U.S. Taxpayers to Subsidize New U.N. Agency Promoting Abortion

[TriWooOx]

Quote:The U.S. will subsidize a new $500-million United Nations agency that conservatives say will likely promote an abortion agenda.

In what the United Nations deemed as a historic move, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously voted on July 2 to approve “U.N. Women,” an agency intended to accelerate progress in achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment.

While funding for the new agency’s agenda will come primarily from voluntary contributions, the administrative costs of running the agency will come from the U.N.’s core budget, to which the U.S. is a major contributor.

The U.N. Committee on Contributions advises the General Assembly, under Article 17 of the United Nations Charter, on how much members will pay, based on each nation’s capacity.

Currently, the United States pays for 22 percent of the U.N.'s core budget.

The new agency is drawing negative reaction from conservative leaders concerned that the U.N. will use taxpayer dollars to take a step toward a worldwide right to abortion.

“This will be a massive waste of taxpayer funds,” Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, told CNSNews.com. “It's a jobs program for women with elitist views and, like every other U.N. agency, will be plagued by waste, fraud and abuse. To help women who really need it, funding should go straight to the people and programs doing the work, not a bureaucratic middle-man that will host expensive conferences and lavish salaries.”

She called the agency’s workings a “surreptitious” effort, believing that the agency’s agenda extends much further than promoting abortion.

“The priority of the leaders who orchestrated the development of this ‘uber-agency’ is sexual and reproductive rights. That means abortion and sexual license -- homosexual, lesbian, prostitution, etc.,” she told CNSNews.com.

Furthermore, she said that the agency would move to forcefully impose its views on the rest of society.

“This agency would use power and money to coerce countries to accept their policy and legal demands. With a high-level position of Under-Secretary-General and offices within countries, it can work top-down and bottom-up to pressure governments to do what it wants,” she said.

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, believes that abortion will have a prominent role in the new agency.

“Certainly promoting a right to abortion will be a part of the agenda of this agency,” he told CNSNews.com.

U.N. Women consolidates four U.N. women’s agencies into one super agency that will be concerned with matters it sees as important to women.

It will operate under the direction of an under secretary general, which the Secretary General of the United Nations appoints.

“I have made gender equality and the empowerment of women one of my top priorities — from working to end the scourge of violence against women, to appointing more women to senior positions, to efforts to reduce maternal mortality rates,” said Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Ruse said that the U.N. uses the term "maternal mortality rates" as a “stocking horse” for abortion.

He also challenged that the deaths resulting from pregnancy complications are much lower than the U.N. claims.

“For years, and this is a very important point, the United Nations has used a figure of 500, 000, that 500, 000 women die each year of pregnancy related causes. We have never believed that figure. It’s a big figure. It scares people and the purpose of scaring people is to say 'Well, the answer to this is legal abortion,'" he said.

The terms “reproductive health” and “reproductive rights” are the “code words” the U.N. uses to promote the abortion agenda, Ruse told CNSNews.com.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...rcID=69368

[FastTadpole]

The women empowerment angle is just as bad, if not worse.

The UN has displayed a trend towards attempting to homogenize culture to a one world way of doing things. Sort of like the holy Crusades. Look where women's lib got the US. Women's liberation was the main pull, but certainly not the only factor, that led to high divorce rates and broken families. Once people start thinking in a narcissistic fashion the family becomes secondary to personal growth and gains. Women get careers (and become taxpayers), a generation of latch key kids grows up. 2 jobs eventually become the norm. To tyrannically rule over a country you need to break up (divide and conquer) the family. School and media influenced culture also contribute to this but that's another topic altogether.

Black families used to be the strongest in America and had a tradition of being tight family units. Then welfare was introduced to 'help out' poor families. There was a catch though, Daddy couldn't be seen around the house.

UN Women is a blatant social engineering ploy.

---

and from the (extreme) male side they do make a few good points:

Quote:UN Women: Discrimination at Its Finest
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
By Pelle Billing

Last week the General Assembly of the United Nations voted to create the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. When reading about these developments the first question that springs to mind is whether this body will primarily work towards gender equality or the empowerment of women, since these two goals can range from being fully compatible to mutually exclusive, depending on the issue at hand. Luckily, the UN is very honest and upfront about the purpose of its new organization, since its everyday name will simply be UN Women. We are thus dealing with an organization that has been formed to help women, and not primarily to promote gender equality–a distinction that politicians and the media alike would do well to embrace.

So what will UN Women actually do? Even though their website confuses women’s issues with gender issues time and again, as if the word “gender” were equivalent to “women”, it’s evident that they simply want to help the women of the world through working with women’s issues in a variety of settings. Focus areas listed include:

* Poverty and the Economy
* Education and Training
* Health
* Violence against Women
* Armed Conflict
* Power and Decision-Making
* Institutional Mechanisms
* Human Rights
* Media
* Environment
* Girls

On the one hand I think it’s great that they want to help women in all of these areas. I certainly do not want to see women’s human rights violated or women dying in armed conflicts. On the other hand, where on earth did they get the belief that these issues only pertain to women? Men’s health are worse than that of women, and men die several years before women do (due to stress and not biology). Armed conflicts primarily kill men, and men are the primary targets of violence even in peacetime. In the Western world it is boys and young men who are falling behind in the educational system, and the collapse of the economy has primarily led to male unemployment. Human rights issues pertain to men just as much as women, perhaps more, since men are usually the ones who are imprisoned by corrupt, non-democratic governments. The negative media image of men has been carefully mapped in books and research reports about misandry.

In other words, the very focus areas of UN Women are just as relevant for men, and yet I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath waiting for UN Men to be formed. Currently there seems to be a broad international political consensus that gender issues are about women only, which is what has led to UN Women and frightening reports that ignore the very existence of men.

In the 1995 movie The Usual Suspects, the arrested Verbal says about the legendary criminal Keyser Soze: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist”. Well, the greatest trick that feminism ever pulled was convincing the world that men’s issues didn’t exist.

http://digg.com/world_news/UN_Women_Disc...Its_Finest
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/07/un-w...ts-finest/

UN Women :: It's Not Just about Abortions

[h3rm35]

feel free to popularize abortion and fund it, IMO. Just don't force it. As long as there's choice involved, its fine with me. I've had a child, but now I feel its unfair to the new life to bring it into this sadistic world on the brink of collapse. If I had thought about it more thoroughly before it happened, I may have made the same choice for my daughter. She's here now, and I'd give my life for her survival, but that doesn't change the fact that I think its cruel to bring a child into the existence they'd be assured to encounter now.