The Great Divorce: Planned Parenthood’s international plan for youth and their families

By Timothy Herrmann | March 8, 2012

Ever wondered what IPPF really thinks about the relationship between parents and their children? Well, at the UN’s upcoming Commission on Population and Development their agenda couldn’t be clearer. I will let you judge for yourselves (emphasis added):

“The theme of the Commission on Population and Development in 2012 is ‘Adolescent and Youth.’ IPPF believes that during the forty-fifth session the following issues will be under discussion: comprehensive sexuality education; youth-friendly services; access to safe abortion services and parental involvement.

In 1994, the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) recognized the importance of respecting young people’s maturity, self-determination and responsibilities in decisions around their sexual and reproductive health. Evidence shows that by recognizing their evolving capacities as individuals, and empowering young people to decide on matters concerning their sexual and reproductive health, States can take an important step towards
improving health outcomes for young people.

Around the world, parents and guardians play an influential role in the lives of adolescents and young people. This side-event will explore the crucial principles of autonomy, decision-making, privacy and consent, and the way parental consent requirements can undermine these. The experiences of young people and health professionals, alongside relevant human rights standards, will be introduced in the side-event, to illustrate concrete ways of tackling these issues from the perspectives of law, health, government and youth.

Proposed messages for the session

1. We believe that young people have the right to decide on matters concerning their sexual and reproductive health in line with their evolving capacity, not their age.

2. We believe that young people have the right to enjoy sexual and reproductive health, and that governments have the responsibility to design and implement policies and services tailored to their needs

3. We believe that where parental involvement in young people’s SRH decision-making is mandated by law, young people feel less comfortable accessing services or information from health professionals.

4. We believe that no young person should be forced by law to disclose their sexual activity or relationship to anyone, including parents or guardians.

5. We believe that parental consent and notification laws should be abolished.

6. We believe that young people have the right to decide if, when and how to involve their parents or guardians in their SRH decision-making.

7. We believe that health professionals can support young people to involve their parents in SRH decision-making but should not mandate it.

8. We believe that health professionals have a duty to uphold their young clients’ right to privacy.

9. We believe that parents need to be supported, through education and information, in talking to their sons/daughters about SRH.

10. We believe that governments have a duty to ensure that parental involvement is encouraged, but not mandated.

11. We believe that governments, health professionals and parents have a responsibility to ensure that young people are equipped and empowered with the knowledge and skills that they require to exercise their own rights and make autonomous decisions about their SRH

12. We believe that the concept of evolving capacity is a useful concept for supporting young people’s SRH decision-making and should be used in place of strict age restrictions.”

Children without parents. I thought that used to be the kind of thing we fought to prevent, especially at the UN, but I guess now it’s in vogue to encourage it. Perhaps now that Planned Parenthood has won the battle to divorce man from woman sexually, it is now moving on to their children. They will reap what they sow.

Children cannot understand freedom, or how to use it without an education. The disturbing thing is that Planned Parenthood would rather trust the state than parents to carry out this task. But what are they really saying? They are saying that parents can’t be trusted to educate their children, let alone love them. Instead they trust the state. But can the state love children? Would that even be what a child needs, deserves? I would rather risk their education with their parents, because at least there, true love, which is the only real education, is still possible.

When we finally destroy the family and its purpose we will destroy our children. I wish Planned Parenthood would think that through.

A “guide” to the Sexual Rights of Children

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter