ICPD Review “Outcome Documents” and “Follow-Ups”
The chart below provides direct quotes from the following ICPD 20-year review “outcome documents”
For the following reasons, States should strongly oppose any references to ICPD review “outcome documents” or ICPD “follow-ups” unless qualified by “as adopted by the UN General Assembly”:
1. Most of the multiple 20-year ICPD review outcome documents aggressively promote abortion and controversial sexual rights that conflict with the laws, culture and religions of many Member States. (See excerpts below).
2. None of the 20-year ICPD review outcome documents were negotiated transparently by all States and/or adopted transparently by the full UN General Assembly (UNGA). The strategy to use ICPD review outcome documents was pre-planned by UNFPA. They knew they couldn’t get their radical agendas adopted if the 20-year review was done the traditional way with all UN Member State experts at the negotiation table. In fact, they were afraid that open negotiations by all States might result in a setback to their abortion/sexual rights agenda. So, UNFPA and their allied partner countries concocted a scheme whereby they could host and, therefore, manipulate multiple thematic and regional 20-year ICPD reviews away from the New York experts who understand and would have opposed all the deceptive terms they use. UNFPA then simply summarized their manipulated regional and thematic ICPD review outcome documents in their Global ICPD Beyond 2014 Report, passing that document off as the 20-year global review “follow-up” for ICPD, even though it was never negotiated. A clever plan indeed. And, the result is a global ICPD review and “follow up” document that includes over 130 highly controversial references. (See below.)
3. The language referring to ICPD review “outcome documents” and/or ICPD “follow-ups” is intentionally vague and elastic, so it also could refer to future outcome documents of reviews that have not yet even been conducted. For example, the first time this ICPD review “outcome document” language was adopted was in 2013 at CSW 57, immediately before the series of pre-planned radical UNFPA-led 20-year reviews (excerpted below) were conducted, and before anyone knew how controversial the multiple thematic and regional ICPD review outcome documents would be. This was intentional to get the upcoming radical review endorsed in advance and then to make it harder to oppose it in subsequent documents since it would already be agreed language.
4. UNFPA manipulated all of the regional ICPD reviews, the youth ICPD review, and others, and even outright lied in their purported UNGA ICPD review document (see below) in order to promote abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, LGBT rights and more.
5. UNFPA and their abortion-minded partner Member States invested millions of dollars putting on these multiple, manipulative review conferences for ICPD in order to insert their radical agendas to the farthest extent possible in each of the ICPD “outcome documents” and “follow-ups” (excerpted below). And they have been determined to get them deceptively endorsed in all negotiated UN documents ever since.
Note: While the regional 20-year ICPD reviews may have been negotiated by governments at the regional level, UNFPA heavily manipulated those governments during the reviews to include controversial terms and phrases that might otherwise have been rejected by many of their UN experts who understand better than their regional counterparts how controversial terms would be interpreted.