Note: This second part of our special report will provide extensive, never-before revealed evidence of the UN’s radical anti-family and anti-life agendas. Please take the time to sign the Life and Family Nairobi Declaration here. Thank you!
by Sharon Slater, President of Family Watch International
For Part I, which provides the background on the Nairobi Summit and the many good and positive outcomes from the Summit, please click here.
1. UNFPA Openly Discriminates Against Pro-Life, Pro-Family and Religious Persons. As briefly mentioned in Part I of this special report, the Nairobi Summit was the first time UNFPA effectively blocked pro-life, UN-accredited NGOs from even participating in their radical UN-sponsored conference held November 12-14, 2019. Pro-family NGOs often have been at a disadvantage at the UN due to unfair procedures, but we always have worked through such problems to advocate our positions and have never been completely shut out of the UN process that creates international policies.
2. UNFPA’s Deceptive Goals. Many governments and NGOs committed to UNFPA’s suggested sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) goals thinking they were about preventing maternal mortality, gender violence, promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls. However, as will be shown in the “Ugly” sections below, the Nairobi Summit organizers intended all along to define SRHR in a way that would include and advance controversial abortion, LGBT, comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) rights, and more as the solution for maternal mortality and the empowerment of women and girls. UNFPA and its partners moved their agenda forward in Nairobi by employing many nice-sounding terms that were never a part of any of the official ICPD conference documents—terms like “sexual minorities,” “marginalized youth,” “rights and choices for youth,” and “bodily autonomy.” Multiple calls were made to end “unsafe abortion” by legalizing abortion as if that somehow would make abortions “safe.” One of their favorite talking points was to always associate “sexual minorities” with indigenous and disabled persons to create LGBT status as a victim class needing special protection. This was a play right out of the LGBT handbook, “After the Ball.”
The Ugly – UNFPA’s Initiatives to Sexualize our Children
Direct Quotes from UNFPA’s Tune Me Phone App for Youth:
CONCERN: Since when did children (or adolescents, as UNFPA calls them, which begin at 10 years old according to the agency) get rights to make their own sexual decisions? UNFPA is outright promoting rights for children to (i) have sex with whomever they want whenever they want, and (ii) be affirmed in whatever gender identity they choose. What about the children’s parents? What authority does UNFPA have to try to grant these radical rights to children to which neither their parents nor Member States have consented? Do UNFPA’s fictitious rights also include transgender hormones and surgeries for youth without parental consent? UNFPA needs to be reined in.
CONCERN: What UNFPA means is that the UN agency wants to end “unsafe abortion” by promoting its legalization across the world. UNFPA and its abortion-minded partners equate “unsafe abortion” with illegal abortion, and they argue that legalizing abortion will prevent maternal death and other consequences. But their real agenda is to promote abortion globally by legalizing it everywhere as UNFPA’s best friends and major partners in organizing the Nairobi Summit included Marie Stopes and IPPF, the largest providers of abortion in the world, among many others. UNFPA’s messaging is a very deceptive play on words and ignores the real and significant consequences of abortions, whether performed legally or illegally, as documented in Family Watch’s brief on the negative consequences of abortion.
CONCERN: When UNFPA says “confidential services” they mean services given to youth that are kept confidential from the parents—that is, without their knowledge and consent. See, for example, the World Health Organization’s publication, “Making Health Services Adolescent Friendly,” which defines “confidential” on page 34 as “staff do not disclose any information given to or received from an adolescent, to a third party (for example, family members…) without their consent.” UNFPA and their pro-abortion partners also define a “non-judgmental” health workforce to mean workers who are LGBT supportive and that condone, or at least do not oppose, promiscuity and abortion.
CONCERN: We already saw the kind of CSE that UNFPA intends to indoctrinate youth with based on the contents of UNFPA’s Tune Me phone app (see above). CSE is UNFPA’s number one tool for advancing its radical agenda to indoctrinate and sexualize children. With regard to “safe schools and spaces,” see the U.S. publication “Creating Safe Spaces for LGBT Youth,” which describes “safe spaces” as “places where LGBT youth can feel free to express their sexual orientation, their gender identity, their gender expression, as well as all of the other dimensions of their being without fear.” UNFPA says such spaces are “critical to proper development.” With regard to “safe schools,” Keven Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that is the leading U.S. education organization focused on promoting homosexuality in schools, was appointed to be the U.S. “safe schools” czar. That is, until he was pressured to resign for using this banner to promote homosexuality in U.S. schools. In other words, “safe schools” and “safe spaces” are terms often used as euphemisms for LGBT-affirming and LGBT-supportive spaces.
CONCERN: Every parent should be very concerned that a UN agency is trying to partner with their adolescent child to help them embrace “autonomy” in sexual matters. This initiative is right out of IPPF’s sexual rights handbook.
–“stigma based on age, gender, sexual orientation,”
CONCERN: How will UNFPA end such stigma? By promoting LGBT rights for youth.
–“early and/or unintended pregnancies”
CONCERN: How will UNPFA end such pregnancies? By securing abortion.
–“discriminatory power structures and gender and social norms”
CONCERN: How will UNFPA end such alleged discriminatory norms? Changing moral laws and religious norms by indoctrinating the rising generation and going around parents to create and advance rights for youth to abortion, LGBT privileges, and promiscuity.
In summary, with UNFPA’s global strategy “My Body, My Rights, My World—Rights and choices for all adolescents and youth,” UNFPA and their partner NGOs and governments have finally come out of the closet with their truly radical and harmful agenda for youth. This strategy is not based in and has nothing to do with international law and everything to do with a radical sexual agenda concocted with NGOs like IPPF who benefit monetarily from the negative consequences of early and promiscuous sex.
3. UNFPA Releases Radical ICPD25 Youth Engagement Toolkit. Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, UNFPA exposes its harmful agenda even further with its “ICPD25 Youth Engagement Toolkit.” In their youth toolkit, UNFPA outlined the following as “ICPD Key Issues” for adolescents even though none of these concepts were ever part of ICPD, and many UN Member States would strongly oppose them:
CONCERN: These UNFPA quotes provide yet another proof point that CSE is all about promoting promiscuity to youth through schools under the deceptive euphemism of “safe sex,” which ignores all of the physical, psychological and other harms resulting from sex outside of marriage. Family Watch will not express concerns where they are obvious, unless (as in this case) we feel a need to repeatedly ring an alarm.
CONCERN: This assertion may be the most concerning of all. UNFPA is actually saying that adolescents have the right to decide to use puberty blockers, dangerous cross-sex hormones, and genital mutilating and breast-removing surgeries without parental interference, so they can determine how their body should look (even if it does not correspond to their biological gender). Surely UNFPA has gone too far, putting this in a training kit for the world’s youth! The American College of Pediatricians has determined that transgenderism in children amounts to child abuse. See their statement here.
CONCERN: UNFPA’s attempt to link SRHR and climate change shows how desperate they are to implement their sexual agenda among the youth and that they will link SRHR to any vehicle they can to get it implemented.
The Ugliest of the Ugly
There are at least 10 very serious problems with the Nairobi Summit Outcome Statement and its Commitments. ICPD Outcome Statements are not international treaties, but some governments have treated them as legally binding because they typically contain consensus language. The good news is that ten countries clearly rejected those commitments (see Part I of this report), and because of those dissensions and other strong opposition, the Nairobi Statement clearly states that it is non-binding and does not infringe in any way on the national sovereignty of the countries that support it. But let no one be fooled: UNFPA and its partners will refer to the Nairobi Summit Outcome Statement in future UN conferences as an indication of allegedly growing global support for UNFPA’s radical sexual agenda. (See Action Items at end of this report on how to counter the Nairobi Statement.)
Here are the Ten Serious Problems:
1. Claims to represent “all nations and peoples, and all segments of our societies”; defines the empowerment of girls as “ensuring [their] sexual and reproductive health and rights” and calls for “active protection of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and human rights defenders.”
CONCERN: UNFPA is recruiting yet more partners, and even youth, to be “defenders” of its SRHR agenda. UNFPA and its partners are attempting to make it look like their SRHR agenda has worldwide support and thus it is an international custom or norm that governments must respect and adopt.
2. Calls for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights as a part of universal health coverage (UHC) … integrating a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health interventions” guided by “the expanded definition of SRHR interventions, as proposed in the Report of the Guttmacher/Lancet Commission on sexual and reproductive health and rights.”
