(LifeSiteNews) — For the past several decades, pro-life activists have been warning that abortion activists are using international institutions to impose their agenda globally by using the language of “sexual and reproductive rights.” This phrase is a euphemism for abortion, but because it is implicit rather than explicit, abortion activists have successfully smuggled the phrase into international agreements, treaties, and even trade deals. Once countries with pro-life laws sign on, frequently unaware of what this language refers to, abortion activists insist that governments are obligated to legalize abortion, often aided by activist judiciaries.
German sociologist Gabrielle Kuby warned about this in her 2012 book The Global Sexual Revolution; Obianuju Ekeocha detailed the strategy in Target Africa: Ideological Neo-Colonialism in the 21st Century; I have an entire chapter on these tactics in my upcoming book How We Got Here: A Guide to Our Anti-Christian Culture. A number of Christian activists have been tireless in exposing these agendas, as well, most notably Austin Ruse of the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), which focuses on the United Nations, and Henk Jan van Schothorst of the Christian Council International, which focuses on a range of international institutions.
On September 13, C-Fam published new, powerful evidence of this abortion activist agenda. “During a discussion linked to the upcoming UN Summit for the Future, pro-abortion delegates and journalists admitted that they have inserted coded language such as ‘sexual and reproductive health’ in every area of UN policy as a pretext to get more funding and leverage to promote abortion,” C-Fam reported, calling it a public admission of “their ongoing plot to impose abortion and sexual rights on the world.” According to the C-Fam report:
Julie Garfieldt Kofoed specifically highlighted how important it has been to add sexual and reproductive health language “beyond the confines of the third committee of the UN General Assembly” where these issues were discussed almost exclusively only ten years ago. The former delegate from Denmark who now works for the UN Foundation, confirmed that the purpose of adding the controversial terms in UN policy areas ranging from human rights to gender to climate and energy was always to generate more funding, programs, and positions from which to promote abortion access and sexual rights, and eventually their recognition.
The UN event, hosted by Devex, which describes itself as “a social enterprise and media platform for the global development community,” featured a remarkable open discussion on abortion activist strategy. Colum Lynch, a journalist who sought to “expose” the pro-life stance of the Trump administration during the first Trump term, stated that countries resistant to the abortion agenda were having a more difficult time defending “traditional family values” and called the fight for life and family “yesterday’s battles.”
C-Fam reported that Kofoed “explained that the ambiguous terms are very important for abortion and sexual rights promotion because they provide ‘a framework for NGOs and agencies to secure funding’ and implement programs aligned with these norms, regardless of what countries actually agree to or not.” In Kofoed’s view, C-Fam noted, this “gives leverage to the organizations to pressure countries to adopt discrete elements of the abortion and sexual rights agenda.” Kofoed also stated that the “continuous inclusion of such language in diplomacy not only changes the conversation but also pressures entities to adapt their polices, reflecting a shift in global norms.”
This is a remarkably candid description of the abortion activist modus operandi. Despite their claims to embrace diversity and multiculturalism, the reality is that they are using stealth to herd other countries into conformity with the post-Christian Western values of the sexual revolution. What those countries actually want is irrelevant – activists like Kofoed believe they know what is best for the world and are happy to become international abortion pushers using coded language to bully developing nations into accepting their moral standards, often by tying foreign aid and development cash to moral concessions in social policy.
Indeed, C-Fam observed that Kofoed “tacitly admitted that the abortion and sexual rights agenda is not very popular at all.” Kofoed noted the “emphasis on acknowledging and addressing the privileges of developed nations when engaging with the Global South” and, apparently without irony or self-awareness, advocated a shift in “power dynamics” in order to accomplish a “more equitable distribution of power and privilege in international relations, aiming to empower less dominant voices in global policy-making.” Kofoed did not connect her desire for a “more equitable distribution of power” to allowing more traditional societies to make their own decisions regarding life and family issues.
Again, this is not news. Pro-life activists have been faithfully sounding the alarm on this issue for decades. But it is revealing to hear the strategy articulated so clearly, and it is a reminder to support the activists who do the tireless work of exposing their agenda.
