the pressure of Soviet countries that the drafters of the declaration renounced in 1948 protecting explicitly human life ‘from conception.’ It is because the Nazi and Soviet regimes were materialists that they promoted abortion and eugenics; and it is against this ideology that the United Nations was founded on the basis of the equal dignity of every human being.”
ACLJ said that if “the committee – a body of the United Nations – creates a right to die from the right to life, it revives the very deadly ideology that the United Nations was created to protect against.”
It is unclear if the committee would have the power to impose on nations its new agenda. The ACLJ report said, multiple U.N. members are expected to simply ignore any decision, undermining the global body’s influence in the matter.
WND reported ECLJ submitted a statement to the committee reminding members their 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,” the statement said.
The committee’s task is to write 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, 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!”