Geneva Consensus Declaration Draws Backlash from Abortion Lobby

By | November 5, 2020

HHS Secretary Alex Azar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the event launching the Geneva Consensus Declaration

WASHINGTON, D.C. November 6 (C-Fam) When the U.S. and over thirty other countries presented the Geneva Consensus Declaration reiterating that abortion is not an international human right, and that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society, a backlash from the global abortion lobby was inevitable.

Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey called the declaration an attack on “reproductive health services for women, while Democratic Senator Ben Cardin alleged that it “supports restricting abortion and same-sex marriage.”

The declaration in fact reaffirms longstanding consensus at the UN: abortion laws are for sovereign countries to determine.

In a letter to the Washington Post, Brian Dixon, senior vice president at the Population Connection Action Fund condemned President Donald Trump’s administration for “deny[ing] people the right of reproductive autonomy.”  Other statements against the declaration were issued by Ipas, the Global Justice Center, Amnesty USA, Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion organizations.

Opponents of the statement were quick to condemn its co-signatories as authoritarian governments, citing the Women, Peace and Security Index from Georgetown University and its assessment of the best and worst countries for women.  The same institute recently launched a U.S.-based index that graded the best and worst states for women, with access to abortion as one criterion.

Merrite Johnson, the Program Coordinator at the Global Justice Center, insisted in Ms. Magazine there is an international human right to abortion, citing the opinions of the committees that monitor compliance with UN human rights treaties, some of which have been ratified by the U.S.

“The good news, at least, is the declaration is not legally binding,” writes Johnson, neglecting to mention the fact that the opinions of the treaty bodies are also nonbinding, yet whose output Johnson refers to as “laws” regularly violated by the U.S.

Universal Rights Group’s Anna Mattedi said the declaration “has limited effect in international law” and is an effort to “re-orientate the conversation […] around sexual and reproductive health and rights.” This is a term which Mattedi notes does not have “a univocal definition under international law,” and is interpreted differently by different countries.

Mattedi then cites the “minimal standards” set in the nonbinding opinions of treaty bodies, while warning that the U.S under the Trump administration “is bringing this conservative political agenda to the international arena, where it may outlive the Government.”

Countries that joined the declaration are being pressured to reverse their decision.  In Kenya, a group of over twenty organizations asked the government to withdraw.  A representative of one of the organizations argued that if countries are “allowed to fashion their own abortion laws,” it will encourage human rights violators to act punitively.

It is expected that one of the first actions of a Biden administration would be to remove the U.S. signature to the declaration.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration has also received positive reactions, including from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who commended the Trump administration and  expressed the hope that the declaration will “serve as a catalyst” for its signatories, as well as other nations, “to persistently stand united against powerful international forces that promote abortion and undermine the family throughout the world.”

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter