United Nations -

Can the United Nations represent everyone?

Published on May 8, 2026May 8, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

A candidate for the world’s top diplomatic role has a record on abortion that raises serious questions about who the United Nations is really for.

By Right to Life NSW

A new selection process is underway for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations — and one of the leading candidates has a track record that deserves serious scrutiny.

Michelle Bachelet, the former President of Chile and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was nominated in February 2026 by the governments of Brazil and Mexico (Chile initially co-nominated her but withdrew its support in March 2026). Her candidacy is now attracting significant attention — not just for her diplomatic credentials, but for her long and consistent record of promoting abortion access as a global priority.

The role she is seeking is not a minor one. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is tasked with representing the interests and dignity of all humanity — across every culture, every value system, and every nation.

That makes her record worth examining carefully.

What her record shows

During her second presidential term in Chile, Bachelet championed legislation that ended that country’s longstanding total ban on abortion. In 2017, the Chilean Congress passed her bill permitting abortion in limited circumstances: cases of rape, fatal fetal abnormality, or risk to the mother’s life. Supporters described it as a triumph of reason; for many in Chile and Latin America who had defended protections for unborn life for decades, it was a significant defeat.

Her positions did not remain at the national level. When Bachelet became UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, she used that platform consistently to promote abortion access as a matter of international human rights law.

When the United States Supreme Court issued its Dobbs decision in 2022 — returning abortion policy to the individual states — Bachelet’s response was immediate and pointed. She described the ruling as “a huge blow to women’s human rights and gender equality,” and stated that access to abortion was “firmly rooted in international human rights law.” She went further, describing the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a “major setback” and warning that the US was moving away from what she called a “progressive trend.”

This framing — that protecting unborn life is a violation of human rights — is not a neutral or universally shared position. It is a deeply contested moral and legal claim. Many nations, many legal traditions, and many millions of people across the world hold a fundamentally different view.

Earlier in her UN career, as the first Executive Director of UN Women, Bachelet declared that “reproductive rights” was “absolutely fundamental” to that organisation’s mission. The UN Women reports produced under her leadership pushed member states to weaken existing legal protections for the unborn.

What is the United Nations for?

This matters because of what the United Nations is supposed to be.

According to the UN Charter, the organisation exists to maintain international peace and security, promote human rights, deliver humanitarian assistance, and uphold international law. It was founded to serve all people — across cultures, religions, and moral frameworks.

Abortion is not a settled question in international law, despite repeated attempts by UN bodies to position it as one. It is a deeply divisive moral issue on which countries differ profoundly. Many nations — including significant majorities across Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and parts of Asia — maintain strong legal protections for unborn life. These countries are also UN members. Their values and their sovereignty are meant to be respected, not overridden.

A Secretary-General who enters office with a documented, career-long commitment to advancing abortion as a human rights priority is not a neutral steward of global cooperation. She is someone who has already chosen sides on one of the most contested moral questions in the world.

A question of representation

The concern here is not partisan. It is foundational.

The process for selecting the next Secretary-General involves nominations from member states, interactive dialogues, and ultimately a recommendation from the Security Council to the General Assembly. It is a process meant to identify someone capable of representing all of humanity with integrity and impartiality.

A number of legislators in the United States — including members of the Senate — have formally written to the Secretary of State urging opposition to Bachelet’s candidacy, arguing that her record demonstrates a consistent pattern of using international platforms to pressure member states on abortion, regardless of their own laws and values. Even the Chilean government that initially nominated her ultimately withdrew its support.

These concerns are legitimate and worth raising in the Australian context as well. Australia is a UN member state. Australians have a stake in who leads the organisation and what priorities they bring to that role.

Changing culture starts with asking the right questions

At Right to Life, we believe every human life has inherent dignity — from the earliest stages of development to natural death. We also believe that questions of this magnitude deserve honest, open public debate — not the kind of bureaucratic pressure that attempts to settle contested moral questions by institutional decree.

The UN has an important role to play in the world. That role is best fulfilled when its leadership genuinely reflects the diversity of humanity — including those nations and peoples who believe that unborn children deserve protection.

Whether Michelle Bachelet is the right person to carry that responsibility is a question the world should be asking openly.

Sources

This article first appeared at Right to Life and is reproduced here by permission. Right to Life is an action group dedicated to defending the inalienable human right to life from conception to natural death. Its work seeks to influence both culture and law in Australia, helping build a society where every human life is protected and valued.