CONCERN: The Guttmacher/Lancet commission referenced in the Nairobi Statement lists “abortion services” and “comprehensive sexuality education” as components of an essential SRHR package.
3. Calls upon governments to provide “access to safe abortion to the full extent of the law” and to “uphold the right to sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian and fragile contexts, by … the provision of access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, education and services, including access to safe abortion services to the full extent of the law.”
CONCERN: As the language above shows, any time UNFPA is addressing SRH or SRHR services, it’s all about CSE and abortion. There are two problems with this commitment:
4. Build “peaceful, just and inclusive societies, where no one is left behind, where all, irrespective of race, colour, religion, sex, age, disability, language, ethnic origin, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, feel valued and are able to shape their own destiny and contribute to the prosperity of their societies.”
CONCERN: This sounds so beautiful, doesn’t it? But establishing sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes equal to race, colour, disability and religion actually is harmful to the very people it seeks to elevate. Governments should not (i) encourage people (especially youth) to identify themselves based on their sexual preferences and/or gender confusion; or (ii) grant special rights to such individuals, especially when acting out on these preferences or confusions that may be temporary can lead to more negative outcomes for them.
The controversial nature of the Nairobi Outcome Statement continues as it commits governments to the following with regard to children:
5. Provide quality, timely and disaggregated data … inclusive of younger adolescents,” which UNFPA defines as “10-14 years of age.”
CONCERN: Perhaps UNFPA wants to track data on 10-year-old children so it can use the data to determine how to apply its radical SRHR agenda to adolescents as young as 10.
6. Invest in “digital health innovations.”
CONCERN: For example, UNFPA’s explicit “Tune Me” sex education app is a “digital health innovation” that sexualizes youth.
7. Adhere to the notion that “no decision on the health of youth can be made without their “meaningful involvement” (i.e., “nothing about us, without us”).
CONCERN: While this concept sounds reasonable, remember UNFPA’s push for governments to provide sexual services such as abortion to youth without parental consent. Also, UNFPA’s advocacy for the right of youth to participate in policymaking about anything that concerns them, is really just a ruse to give the 6,000 youth they have trained in their radical SRHR agenda the power to push it in legislatures and policymaking bodies around the world.
8. Obligates governments to provide CSE: Governments must provide “access for all adolescents and youth, especially girls, to comprehensive and age-responsive information, education and adolescent-friendly comprehensive, quality and timely services.” Then it adds a footnote that the education should be “in line with international technical guidance.”
CONCERN: The type of sexual education referred to is found in the UN’s International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (2018), which redefines abstinence to include “deciding when to start having sex and with whom” (page 71), and claims that abstinence programs “have been found to be ineffective and potentially harmful to young people’s sexual and reproductive health and rights” (page 18). The UN technical guidance also holds that sexuality [and thus sexuality education] encompasses “gender identity; sexual orientation; sexual intimacy; pleasure…” (page17); promotes “diversity in the way young people manage their sexual expression” (page 18); says adolescent girls are “generally less knowledgeable about their rights concerning abortion” (page 23); and asks students to “question social and cultural norms that impact sexual behaviour” (page 48), and to “differentiate between values they hold, and that their parents/guardians hold about sexuality” (page 46).
9. Enable adolescents and youth “to be able to make free and informed decisions and choices about their sexuality and reproductive lives.”
CONCERN: Adolescents (starting at age 10 as defined by UNFPA) do not have fully developed brains, nor do they have a right to make decisions and choices without the guidance of their parents who can protect them against harmful sexual agendas like the one UNFPA is openly promoting.
10. Invest in “sexual and reproductive health services, of adolescents and youth, especially girls,” so as to fully harness the promises of the demographic dividend.
CONCERN: The “demographic dividend” is a deceptive device used by UNFPA to entice developing countries into advancing UNFPA’s SRHR agenda as a way to reap economic benefits by suppressing the growth of their populations.
And all of this is what governments committed to if they signed the Nairobi Summit Outcome Statement! Although the Nairobi Statement is non-binding, at the Summit UNFPA received financial commitments of $9 billion ($1 billion from governments and $8 billion from private donors). These funds will be used to advance UNFPA’s harmful SRHR agenda in future UN conferences and other policymaking venues, which should concern us all. (See UNFPA Closing Ceremony.)
So What Can You Do About All This?