Think about all the possible solutions there are to protecting and supporting women. According to the United Nations (U.N.), one such solution has the power to fix every problem women face around the world.
Preventing child brides? A good cause, but no. Ending honor killings? Guess again. Stopping the gender-based abortions of millions of baby girls? Not even given a second thought (or even a first thought, for that matter).
Voice and Choice
Overlooking the East River from the tenth floor of the United Nation’s Church Center, I listened to U.N. “experts” evaluate the goals, triumphs, and failures of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 57, a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) commissioned by U.N. Women to encourage activity among civil society members. And it was here that I was told that the answer to all our women’s problems – at the global, national, and local levels – is nationalized health care. Who knew?
It makes sense that nationalized health care continues to be the CSW’s major goal in the coming years. Quickly, I realized that the majority of NGOs present at the expert meeting were abortion and homosexual activist organizations. And health care provides these NGOs and U.N. agencies with an umbrella by which to conceal global access to abortion-on-demand, sexual promiscuity, and population control. However, these “dirty words” were never uttered. Flowery phrases like “reproductive justice,” “gender mainstream,” and “family planning,” are preferred at the U.N.
Sadly, in our own nation we are following suit. President Barack Obama’s health care mandate – whether intentional or not – fits right in line with the U.N.’s agenda for secular globalization.
Mingling among the uber-liberal U.N. experts from around the world, I thought for sure I would encounter criticism for representing a Christian conservative organization. I was wrong. Being that I am under thirty (and look like an eighteen-year-old) and was friendly, they loved me. After all, indoctrination – or “inter-generational dialogue” as they call it – of young women is not only CSW 57’s major success, it is vital for the very survival of U.N. Women.
Over the past year, NGO’s utilized the concept of inter-generational dialogue by inviting young women and girls into private seminars that facilitated open discussions of gender inequality, sexuality, and abortion and contraception. For the future, NGOs are encouraged to do a better job of providing women and girls with safe, protected spaces and teaching them why feminist ideology matters. This way, entire communities (not nations) will be “empowered” to expose discrimination, stop rape and, somehow, magically create sustainable development in each nation.
To achieve this goal, the following steps were outlined in a PowerPoint presentation:
Use effective legislation and judiciary systems to create laws that address gender violence and take action (i.e., The Violence Against Women Act). Promote gender equality among boys and men. Utilize all forms of social media to engage girls. Implement a catalyst to bring all generations of girls and women into the NGO CSW board, and promote the importance of all stages of the “life cycle.”
Abortion, or “bodily integrity” as one panel expert explained it, is supposedly the major point of discussion that NGOs need to foster. Why? Because it is supposedly all that we young women care about. Not our lagging economies, deteriorating families, or eroding religious liberties. Bodily integrity. And again, this term was wrapped in a discussion of the importance of nationalized health care rights.
Nothing About Us Without Us
Finally, the major failure of CSW 57 is considered the lack of government engagement in the parallel events foisted by NGOs. According to Bette Levy, a panel expert on youth and family issues, “The CSW was less effective because NGOs did not build localized caucuses that encourage global discourse between the U.N. and civil societies and their government.”
Most importantly, the analogy of a three-legged stool was offered. Levy told the NGO representatives to consider U.N. agencies as representing one leg, NGOs representing the second, and member-states representing the third. While two legs can help the stool to stand, all three legs are needed to support the weight when someone sits down. However, this analogy drastically warps the purpose of the United Nations and dismisses the sovereignty of each nation-state. As Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, notes, “By using the three-legged stool analogy, these U.N. ‘experts’ are saying that the U.N. agencies and NGOs are coequal to the official delegates. In other words, the NGOs are no longer facilitators and advisors to their sovereign nation and respective U.N. representatives, but a triumvirate. Every American must take note of this serious mischaracterization of U.N. procedure.”
Continuing on, two separate processes occur during the CSW. First you have the “real business” of the member states and U.N. agencies, where negotiations occur, and U.N. documents and declarations are created. Then there is the “parallel business,” which consists of conferences for NGO participation. The trouble, according to Levy, is that not enough member states were encouraged by NGOs to participate in the parallel business.
She did not, however, accuse every member nation of being a complete failure. Canada, Norway, and the United Kingdom were each praised for their “effective” NGO agents, who scheduled at least two meetings with their respective government officials throughout the year before arriving at the CSW session.
The United States, on the other hand, was berated for “not making time” to meet with any women’s NGO representatives. In fact, Levy admitted that she has reached out to Canadian representatives to act as advisors to U.S. NGOs on how to better prepare for next year’s session.
Bottom line: Next year’s CSW session will focus on promoting nationalized health care that provides taxpayer-funded abortions, raises up the next generation of radical feminist activists, and convinces nations’ governments to pay attention to the U.N. because, after all, “We cannot get the language we want in the documents if [member states] are not present.” And that’s the ultimate agenda, isn’t it?