Pro-lifers win again at UN conference

Published on April 28, 2026May 1, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Pro-lifers chalked up another win at the United Nations in April as the chairman of the UN Commission on Population and Development refused to put a document forward for approval. He objected to the European efforts to load up the document with abortion and gender ideology.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. for CFam

Ambassador Zéphyrin Maniratanga of Burundi did not present a final agreement for adoption because the draft agreement that had been negotiated in recent weeks could not be adopted unanimously.

European and other progressive governments objected to the final draft of the agreement because it did not have enough language linking sexual and reproductive health, gender, and censorship to human rights.

Maniratanga chose to withdraw the agreement rather than accommodate the progressives or propose an agreement that they would vote against. This follows the practice of UN conferences and meetings to require adoption by consensus, that is, without a single UN delegation objecting.

Maniratanga’s decision was a quiet but sharp rebuke to the European and progressive governments that, just last month, forced a vote on the agreement at the Commission on the Status of Women rather than one that would have defined what a woman is. It was the first time in the history of that commission that a vote was necessary. Europeans and their allies seemed poised to call a vote this week, too.

The Holy See expressed thanks to Ambassador Maniratanga for preserving the “practice of consensual adoption” and lamented how an “inordinate focus” on sexual and reproductive health derailed negotiations. The Holy See emphasized that language on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights had “always been controversial” and that it was unfair not to focus on a broader health agenda.

The Gambia, Egypt, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United States also congratulated Maniratanga and expressed similar concerns.

Europeans and their allies vowed to continue to promote abortion, gender ideology, DEI, and censorship through UN agencies and non-governmental organizations that implement UN policy on sexual and reproductive health and gender.

A representative of Cyprus, speaking on behalf of all EU member states, said they were especially disappointed not to reaffirm commitments to “women’s and girls’ rights and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” On censorship, the EU emphasized that “for technology to be beneficial to all, it must align with human rights and uphold the principles of non-discrimination and gender equality.”

The Commission on Population and Development, which meets for one week in April every year, is the scene of ongoing debates about abortion, gender ideology, population control, and other controversial social policies. It has failed to reach an agreement in seven of the last ten sessions.

The custom of adopting agreements by unanimity at the commission and other UN conferences has been a thorn in the side of progressive governments for decades. It has repeatedly blocked controversial issues from being added to UN agreements, including express endorsement of abortion, gender ideology, and “comprehensive sexuality education.” These are all priorities for EU foreign policy.

In recent years, the EU and progressive governments have increasingly pushed the commission to discard unanimity in order to adopt resolutions by vote. This would allow them to pressure developing states and win close votes on controversial social policies.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

Interviews

Published on April 24, 2026June 2, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

On this page, you’ll find interviews conducted with members of Endeavour Forum.

On May 31, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Lyle Shelton for Family First. The topic was abortion exclusion-zones. The relevant section is between 27:30 and 47:50.

On April 9th, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Andrew “Robbo” Robinson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was Observations from a visit to the United Nations.

On November 11th 2025, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Neil Johnson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was Being open to life.

On 10th June 2025, Kathy Clubb was interviewed by Neil Johnson for Vision Media’s 20Twenty show. The topic was The changing landscape around abortion: pills not clinics

Radical Feminist May Soon Head United Nations

Published on March 31, 2026March 31, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

A congressional letter is asking the U.S. to veto the nomination of Chilean Michelle Bachelet to be the next United Nations Secretary-General because of her longstanding and aggressive sexual leftism.

By Stefano Gennarini, J. D., C-Fam

The letter circulating among congressional offices says that Bachelet, the former President of Chile and the undisputed frontrunner in the race for the next UN Secretary-General, is unfit for the top UN job. It asks the Trump administration to exercise the veto power of the United States as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to stop her nomination.

What’s more, the new pro-life government of her country, Chile, also withdrew its support for her candidacy last week, calling her candidacy “non-viable.”

Bachelet is a longtime feminist who has been described as a Latin American version of Hillary Clinton. She aggressively promoted abortion, gender ideology, and climate alarmism for decades.

Congressman Chuck Edwards (R-NC) read the contents of the letter to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz during a congressional field hearing on UN reform held at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

“In her previous roles with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as Executive Director of UN Women, and as President of Chile, Dr. Bachelet has repeatedly prioritized an extreme abortion agenda at the expense of state sovereignty,” he said.

Bachelet’s candidacy has a very good chance of succeeding. The EU bureaucracy is intent on anointing a woman as the next UN Secretary-General, someone they expect to ramp up gender and abortion advocacy. Several current candidates match this description, but Bachelet is widely seen as having been carefully groomed to take over the UN top job by European governments that control the UN bureaucracy and have ensured her advancement through the years.

She was President of Chile for two terms between 2004-2008 and 2014-2018. As Executive Director of UN Women from 2010 to 2013 and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2018 to 2023, she ensured that gender ideology and abortion advocacy were mainstreamed across the entire UN system by UN gender experts and human rights lawyers.

After the landmark pro-life Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health U.S. Supreme Court case, Bachelet issued an official statement criticizing the decision. She falsely claimed the case was wrongly decided because abortion is “firmly rooted” in human rights law as a “core” of women’s rights. She said the ruling was a “setback” and a “huge blow” for women’s human rights.

The next United Nations Secretary-General is expected to have a large role in shaping the UN system for an entire generation. The current UN development framework, known as the Sustainable Development Goals or Agenda 2030, expires in 2030.

The likelihood of a prolonged and contested election is now more than likely. The European Union and the United States do not see eye to eye on key areas of UN policy, including abortion, gender, climate, borders, and censorship. Finding a candidate who gives assurances that will satisfy all the members of the UN Security Council is unlikely.

The selection of the future Secretary-General is expected to be completed by the UN Security Council as early as this Spring and formalised by the General Assembly sometime in the Fall. Campaigning by countries is well underway. April 1st is the suggested deadline for nominations ahead of public hearings with the candidates that will take place on April 20th.

Pro-life optimism abounds at UN women’s Commission

Published on March 20, 2026March 21, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

There is a spirit of optimism and momentum among pro-life and conservative advocates gathered at the annual UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). This optimism has been bolstered by the U.S.’s leadership at the UN this week, both in negotiations and in participation in side events with civil society.

By Iulia-Elena Cazan and Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

For the third year in a row, the pro-life and pro-family coalition hosted a two-day conference near the UN, where speakers addressed packed rooms about the importance of family, motherhood, defending the unborn, and the dangers of gender ideology. The U.S. sponsored five of the events at the Conference on the State of Women and Family (CSWF), and the government of Burundi sponsored two others.

The harm of transgender ideology to women and children was a frequent theme. Representatives of the Trump administration discussed recent executive measures to ban sex-rejecting surgeries and hormones for minors.

Bethany Kozma, Director of Global Affairs at the US Department of Health and Human Services, said, “Parents should never be dismissed when raising concerns about what children are being taught. Families are the first and most important institution in any society.”

Chris Elston, a Canadian known as “Billboard Chris,” spoke about his efforts to educate the public about the harms and his fight against pediatric “gender affirming care,” which he called “the greatest child abuse scandal in the history of modern medicine.”

“In the name of inclusivity, and acceptance, and diversity, we are sterilizing children and sending teenage girls into menopause with its side effects of its own,” Elston continued, adding, “Puberty blockers are not reversible because time is not reversible.”

Elson rejected controversial narratives suggesting children are born in the wrong bodies. Instead, Elson emphasized that there is no right or wrong way to be a boy or a girl, that there are “two sexes, zero genders, and infinite personalities.”

Former college swimmer Paula Scanlan shared her story of having to share a locker room with a female-identified male teammate, while Amie Ichikawa, who spent time in a women’s prison, spoke about the dangers of housing biological men—some of them sex offenders—alongside vulnerable incarcerated women.

At a separate event at the mission of Nigeria, UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, spoke on the danger and the “dehumanizing” effect of erasing women as a “material, distinct category in law but also in reality” through gender-neutral terminology or definitions of “women” that include men. Alsalem mentioned that in some countries, the “official statistics of female sexual offenders or female rapists have jumped by 700%” because statistical bureaus now classify some biological males as females.

An event by the International Youth Coalition (a program of C-Fam, publisher of the Friday Fax) featured young leaders in the international pro-life movement. A young mother and lawyer from Costa Rica shared how her family was a source of joy and meaning, and not a barrier to her professional advancement. A young leader from Students for Life USA discussed his visits to college campuses, helping to start pro-life groups, and encouraging young leaders to find the confidence to find each other and speak out.

The CSWF conference was originally launched after conservative groups were repeatedly denied space for events by the “official” CSW civil society parallel event platform. Its events draw crowds of like-minded advocates and volunteers, delegates from foreign capitals and missions, as well as some critics who call its message “antithetical to gender equality.”

By Iulia-Elena Cazan and Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. . C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

About the authors:

Iulia-Elena Cazan joined the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) in the summer of 2023 as Associate Director of UN Government Relations and International Youth Coalition (IYc) in NY. She graduated from Drexel University in June 2023 with a degree in Political-Science and minors in French and Philosophy.

Rebecca Oas is the Director of Research for the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) in Washington, D.C. Before joining C-Fam, Rebecca earned her doctorate in Genetics and Molecular Biology at Emory University. She has written for Human Life International as a Fellow of HLI America and is has served as a Contributing Editor for HLI.

Younger generation lacks its mothers’ enthusiasm for gender equality

Published on March 20, 2026March 20, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

This report is based on a side-event at the UN’s 70th Commission on the Status of Women, held in
New York during March 9–19, 2026. The topic of the event was “Gender equality makes families
thrive” and was presented by a panel of Nordic ministers for gender equality. The video of this talk
can be accessed here at UN web TV. For more about Endeavour Forum’s work at the UN, please click here.

by Kathy Clubb

In their presentation, a panel of ministers for gender equality from several Nordic nations, including
Iceland, Denmark and Norway, examined how their policies have contributed to the well-being of
families in their respective countries. Specifically, the benefits of parental leave for both mothers
and fathers were explained. Additionally, the ministers expressed their surprise at the younger
generations’ failure to support their policies regarding gender equality, despite their claims that
their policies have been successful.

According to the ministers, gender equality is a form of justice for women, in keeping with the
theme of this year’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) held at the United Nations
headquarters in New York. The attendees were polled by a show of hands which revealed that
most women in the room believe there is only a moderate access to justice currently available for
women around the world. Thus the context for the discussion was the so-called oppression of
women and “barriers” to justice.

Nordic prosperity due to gender equality?

The ministers claim that the prosperity enjoyed by their countries is due to their governments’
policies which promote equality between men and women. They especially gave credit to the
women who entered the workforce during the 1950s to 1970s for setting up their nations for
economic success.

During the Second World War, women by necessity had to take over many men’s roles, and in the
Nordic countries, as in other parts of Europe, women were loath to give up their incomes and
independence once the men returned from war to the civilian workforce. The ministers claim that
the post-war women workers benefitted the workforce by giving employers more choice in an
expanded worker pool. Along with advantages for employers, so the argument goes, the
independent income to which women now had access gave them the ability to divorce their
husbands when desired.

These government ministers — all career women — sought to debunk claims by conservatives
that gender equality policies undermine the family, claiming instead that such policies actually
strengthen families by providing economic resilience and safety for children. This is a claim that
was to be repeated over the course of the CSW events by many of the speakers in various
contexts.

Central to the Nordic family policies is affordable childcare as well as leave for both parents after
the birth of a baby. In Norway, for example, the government’s policy is one-year paid parental
leave for both mother and father. These policies enable mothers to re-enter the workforce, allowing
couples to maintain their income levels.

Proponents claim that this policy gives women an advantage when applying for jobs as they will no
longer be discriminated against for their potential need for maternity leave. Since men have
parental leave, employers are forced to treat men and women the same when screening them for a
position.

The ministers claim that their policies are based on practical needs and are not driven by ideology,
however, any policies applied to traditional families are also applied to what has become known as
“diverse” families — that is, those parents who identify as members of the LGBTQ community. Yet
we are expected to believe that there is no ideology driving the policy decisions?

The high cost of gender equality

Each of the ministers acknowledged that the younger generation appears not to appreciate their
sacrifice as working mothers. Indeed, the ministers lamented the fact that there is a need for
ongoing campaigning around gender equality to educate youth about its apparent benefits. In their
experience, the younger generations do not consider gender equality as important, with many
saying it has “gone too far”. Young people don’t want the government to interfere in families — a
mindset that was perceived as a threat by the feminist ministers.

The personal anecdote of one speaker might shed some light on the younger generations’ lack of
interest in their mothers’ pet project. While building her career in politics, this minister from Norway chose to leave her daughter with her father in another city, five days a week for four years. She told her daughter this sacrifice was necessary because it would secure the opportunity for her daughter to do the same thing to her own child!

It is small wonder that the children do not appreciate their mothers’ choice to prioritise careers over
family life. Indeed, the narrative seems to be that only when motherhood is combined with a paid
career can a mother “reach her full potential”. According to this narrative, that “full potential” is
measured only in dollars — an utterly utilitarian argument which their children have apparently
rejected.

The ‘anti-rights movement’ and the war on men

According to the ministers, another perceived obstacle to gender equality is what they call the
“anti-rights movement” whose claims need to be debunked. The chosen method for this
“debunking” doesn’t involve engaging with the opposition, but instead censoring it, particularly on
the internet.

Singled out specifically was the “tradwife” movement — a subset of conservative Christians who
value traditional family life, particularly traditional gender roles. The “tradwife” is a stay-at-home
mother and homemaker who gladly allows her husband to be the breadwinner. These traditional
gender roles apparently pose such a threat to militant feminists that they are labelled as
“misogynistic” and are seen as part of a wider “anti-rights” movement.

The ministers are determined that the digital space needs to be regulated to censor this “anti-
rights” movement. One specific tool they mentioned was setting age-limits on social media — a
policy which was recently adopted here in Australia. While promising to reduce harmful content for
children under 16, the ban effectively sets the stage for a digital ID system, while still allowing
children to access harmful content such as pornography.

Sweden’s minister for gender equality blamed algorithms for promoting “tradwife” propaganda to
men and boys, citing traditional gender roles as this as “harmful norms and disinformation”.
She declared: “We must regulate the digital world with age limits and similar measures, and we
need to be aware of all the forces trying to reshape the narrative on gender equality and push it in
the wrong direction.”

One “helpful” observation made by a minister was that “men may perceive that women’s success
comes at the cost of men”. She has set herself quite a challenge if she wants to convince men that
the opposite is true!

Traditional gender roles were decried as threats to the modern status quo, necessitating ongoing
resistance to backsliding. This movement toward traditional roles was identified as being universal
and not limited to the Nordic nations, although it was acknowledged that the “toxic masculinity”
movement has been somewhat defused by the introduction of parental leave for fathers.

Population decline

Algorithms were also blamed for the declining population. Apparently young men and women are
victims of algorithms which make them “unable to think alike” when it comes to family size.
In the Nordic countries, the average birth rate is less than one child per woman — far below the
2.1 births per women needed for a population to replace itself — and even that low figure is heavily
reliant on migrants who tend to have larger families.

Serbia was mentioned as an example of a country actively promoting pro-natalist policies. A
current campaign there is encouraging women to have “one more baby”.

The ministers admitted that they find themselves in a difficult position: while they acknowledge the
danger inherent in population decline, as feminists who emphasise bodily autonomy, they know
they can’t force women to have more children. Their solution is to try to encourage, but not push,
women to have more babies.

Where is the data?

The panel of high-level politicians put forward their argument without any recourse whatsoever to
statistics and data. Instead, the only “evidence” presented was anecdotal — their feelings and
personal experience. Statements such as “AI can be used as a tool to oppress women” were given
without any concrete examples being provided.

In fact, the only serious research mentioned was a future white paper on boys and gender equality
which one of the ministers was herself preparing: she said that since gender-based violence exists,
boys need to be educated in order to reduce its incidence. One reason identified as a cause of
“gender-based violence” was a dearth of good male role models.

In the feminist world, that means more men who think the same as the feminist career-women are
needed. Yet perhaps their question should be: why are they so hard to come by? Like the young
people who are rejecting the feminists’ working-mother model, are men finally becoming tired of
being labelled “toxic”?

The Trojan Horse strategy

Although much of the talk focussed broadly on the desires of most modern women, one speaker
revealed the more nefarious agenda at the heart of feminism: access to abortion and the upending
of the natural order. She noted the importance of gender equality campaigns in the global south for
“transforming gender norms” and for “advancing reproductive rights”.

The speaker then went on to explicitly state that under the guise of advancing gender equality is a
push for:

the removal of discrimination (gender quotas);
comprehensive sexual education (perversion and promiscuity);
mandating such sex-ed at schools (giving parental rights with one hand and taking them with
the other); and
nurturing intergenerational conversations which promote the right to abortion (specifically in
Latin America).

An objection to abortion was booed

The previous comments by the pro-abortion speaker were met with an intervention from a delegate
in the audience. She made an objection to abortion rights on the basis of international human
rights law, asking how bodily autonomy can include the killing of children.

This prompted the moderator to respond aggressively, effectively shutting down the pro-life
intervention and revealing the overwhelming support for abortion found in the room. Applause and
cheering in favour of abortion rights revealed the true spirit driving this and many of the UN’s
“humanitarian” efforts.

Elephant in the room: life’s realities

A second questioner asked how it is possible to balance a career with children. She suggested that
with two competing priorities, women are in an impossible situation. The ministers’ responses were
predictable: the core principle is that women can do what they want and that they need the
courage to follow their dreams.

If many women feel frustrated that they can’t be a bigger part of their children’s lives and if it is
impossible to add to the birthrate when paid careers are the priority, then the government must
create family-friendly policies so that women can both work and be mothers.

Conclusion

While believing themselves to be at the forefront of a successful women’s rights movement, the
five Nordic ministers have instead revealed their inability to convince younger generations of the
benefits of feminist ideology or to reverse a rapidly-declining population rate.

They emphasised their belief that it is wrong for men to be perceived as the breadwinners,
underscoring how feminists impose their own definitions on the roles of men and fathers. They
then keep reminding society of the definitions they have advanced in order to maintain them. This
itself is proof that the definitions are not self-evident: they must be imposed rather than observed.
Despite the slick packaging as “women’s justice”, the Nordic ministers showed that the tools of
choice for feminists are propaganda, censorship, and an unhealthy reliance on the welfare state.

About the author
Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother and home-educated her children for the
best part of 30 years. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion
exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018.
Her articles have appeared at Family Life International, LifeSiteNews, the Daily Declaration, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.

US resolution to protect women and girls faces uphill battle at the UN

Published on March 20, 2026March 20, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is wrapping up this week amid historic disagreement between delegations over what it means to be a woman. You read that right. Diplomats at the annual international meeting focused on “women’s issues” are engaged in negotiations and backroom maneuvers to avoid clearly defining what they mean by the word “gender.”

By Grace Melton

Last week, when the meeting opened, it was the first time in the commission’s 70 years that the “agreed conclusions”—the negotiated document that the diplomats usually adopt by consensus—had to go to a vote.

The U.S. diplomats requested that the commission members take more time to negotiate a document that all countries could agree to, and then subsequently proposed amendments to the document that would have brought it more in line with U.S. policy. The U.S. opposed the “ambiguous language promoting gender ideology,” as well as references to “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which U.N. agencies use to promote abortion.

But the chair of the Commission on the Status of Women, Costa Rica’s Maritza Chan Valverde, used procedural machinations to require that the proposed U.S. amendments be packaged together, effectively killing their chances of passage. She was able to censor the countries that shared some of the U.S.’ objections to the document but were unwilling to join in opposition to all of them.

Ultimately, the controversial “agreed conclusions” were adopted by a vote of 37 in favour, with six abstentions and only the U.S. voting “no.”

This ideological battle is nothing new. The U.N. bureaucracy and European countries routinely push gender ideology and a radical abortion agenda under the guise of women’s rights and gender equality. And over the past several years they have labeled their opposition—those who hold traditional beliefs about the sanctity of life and the protection of the family—as “the pushback” or “anti-rights actors.”

Last year, the newly reelected Trump administration opposed the business-as-usual progressive agenda at the Commission on the Status of Women. And this year, the U.S. is taking its defense of women and girls a step further. As the new Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance Policy illustrates, the Trump administration intends to “promote human flourishing” by opposing abortion, gender ideology, and DEI activities at home and abroad.

After losing the vote last week, the U.S. delegation is now proposing a new resolution on the “Protection of Women and Girls Through Appropriate Terminology.” It seeks to reaffirm the original language from the 1994 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which defines “gender” according to “its ordinary, generally accepted usage, as referring to men and women.” It rejects any expansion of the term to include “gender identity” or other subjective and ideological terms.

Pro-life and pro-family organizations, including Family Watch International, are encouraging the many countries that consistently oppose radical gender ideology to join with the U.S. in sponsoring the resolution.

While the U.S. resolution faces an uphill battle—some say insurmountable—these countries would be wise to support it nonetheless. A strong showing of support would challenge any assertion that customary international law has developed to expand the meaning of gender to include “transgender” or other so-called gender identities.

Such support would build on the momentum of the successful vote late last year in the General Assembly to remove controversial “sexual orientation and gender identity” language from a resolution on implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. And it would send a clear message to U.N. bureaucrats that U.N. Member States have the sovereign right to define U.N. policy through transparent processes.

The dangers of gender ideology are not theoretical. Reem Alsalem, U.N. special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, has highlighted many of them in her recent report on sex-based violence against women and girls. Women’s dignity, privacy, safety, and opportunities are at stake when men can violate female-only spaces by claiming to “identify” as women.

Sadly, much of the world is only beginning to understand the horrific physical and psychological harms that those who have attempted to “transition” to another sex, boys and girls alike, have experienced under the euphemistically named “gender-affirming care” regimen of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and surgeries that aim to change the appearance of their bodies.

For too long, activists on the Left have insisted that abortion is necessary for women’s empowerment, that motherhood and family are impediments to personal fulfillment, and now, that “gender identity” is something real that others must validate.

These are lies that hurt women and girls. In the decades since the Beijing conference, more people have come to recognize them as ideological deceptions that hurt men, women, and children alike. Now it’s time for more countries to confront those lies at the U.N., even when that means they’ll likely lose a vote.

Republished from The Daily Signal.

About the author: Grace Melton is senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Human Flourishing.

UN agencies call to censor pro-life speech

Published on February 12, 2026February 12, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Digital platforms should be held accountable for allowing misinformation on abortion. These agencies working in tandem say pro-life speech is tantamount to “misinformation” and should be stopped.

By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. at C-Fam

The UN’s human reproduction program (HRP), housed in the World Health Organization (WHO), recently published the first of a series of papers examining the impact of abortion “misinformation” as it relates to human rights. Their analysis requires their own idiosyncratic understanding of both misinformation and human rights.

For instance, they accept without caveat that abortion access is a right as part of “sexual and reproductive health and rights”, a term never defined or adopted in any international negotiated outcome.

The paper also cites independent experts and committees as sources of human rights standards. Such experts and committees offer recommendations and opinions on human rights treaties, though they have no authority to create new human rights apart from the plain language of the various human rights treaties.

At the same time, the article makes no mention of the consensus position of the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994) that the legal status of abortion is solely for individual governments to determine.

The authors define misinformation as “false, inaccurate, or misleading information shared without intent to deceive,” while disinformation is spread with knowledge and intent to deceive, and “a particularly harmful form of misinformation, with the potential to deliberately erode human rights protections and restrict access to evidence-based care.”

As an example, the authors cite an article claiming that “inaccurate beliefs about fetal pain were linked with antiabortion views, shaping attitudes toward access and policy.” However, the article they cite bases its view of when unborn children can first feel pain on a “current medical consensus” that simply does not exist, while labeling survey participants who support abortion restrictions based on fetal pain as “anti-choice,” a clearly partisan—and derogatory—label.

The article also expressly calls out the U.S.-based Project 2025 project for containing “strategies to embed misinformation into federal governance by altering agency mandates and rewording policies to stigmatize and delegitimize [sexual and reproductive health.]” Here, the citation is to an article in the feminist and pro-abortion Ms. Magazine.

Another example of misinformation offered by the HRP article is the fact that a Canadian Catholic hospital blocked access to the websites of abortion clinics. The article is broadly critical of traditional cultural and religious views; it expresses alarm that a “a rising anti-rights movement in Ethiopia, aligned with the US Christian Right, is working to dismantle the right to safe and legal abortion.” It takes for granted that the nonbinding opinions of UN human rights experts take precedence over religious beliefs. “Human rights standards related to equality and nondiscrimination are routinely impacted” by misinformation, they write, “particularly when gender stereotypes, religious ideologies, or cultural beliefs are used to delegitimize SRHR.” In other words, anything that casts abortion in a negative light is misinformation.

The article does offer some examples of what would commonly be understood as misinformation and disinformation, such as scammers purveying “miracle drugs” and clearly unqualified people offering spurious medical advice on TikTok. However, the HRP authors’ credibility is undermined by their own ideological biases and overreliance on citing others who share them. Ultimately, whatever policy and legal solutions they recommend will have the effect of stifling pro-life voices and censoring conservative viewpoints if they are implemented.

By Rebecca Oas. C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

Lack of demand for contraceptives?

Published on January 22, 2026January 23, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

A recent report from the Guttmacher Institute intended to promote increased funding for contraceptives admitted that most women don’t actually want them.

By Rebecca Oas.

A recent report from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute intended to promote increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health,” including family planning, admitted that, in fact, the majority of so-called “need” for contraceptives is made up of women who have expressed no openness to using them or have rejected them explicitly.

The latest edition of Guttmacher’s Adding It Up continues to promote the concept of an “unmet need” for family planning, which is often misconstrued by family planning proponents like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) as a lack of access. In reality, as a 2016 report by Guttmacher reveals, only five percent of women described as having a “need” say the reason is lack of access.

The new report introduces the concept of “unmet demand,” described as the “narrowest” subset of “unmet need,” which is made up of women “who want to avoid pregnancy and say they are interested in or open to using contraception in the future.” This category includes an estimated 78 million women—less than half of the total 214 million with “unmet need.”

The broader definition of “unmet need” includes women who want to avoid pregnancy but are not using a family planning method, regardless of the reason. This aligns with the metrics used in previous Adding It Up reports, as well as indicators in use at the United Nations for decades. However, as Guttmacher admits, “it is not the most appropriate estimate of actual need for contraception.”

This is because, when asked, most women with a “need” cite concerns about health risks and side effects of contraceptive methods, personal or religious opposition, or infrequent sex as their reasons for non-use. Based on the 2016 estimate that five percent of “unmet need” was due to lack of access, even most of the women in the narrower category of “unmet demand” are making a personal choice not to use contraceptives.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, “[f]ocusing on this [narrower] group helps prioritize limited resources.” However, they insist that “broader investments will ultimately be needed to reach the many other women who also face barriers to contraceptive care.” Based on Guttmacher’s own data, these “barriers” are likely to be women’s own priorities and decisions.

The Adding It Up report estimates that it would cost $104 billion a year to address the “unmet demand” for contraception, all maternal and newborn care, abortion services, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections for women in low and middle-income countries.

However, it emphasizes that “[e]very dollar spent on contraceptive services beyond the current level would save $2.48 in the cost of maternal, newborn and abortion care.” While this may sound like a way to reduce abortion, there are two important problems. First, it presumes that funding more contraceptives will result in increased use, despite the evidence coming from the same organization demonstrating that the market for family planning is approaching saturation.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Guttmacher Institute is calling for investment in “sexual and reproductive health” organizations that provide abortions and lobby for abortion in pro-life countries and are explicitly trying to siphon funding away from maternal and child health services in favor of contraception. This does nothing to build the basic health infrastructure required by the women who will want to become mothers, and their children, in the poorest regions of the world.

Nordic governments most radical at UN

Published on January 6, 2026January 6, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

When it comes to the sexual revolution, the Nordic governments continue to show they are among the most radical in the world. This was borne out again at the most recent session of the Universal Periodic Review, where governments review each other’s human rights records.

The Nordics continued to pressure other governments on abortion, gender ideology, and extreme sex-ed. In the most recent session of the UPR, where thirteen countries were reviewed, there were 35 instances where governments were pressured to liberalize their abortion laws. Twelve of them came from Nordic governments, which include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—but predominantly Iceland. Iceland generates by far the most abortion pressure out of all 193 UN member states at the UPR—around 20 percent of the total in the last completed review cycle.

The Nordic countries called for abortion to be legalized, decriminalized, and made more accessible, including by limiting the right of conscientious objection by health care providers.

On the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity, the governments under review were pressured 160 times, 33 of which were from Iceland (close to 20 percent). These recommendations included urging the Marshall Islands to legalize same-sex marriage and “introduce a transparent administrative self-identification process for legal gender recognition free from intrusive requirements.” Iceland and Norway urged several countries to decriminalize same-sex sexual behavior and enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that included sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories.

Iceland also recommended that Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, and Panama guarantee that comprehensive sexuality education be provided, both in and out of school settings.

Nordic countries are among the top funders of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UN Women, which in turn promote SRHR in developing countries where they work. This is despite the fact that the UN General Assembly has never accepted the SRHR terminology—despite decades of repeated efforts by the Nordics and their allies.

Unlike the U.S., which is a bigger donor but undergoes significant shifts in its foreign policy depending on which party controls Congress and the White House, the Nordic countries have maintained consistent political and financial support for SRHR over time. This has included Sweden’s launch of the first explicitly feminist foreign policy in 2014, a 2020 statement from Nordic prime ministers opposing any restrictions on abortion, and a 2024 joint statement from Nordic gender ministers in support of LGBTI rights.

In addition to their funding for UN agencies earmarked for promoting SRHR, Nordic countries also strategically fund activist groups within developing countries, particularly where social norms remain largely pro-life and pro-family. In 2014, the Queen of Denmark announced a new funding mechanism called Amplify Change, which supports “grassroots movements for SRHR.” It has provided grants for groups promoting abortion, “sex work,” comprehensive sexuality education, and reducing stigma around LGBT issues.

Despite continued Nordic investment in international SRHR, Sweden decided in 2022 to abandon the explicitly “feminist” framing of its foreign policy after a right-wing bloc won in a general election. This year, Norway’s left-wing government narrowly held on to power despite gains on the right. However, while populist parties make gains in the Nordic region, often motivated by mass immigration, it remains to be seen whether this will translate into a rightward movement on social issues in their foreign policy.