Youth Blog

NEW YORK CITY, UN HEADQUARTERS March 12, 2024 (Campaign Life Coalition)

As day two sets the 68th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women into full swing, our young delegates truly enter the lion’s den. With the hallways clamoring with the chatter of activists from around the world, we can’t help but note the seemingly touristic feel in contrast to most other commissions throughout the year.

During an event on "Harnessing Social Protection to Tackle Poverty and Empower Women and Girls," speakers focused on the issue of “time poverty” – which occurs when women take on a greater bulk of domestic labour than men – and economic strategies for its alleviation. The panelists spoke at length regarding different economic policies that could be implemented to fight against the “unfair” division of domestic labour. Their main strategy, however, seemed to assume that the equitable way to alleviate the financial burden felt by mothers who are simultaneously working full time jobs is by either providing for those women financially, through government support, or by creating environments where women can hand off their children to be cared for. Not once was the role of fatherhood in financially supporting and caring for the family mentioned, nor were policy measures focused on keeping the family intact and upholding its integrity in society discussed.

Upholding women with support as they raise children is a virtuous and honorable goal; advocating for the dismemberment and poisoning of their unborn children is not. Nonetheless, one of the panelists, Marie-Colline Leroy, the State Secretary for Gender Equality, Equal Opportunities and Diversity from Belgium, mentioned that one of the recommended policy strategies for gender equality includes the funding of universal healthcare including “reproductive rights.” The Deputy Executive Director of UN WOMEN, Sima Bahous, spoke about how many women were unable to be there today, because they’re at home caring for their children, something she positioned as "unjust" and "unfair." In effect, maternal care and motherhood was painted as burdensome and limiting to the furtherance of female interests, rather than a fulfillment of such interests.

Interestingly, during the event, a woman in the crowd was holding her young baby on her chest. During the talk, the baby cooed, and the crowd awed. One of the panelists praised the woman for bringing her baby with her, allowing her to tend to her maternal duties while doing work. What was most striking was the immense irony of it all – something none of the panelists realized. This woman who they had just praised was a striking counterexample to their entire thesis, that domestic labour puts women in an unfair position and limits their success and flourishing.

In an event later on, organized by the Center for Reproductive Rights and co-sponsored by the permanent missions of Luxembourg, Colombia, and Canada, panelists from Colombia, Poland, the Philippines, El Salvador and the United States spoke extensively about the various legal and economic barriers to the “right” to an abortion in each of their countries.

Rachana Desai Martin, the Chief Government and External Relations Officer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, moderated the discussion, maintaining that the criminalization of abortion increases the stigma surrounding it, delays abortion “care,” and spurs unnecessary travel. In introducing the discussion, she contended that one of the main goals of the panelists is to increase the global recognition that abortion should be decriminalized through their advocacy.

One of the “victims” of the criminalization of abortion spoke on the panel – a woman who aided her friend in accessing an abortion pill and who was prosecuted by the Polish government. The panelist, Justyna Wydrzyńska, is the co-founder of Abortion Dream Team Poland, and a self-professing “human rights defender.” She spoke about the details of the virtuous and heroic act that landed her prosecuted: she helped her friend terminate her fetus against the wishes of her friend’s husband, who reported them both. She flippantly overlooked the husband’s distress and voice, glazing over the detail of the story as if it were an insignificant factor. She referred to his behaviour as part of a broader attempt of third parties to interfere with and “punish” women. Despite these measures, however, Wydrzyńska maintained that the abortion pill provided a solution. She said, “This doesn’t mean we don’t have solutions. We found something magical... the pills., which let us be our own masters and do our own abortions ourselves.”

Nia Mitchell, representing the Policy and Research Center at Reproductive Health Impact, spoke about how Roe v. Wade’s reversal drastically impacted American jurisprudence regarding the question of abortion. She talked about current bans taking place across the United States and implored the women in the room to oppose these bans and to repeal them as one of their first steps. She also recognized the dissemination of Comprehensive Sexual Education as endemic to the pro-abortion cause.

The panel ended with a speech from MLA Nahanni Fontaine, a Canadian politician from Manitoba. She spoke about how Canada juxtaposed the dire situations of other countries spoken about at the panel, insofar as Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. She highlighted this as a key feature which distinguished Canada as a far more civilized and humane nation as it relates to “reproductive justice.” Despite these “successes,” Fontaine maintained that Canadians still face a challenge: the rise of anti-choice movements, which have even begun to influence proposed legislation. She criticized the fact that 48 “anti-choice” bills have been introduced in the past decades, and explained that Canadians need to take a stand against it, which is why she introduced her bubble zone bill to criminalize any sort of protesting in front of abortion clinics. She called our position a clear “war on women,” and said that women shouldn’t be asked to justify their abortions since men aren’t asked to, for example, “justify their prostate exams.” 

Bewildered by this remark, one of our delegates, Liana, approached her afterward. She told Fontaine that she is from Canada, and said to Fontaine that she didn’t understand her analogy – did prostate exams result in the death of a human being? When Liana asked this, Fontaine took a step back and said, “you’re at the wrong side event.” Apparently, discourse and challenge at a commission supposedly meant to facilitate international dialogue is not welcome because… well, she didn’t give Liana any reasons. Fontaine proceeded to ignore Liana. Liana then asked Fontaine's assistant if she believed in human rights for all human beings. The assistant told Liana that she “believes in the bodily autonomy of women.” After that, they refused to engage with her.

Liana also spoke to some delegates who came with Fontaine in the hallway, afterwards, and asked them about her speech. She asked them if abortion involved another body, which would make it disanalogous to a mere “prostate exam.” They maintained that fetuses are “not bodies” (whatever that means?) and that fetuses are “literally just a cell.” These are the bright young minds influencing legislation in Canada. Ironically, these are the same people accusing pro-lifers and pregnancy care centres of spreading "misinformation and disinformation." They don’t even understand basic human biology. 

An event sponsored by IPAS Africa Southern Region focused on the different policy measures in place in Africa which have furthered women’s “rights” to an abortion. The moderator introduced the organization as one which focuses on three main countries: Malawi, South Africa, and Zambia. Seeking to “hold governments accountable” and promote SRHR that is “intertwined” with climate and gender justice, the moderator, Tafadzwa Madondo, spoke of eight primary pillars IPAS recognizes as integral to advancing "gender equal" policy, including financing and political support. The group drew a shoddy correlation between high rates of maternal mortality and a lack of access to abortion “care,” ignoring altogether other potential explanations of Africa’s high maternal mortality rate. This was used as compelling grounds to warrant “reprioritizing the budget” to promote SRHR in African countries. Interestingly enough, the panel still recognized abortion as a “sensitive topic”.

Another panelist, Mike Mpoyi, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, identified himself as a former abortionist. He stressed that on top of financing for abortion, societies need to act to “de-stigmatize” abortion. He maintained that Africa needs to evolve socially as well as politically, maintaining that there once was a time when one “couldn’t pronounce the word abortion without people calling you a baby killer.” However, he said that advocacy has “broken the silence,” and “the taboo has been lifted.”

Dr. Jess Rucell with the Sexual Reproductive Justice Coalition (SRJC) identified three main pillars of abortion policy: de-medicalization, de-criminalization, and de-stigmatization. In the context of de-medicalization, she maintained that women are able to “safely self-manage their abortions” – in obvious ignorance of the clear lethal and traumatic effects the abortion pill has on women (not to mention their children). 

During the Q & A session, an attendee in the crowd -- a “reverend” who made a point to announce that she uses "she" and "her" pronouns – expressed that “the most vociferous opposition” to abortion comes from the faith community. She asked how to incorporate members of religious groups into abortion advocacy plans. Mpoyi answered, maintaining that pastors have played an integral role in the work they are doing in Africa. Another woman in the crowd asked how the panel would respond to instances where abusers have coerced women into abortion, and where abortion has served as a tool to perpetuate the violence and trauma inflicted onto women by the hands of exploitative men. Echoing this sentiment was another questioner from the audience, who asked why abortion is prioritized over the prosecution of criminals – she said that abortion leaves women vulnerable and traumatized, implying that it is not the best solution to the trauma and horror of sexual abuse. The panelists were bewildered by these suggestions and said that abortion can exist as a “right” while criminals are prosecuted, ultimately unacknowledging the instrumental role abortion can play in the perpetuation and enabling of abuse.

In an event on "Disability Inclusion in SRHR towards achieving Gender Equality," Hellen Anurika Beyioku-Alase, President of the Deaf Women Association of Nigeria, described an IPAS project that educated deaf women on SRHR (mainly contraception) and educated health care workers on respecting people with disabilities. Lucky Palmer, Director of Ipas Nigeria Health Foundation, indicated a woman may need an abortion if she's raped. (Disabled women, it was implied, may be particularly susceptible to gender-based violence because law enforcement is unsympathetic and there's an attitude that they should just be grateful that someone is interested.) During the Q & A session, CLC's Director of Education & Advocacy Josie Luetke said, "Speaking of disability inclusion, many people with disabilities are targeted by abortion. Some studies show the majority of children with Down Syndrome are killed in the womb.” Josie pointed to the contradiction and called aboriton the worst form of exclusion, because the unborn are losing their lives. Palmer dismissed the question by stating that abortion is restricted in Nigeria, so they do not discriminate (at least not based on disability in the womb).

An OB/GYN (and former abortionist), who is suspected to be onside, also asked about access to prenatal care and delivery services. Both Hellen and Lucky acknowledged that it's a big challenge, and Hellen, a mother to four children, described how neglected she felt by health care professionals during her pregnancies. But do any of the UN side or parallel events focus on maternal health care? Or is it always just abortion, contraception, and sex-ed? 

A later event was held to spotlight the voices of indigenous women “on the barriers and opportunities towards their inclusive socio-economic development.” It was hosted by the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the Manitoba government, and featured several Canadian politicians, namely Manitoban MLA Nahanni Fontaine; MP Marci Ien, Minister of Women and Gender Equality; and MP Patty Hajdu, Minister of Indigenous Services. During the question period, our delegate Maria asked about Trudeau's $4.3 million in "SRHR" funding specifically for the intention of providing abortion and contraceptive access to Indigenous women, especially in rural areas, and how that could be seen as anything other than another type of colonial genocide – reinforcing the desire to "control" their populations. Indigenous women, historically, experienced vast reproductive injustices that included forced abortion and sterilization. Following a moment of silence and several feminists rolling their eyes, Fontaine responded mockingly, stating that “You guys are in the wrong room.” Her comment was met with astounding cheers from the other panelists, including Canadian Cabinet Ministers Ien and Hajdu.

Following the event, Mayra Rodriguez, a former Planned Parenthood Director in Arizona turned pro-life spokeswoman, approached Maria to thank her for her courage and for presenting the pro-life position in such a hostile environment. Several attendees approached Maria to reprimand her for being “wrong,” “insensitive,” and “racist.” Mayra stepped in to defend Maria’s comment and proceeded to escort her out of the room, despite the attendees shouting after them.

This story of courage exemplifies the impact of pro-life engagement at the United Nations – presenting the pro-life perspective in divisive contexts that would otherwise exist as echo chambers, void of consideration for the lives of the unborn. Our team continues to engage delegates, diplomats, and panelists in conversation so that we can re-affirm the sanctity of all human life, from the moment of conception until natural death.