By Alan Mercer
Continuing from Part 3
References to United Nations Documents on Freedom of Conscience
Let’s observe how eliminating “discrimination” goes hand in hand with eliminating conscience.
Following up on some of the footnotes (29, 30, 31) included in Chapter III of IPCD and Human Rights by the Center for Reproductive Rights:
The following is a list of country reports from States Parties to be examined during this session:
And it lists the reports for selected nations that year who were evaluated on their performance in terms of this convention on discrimination against women. In addition to other social engineering aspects, this amounts to population control performance. The officials just don’t call it that.
Here we see how nations are not reporting to their local domestic public and being held accountable by their own values. Instead, national governments are reporting to international bureaucracies who follow the standards of international treaties they signed–with hardly any awareness by their own public. It isn’t just these types of issues. Almost everything I can think of works this way via one international organization or another.
The Government of the Republic of Poland, being a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, pursuant to article 18 of the Convention, hereby submits the 6th report on the application of the Convention in legislation and practice.
The 6th report covers the period between 1st June 1998 and 31st May 2002.
Article 12 (Equality in access to health care), section 191 (page 43)
NGOs’ information and cases reaching professional responsibility spokesmen indicate that public health care facilities were refusing to carry out abortions even when they were permitted by law. That signified abuse of the conscientious objection clause granted to individual physicians. In response, the Minister of Health reminded voivodes (heads of province-level government administration) that the law had to be implemented (March 2003).
This is how things work. This has been going on for a while. We’re already part of a global governing structure that regiments how we reproduce or don’t reproduce, and it reaches down to local governing bodies, such as the one that governs medicine in Ontario, in order to boss doctors around about their beliefs. Governments have already locked “our” governments into many agreements we are totally unaware of.
CEDAW/C/POL/CO/6: Concluding comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Poland (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/243/80/PDF/N0724380.pdf?OpenElement)
Paragraph 25 (page 5) refers to conscientious objection, sex education and other topics:
25. The Committee urges the State party to take concrete measures to enhance women’s access to health care, in particular to sexual and reproductive health services, in accordance with article 12 of the Convention and the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health. It calls on the State party to conduct research on the scope, causes and consequences of illegal abortion and its impact on women’s health and life. It also urges the State party to ensure that women seeking legal abortion have access to it, and that their access is not limited by the use of the conscientious objection clause. It requests the State party to strengthen measures aimed at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, including by making a comprehensive range of contraceptives widely available at an affordable price and by increasing knowledge and awareness about different methods of family planning. The Committee recommends that the State party give priority attention to the situation of adolescents and that it provide age-appropriate sex education, targeted at girls and boys, as part of educational curricula.
Educating the public worldwide about “family planning” is very important to global governing bodies and governments who submit reports to them. Is it really their business? They think so. Do you think it will affect whether you have grandchildren of your own? Of course.
Of course it’s going to stop people–including many in your family–from having babies.
That’s one of the reasons why the public schools exist. They’re for regimentation, indoctrination and implementation of a set planned agenda that is gradually altered decade by decade.
For example, the agenda was spelled out in detail by Fabian elite socialists a long time ago, like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and the Huxleys.
Control over our minds (education). Control over our biology (reproduction etc.) Control over our economics.
And that’s why the television is there. And that’s why the movies are the way they are. The messages are embedded in the stories, and they are delivered straight into your head and those of the children you claim are yours.
What do you and your FAMILY and your heritage have to say about it?
All the propaganda about “equality”, all the one-sided promotion of dubious pharmaceuticals, all the new “options” in terms of lifestyle we’ve suddenly discovered. All the free tax-funded abortions and sterilization procedures. All the lucky people who are going to get the “right” to die someday in addition to the “right” to kill their babies. They already have the “right” to have their organs harvested. We have the “right” to hand everything over to the government too, including our minds to tax-funded propaganda. Maybe you can argue that you do have some of these rights naturally or philosophically in some form, but do you really need to exercise them all at once when you’re told to–on cue–when you’re given instructions by people and institutions you are forced to fund? Is that you exercising your “rights”?
A/HRC/14/20/Add.3 – 20 May 2010
United Nations General Assembly
Human Rights Council
Agenda item 3:
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover
Mission to Poland
Paragraphs 23, 24 (Section III, page 7):
Article 18 of the 1997 Polish Constitution stipulates that “motherhood and parenthood shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland”. In the same context, article 47 guarantees everyone the right to legal protection of their private and family life. The 1993 Act on Family Planning further sets out issues directly related to sexual and reproductive health rights obliging government and territorial or regional governments to provide women with medical, social and legal care, specifying which form this care should take. However, the law concerning consent of parents for advice on contraception in the case of minors, and the concepts of “assisted reproduction” and “conscientious objection” are open to different interpretations, and thus the legal uncertainty may limit or prevent access to redress.
24. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern that, despite the ratification by the Government of Poland of human rights treaties and declared commitment to honour them, access to certain reproductive health services, such as contraception, prenatal testing and legal abortion, is seriously impeded. In this context, reports and personal testimonies indicate that women, even in the limited circumstances in which abortion is legal, encounter serious difficulties in having it performed. The Special Rapporteur also received allegations that young people were not permitted to buy condoms over the counter, despite no legal prohibition denying access to these.
Many people in Poland don’t want to perform abortions, and they don’t want to sell condoms to kids either.
Paragraph 36 (Section III.C, pages 10,11):
In 2007, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women voiced concern in relation to Poland’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention (on women’s equal right to access health-care services) and specifically called for “concrete measures to enhance women’s access to health care, in particular to sexual and reproductive health services, including: research on the scope, causes and consequences of illegal abortion and its impact on women’s health and life; measures to ensure women’s access to legal abortion services and against limitation of such access “by the use of the conscientious objection clause”. In 2009, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its Concluding Observations, noted that Poland does not guarantee basic services in the area of sexual and reproductive health and called upon the State to “take all effective measures to ensure that women enjoy their right . . . by enforcing the legislation on abortion and implementing a mechanism of timely and systematic referral in cases of conscientious objection”. Unfortunately, the situation remains unchanged and recommendations have not yet been implemented.
Paragraph 48 (Section III.E, page 13) and later:
48. It is evident that there are many obstacles to women’s access to abortion – legal, social, cultural and religious. In order to improve women’s health and save women’s lives these obstacles must be eliminated. It is of the utmost importance for Poland to improve public policies and ensure unhindered access to abortion when legal.
Population control is dressed up as “improve women’s health and save women’s lives”. The United Nations has a lot of complaints.
49. Health professionals play an important role in ensuring women’s access to sexual and reproductive health services. The Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to meet with representatives of health professionals’ associations and discuss various issues affecting their role in ensuring the enjoyment by everyone of the right to health. He regrets that Polish health professionals do not have the opportunity to receive education and training in human rights.
Re-education. They don’t have the “correct” beliefs.
50. Health-care providers’ conscientious objection to involvement in certain health-related procedures is grounded in the right to freedom of religion, conscience and thought. However, the exercise of conscientious objection should not entail interference with sexual and reproductive health rights, which are fundamental. Health systems should have procedures, such as administrative procedures to provide immediate alternatives to health-care users when conscientious objection would otherwise lead to a denial of services, and effective remedies, in place to ensure that in practice, legitimate conscientious objection does not obstruct the enjoyment by women and men of their sexual and reproductive health rights. States should also monitor the exercise of conscientious objection with a view to ensuring that all services are available and accessible in practice. In short, health service providers who conscientiously object to a procedure have the responsibility to treat an individual whose life or health is immediately affected, and otherwise to refer the patient to another provider who will perform the required procedure.
They don’t want anything to do with it, but the world is being forcibly converted to the belief system of those who run the United Nations.
51. However, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that these conditions for invoking conscientious objection are not being met in Poland. Numerous reports indicate that some doctors, hospital directors, anaesthesiologists and auxiliary medical personnel such as midwives and nurses invoke the conscientious objection clause in refusing to perform abortions, and do not comply with their legal obligations under the Act of 5 December 1996 on the profession of physician and dentist, to refer women to other providers who will perform the termination of pregnancy.
They feel it’s wrong.
52. Under article 39 of the Act of 5 December 1996 on the medical profession, “the doctor may abstain from accomplishing medical services discordant with his/her conscience, (…) nevertheless he/she is obliged to indicate real possibilities of obtaining the service from another doctor, or in another medical institution and justify his/her decision and mention about the refusal in the medical documentation”. There are also reports of doctors refusing to provide prenatal examinations out of concern that these could lead to a lawful abortion if severe foetal impairment were diagnosed. Furthermore, as conscientious objection is not recorded or registered, there are no records of the number of health providers who invoke the conscientious objection clause in cases when they are asked to perform a termination of pregnancy. There are no records either of health providers who would perform abortions. Without regularly updated information, women’s access to legal health services is seriously compromised. Despite enquiries by the Special Rapporteur regarding arrangements made by hospitals to ensure that services are provided only by those doctors who will not conscientiously object, no answers were provided
They’re complaining about the lack of records. They want to know who’s objecting and who isn’t.
53. The case of a 14-year-old (outlined in paragraph 38) illustrates the situation aptly. Although the case met all the necessary legal requirements for legal abortion on criminal grounds, several hospitals and health-care workers refused to perform an abortion, ostensibly on the grounds of conscientious objection. It was apparently only due to intervention by the Minister of Health that the abortion was finally performed secretly in a remote town, without formal records of the procedure. This raises questions about the options available to women who do not enjoy this kind of high-level support.
The propaganda hasn’t taken with enough doctors or the public. People don’t agree. So much so, the government needs to perform abortions secretly with their specially chosen doctors.
So, as you’d expect, the elites of the society–in obedience to the UN treaties they wanted to sign– are the ones who carry out the population reduction (I mean “maternal health”) procedures when nobody else will. You can see how it’s a problem for the United Nations. From their point of view, reproduction is “their” “problem”–like farmers with their animals.
54. The Special Rapporteur was also informed that the regulation aimed at improving implementation of the conscientious objection clause has been repealed. This regulation established a procedure which obliged a hospital to subcontract services in the instance of a medical professional invoking the conscientious objection clause. The Special Rapporteur is concerned by this, and wanted to be informed as to whether the Government is planning to enact a similar instrument. . . .
55. The issues concerning the conscientious objection clause have been raised within other human rights mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Committee. The Special Rapporteur considers that there is a need for decisive action in this regard: such action should reconcile the legitimate concerns of health providers exercising their right to conscientious objection with the legitimate and pressing interests of patients.
Other Procedures Being Forced on Doctors who Might Object
56. During the visit, the Special Rapporteur was informed about limitations regarding access to reproductive health technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, under the Protection of the Human Genome and Embryo Act. The draft law limits the number of eggs that can be fertilized through in vitro fertilization to a maximum of two and prohibits the freezing of sperm or eggs. This reduces a woman’s ability to become pregnant and also requires [propagandist misuse of the word “requires”] women to repeat hormone therapy to produce more eggs and undergo multiple in vitro processes, conditions which impose grave financial, physical and emotional risks for women and their partners. The draft law also prohibits pre-implantation testing and diagnosis, thus denying a woman’s right to learn whether or not her embryo fertilized in vitro has defects. Consequently, this contravenes existing Polish law which allows for prenatal testing post-implantation. The Special Rapporteur calls upon the Government to review the draft law, with a view to ensuring that its provisions do not limit access to reproductive technologies, and facilitate women’s access to infertility treatments.
That’s why we’ve had all these “ethics” boards declaring these procedures ethical. Very convenient. What if someone disagrees? Well, they’ll intimidate them into conformity. That’s “progress”.
Update: 23 September 2014
Note: for later years, the evaluation of nations under this convention were moved to a different UN organization, so more recent reports appear on a different website:
42. While noting the measures taken by the State party to facilitate women’s access to health care, including reproductive health, the Committee is deeply concerned about the insufficient regulation of the exercise of conscientious objection by health professionals with regard to sexual and reproductive health. The Committee is also concerned at the persisting high rate of abortion, which is a consequence of the lack of information and access of women to family planning. The Committee is further concerned at the difficulties women belonging to vulnerable communities experience in accessing health care due to the cost of related services. Furthermore, the Committee expresses concern at the lack of a holistic and life-cycle approach to women’s health.
43. The Committee recommends that the State party adequately regulate the invocation of conscientious objection by health professionals so as to ensure that women’s access to health and reproductive health is not limited. The Committee calls the attention of the State party to its general recommendation No. 24, which states that it is discriminatory for a State party to refuse to provide legally for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women. It recommends that, if health service providers refuse to perform such services based on conscientious objection, measures should be introduced to ensure that women are referred to alternative health providers. The Committee urges the State party to take measures to increase the access of women and adolescent girls to affordable health-care services, including reproductive health care, and to increase access to information and affordable means of family planning for women and men. It calls upon the State party to increase its efforts to implement awareness-raising campaigns targeting women and men on the importance of family planning and related aspects of women’s health and reproductive rights. The Committee recommends that the Government fully implement a life-cycle aproach to women’s health.
English HTML version of report by ESCR Committee on Poland:
United Nations: Economic and Social Council:
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Geneva, 2–20 November 2009
Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant
Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
28.The Committee is concerned at the alarming number of clandestine abortions performed in the State party. The Committee is particularly concerned that women resort to clandestine, and often unsafe, abortion because of the refusal of physicians and clinics to perform legal operations on the basis of conscientious objection (art. 12, 10).
The process of propagandizing all doctors into conformity with the belief that abortion is OK is not complete yet in many countries. The United Nations is frustrated by conscientious objection.
The Committee calls on the State party to take all effective measures to ensure that women enjoy their right to sexual and reproductive health, including by enforcing the legislation on abortion and implementing a mechanism of timely and systematic referral in the event of conscientious objection. The Committee also requests the State party to inform the medical profession of the provisions of Polish legislation on legal abortion. The Committee requests the State party to provide in its next periodic report detailed information, including comparative data, about abortion , as well as legislative and other measures taken by the State party to implement the recommendation of the Committee in this regard.
To understand the historical context of population control and global “education”, it helps to read part of my comments on Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley.
Also see Population Control
Value for value. If you appreciate this post, please donate a small amount to encourage more research and commentary.