Dangerous Language Enters Human Rights Council

By | 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 28 (C-Fam) A novel category – “reproductive violence” – was accepted in a recent Human Rights Council resolution, threatening to serve as a Trojan horse for the pro-abortion agenda if it gains further acceptance.

The resolution, which dealt with the rights of women and girls in humanitarian situations, listed violations “such as forced or denial of contraception, forced pregnancy, forced abortion and forced sterilization” as examples of “reproductive violence.”

The denial of abortion was not explicitly mentioned in this non-exhaustive list, but that does not mean it was not included by implication.  Abortion advocates like the International Planned Parenthood Federation applauded the new language. An article in Ms. Magazine embraces this term as a way to pressure the United States for state-level abortion restrictions, noting that while the resolution was focused on humanitarian situations, this language will have broader implications.

For delegates from countries with pro-life laws, opposing the new term is difficult given the topic of the resolution, which focuses on vulnerable women and girls facing violence, including sexual assault, in the midst of conflict and natural disasters.  However, the architects of “reproductive violence” terminology make clear that they intend to use it to enable one form of violence while condemning others.  Specifically, they want to equate the denial of abortion with forced abortion as types of violence.

“Reproductive violence” has already entered UN discourse through reports of agencies like the United Nations Population Fund. Earlier this year, they coauthored a report promoting the term with the abortion provider MSI Reproductive Choices. Their proposed definition includes “laws, policies, institutional practices and social and gender norms that restrict choice, deny consent or impose reproductive outcomes” – clearly taking aim at pro-life measures.

Not everyone who favors the new category does so for pro-abortion reasons. Some proponents of surrogacy bans have argued that the practice is a form of “reproductive violence,” including the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls.  However, for pro-life advocates, the potential harms of this tactic outweigh the benefits.  Surrogacy, as well as forced abortion and other harmful acts, can be condemned individually without creating a new category.

This is particularly true when the novel category has already been purpose-built by the international abortion lobby to describe those who would restrict abortion as “violent.”  Additionally, the new term further distorts the definition of violence beyond acts perpetrated by individuals against other individuals and including things like pro-life laws, policies, and even social norms.

Proponents of “reproductive violence” terminology are already well on their way to inserting it into a forthcoming treaty on crimes against humanity, still under negotiation.  They also seek to broaden the definition of “forced pregnancy” beyond the narrow one that was agreed to in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which explicitly exempted it from including pro-life laws.  This was a loss for the abortion lobby, which proposed a definition of “enforced pregnancy” that targeted abortion restrictions.

In the near future, the governments in support of this new language, chiefly Western European, will undoubtedly try to build on their success in Geneva and bring this terminology to the UN General Assembly in New York this fall.  It remains to be seen if their efforts can be stopped.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter