Autor: Douglas A. Sylva Fuente: C-FAM (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute)

As news of the Center for Reproductive Right’s (CRR) top secret memos to establish international abortion and “sexual” rights spreads within the public policy community, CRR has stepped up its campaign to silence critics by threatening more groups with lawsuits. Organizations including Focus on the Family and have received letters similar to the one sent to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, ordering them to “cease and desist” further discussion of the subject, to return all copies of the memo, and to provide CRR with a detailed list of all groups and individuals informed by the organizations about CRR. A man posing as a reported also quizzed John-Henry Westin, editor of the Canadian-based Life Site News, demanding to know when Westin received the documents. The man refused to tell Westin who he was working for and also refused to leave a telephone number causing Westin to assume the man was a CRR investigator posing as a reporter.

Citing first amendment protections and the fact that the memos are now part of the Congressional Record, neither groups has assented to CRR’s demands.

At the same time, analysis of the documents continues to reveal startling details of both the means and long-term goals of the abortion-advocacy group. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), who introduced the memos into the Congressional Record, notes that “One of their strategies is to manipulate international norms to force countries to do what CRR wants.” In the memos, CRR states that “there are several advantages to relying primarily on interpretations of hard norms. As interpretations of norms acknowledging reproductive rights are repeated in international bodies, the legitimacy of these rights is reinforced. In addition the gradual nature of this approach ensures that we are never in an ‘all-or-nothing’ situation where we may risk a major setback.”

Smith highlights the fact that, in these memos, intended only for CRR and its pro-abortion allies, CRR candidly mentions that this strategy has not yet worked. According to Smith, “Thankfully, they admit that they have not been successful so far in twisting the international definition of human rights to include the killing of unborn children through abortion. They disclose that, in their opinion, ‘…there is no binding hard norm that recognizes women’s right to terminate a pregnancy.’ And ‘…the global community has fallen short of recognizing a right to independent decision-making in abortion, providing us with relatively few short norms.’”

Smith also describes CRR’s domestic goals, “CRR has programs to work with major medical groups to oppose parental involvement in abortion decisions and to ‘debunk the extent of parental rights currently recognized.’ They have programs on forcing hospitals to do abortions and on forcing taxpayers to use state and federal funds to pay for abortion. They even go so far as to target Pregnancy Resource Centers.”

John O’Neil, a pro-life advocate from California, also notes that CRR acknowledges that it intends to undermine laws mandating the reporting of child abuse for what CRR labels “non-abusive sexual relations,” which appears to mean that CRR intends to fight age of consent laws, the primary goal of groups such as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Haz politica es una publicación que promueve la participación política del ciudadano y su intervención en los asuntos públicos que atañen a la familia con su acción, su opinión y su voto.
Derechos reservados -  Solo: