Media Outlets Report On Trump Administration’s Efforts To Change Women’s Rights, Reproductive Health Language During Negotiations At U.N. CSW Meeting
The Guardian: U.S. accused of trying to dilute global agreements on women’s rights
“U.S. officials in New York are attempting to water down language and remove the word ‘gender’ from documents being negotiated at the U.N., in what is being seen as a threat to international agreements on women’s rights. In negotiations at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), which resume at U.N. headquarters this week, the U.S. wants to replace ‘gender’ in the forum’s outcome document with references only to women and girls. The move follows similar attempts by the U.S. last year to change language in documents before the U.N. human rights council. In draft documents, seen by the Guardian, the U.S. is taking a step further at CSW by refusing to reaffirm the country’s commitment to the landmark Beijing declaration and platform for action … The Beijing agreement is regarded as the blueprint for global women’s rights. Although it is not legally binding, the document is used widely by activists to hold their governments to account on policy related to women…” (Ford, 3/18).
Washington Post: Christian conservatives in Trump administration build global antiabortion coalition
“… U.S. negotiators seek to excise references to ‘universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights’ — which they argue promotes abortion and normalizes sexual activity among youth — in an annual document about empowering women by the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women. They also want to replace ‘gender-responsive’ with ‘family-centered’ in calls for more-inclusive public services. … The United States sought to influence global resolutions on reproductive rights on several occasions last year, according to country representatives and civil society advocates, but had stumbled on its own. … This year, observers say, the U.S. group has come back better prepared, more knowledgeable about the players, and more sophisticated — and more likely to be effective. Civil society groups focused on women’s rights expressed dismay at the efforts. They accused the United States of putting unfair pressure on poor countries that depend on U.S. foreign aid, and also of aligning with countries with poor human rights records…” (Cha/Sun, 3/15).