Youth Blog

Daily Report – March 11, 2025: UN's 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women

During the second day of the UN's 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women, our team of 9 pro-life youth delegates made waves in several pro-abortion side and parallel events.

In an event very tellingly titled, “Turning Pushback into Progress,” Nordic ministers and activists discussed the ongoing challenges and “pushback” against gender equality and supposed reproductive rights. One of the key speakers, Laura Rissanen, State Secretary to the Minister of Social Security in Finland, began by reflecting on the 30-year history since the adoption of the Beijing Declaration, noting the growing backlash against gender equality and women’s rights globally. She quoted U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who stated, “The patriarchy is back, and back with a vengeance.” Despite these setbacks on the implementation of progressivism, Rissanen emphasized the need for action, echoing Guterres' words: “The antidote is action.” She underscored the Nordic countries’ commitment to continuing to fight for women’s rights despite the increasing efforts on the part of pro-life and pro-family movements.

Rissanen also discussed the rising anti-gender ideology movements within the Nordic region, an issue that many had previously believed they were immune to. “Despite the high rates of gender equality in Finland and the Nordic region, we are also seeing growing anti-gender movements in our regions. This is something we might have thought we were immune to, but we definitely are not. But we should not accept this. Instead, we will continue to work to advance the rights of women and girls and sexual and gender minorities. Gender equality is a human right and it is not an ideology in itself.” She went on to address ongoing challenges, such as opposition to LGBT “rights.” She firmly stated that Finland would continue to be a strong counterforce globally against actors attempting to undermine gender equality.

In line with Finland's push for progressive gender policies, Nelly Munyasia, Executive Director for Reproductive Health Network in Kenya, discussed her organization’s work in expanding access to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR). Munyasia proudly, and rather disturbingly, shared that 95% of major-level providers in Kenya were working to ensure women and girls in universities have access to comprehensive SRHR services, including abortion. “More importantly, access to safe abortion services within the constitution of Kenya,” she stated. She advocated for comprehensive services included abortion, contraceptives, HIV/STI treatment, and “safe motherhood,” asserting that women should have the “power to choose when and with whom they want to have babies.” She emphasized that her organization works to bring these services closer to women, allowing them to access “quality comprehensive SRHR services.”

Munyasia also lamented the rise of “anti-rights groups” in the Global South, which she claimed were taking advantage of the religious and conservative nature of the region. “Anti-rights groups have found their way in the global south, and they’ve found a field day. Why? Because we are religious in nature. We are conservative by nature, and so it’s easy for them to push and get into our systems.” This comment highlights the ideological divide between those advocating for the expansion of reproductive “rights” and those upholding more traditional, often religious, views on the sanctity of life.

Additionally, ACT Church of Sweden, described as a “progressive church” seeking to align religion with contemporary values, expressed their support for SRHR, including supposed “abortion rights.” The church’s stance further illustrates the divide between religious groups that adapt to modern social agendas and those that maintain a traditional stance on the sanctity of human life – as prescribed by the Word of God.

Over the past few years, we’ve witnessed the increasing trend of pro-abortion actors “sounding the alarm” on the rise and influence of the pro-life and pro-family movements. They seem to parrot the same warning: that despite their impression of the pro-life movement being small, unfavorable and existing as a minority position – we possess the great ability to influence policy through our various networks. Our efforts seem to be in the forefront of discussion and are often labelled as a barrier to the advancement of abortion access and gender ideology implementation.

In a later event, entitled, “Equanomics: Leveraging Public Finance for the Beijing Agenda”, organized by UNDP and The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), voices were brought together from the fields of public finance to discuss using public money—i.e., people’s hard-earned tax dollars—to promote the Beijing agenda. Of course, this includes abortion.

Miriam Cisar Blat, the Deputy Director of Feminist Cooperation, Human Development and Governmance, maintained the importance of implementing “gender performative fiscal policy.” Part of this, she maintained, was financing SRHR. She specifically highlighted abortion as integral for funding and “women’s rights.”

The panelists frequently made references to SRHR and even explicitly named abortion as part of the goals of the Beijing agenda. This got one of our delegates, Liana, thinking: How is it fair that they are using public money for such contentious—indeed, violent—things? This led her to ask her question. Claiming that taxation can be coercive, she asked, How is it fair to use other people’s money for things like abortion, which many see as a violation of human rights?

Dianne Elson, a professor at Essex University, responded by claiming that taxation is not, in fact, coercive. One Kenyan minister addressed Liana’s question, however, by acknowledging that there is a contentious moral debate over abortion. She noted that the healthcare funding her country receives, however, also goes towards women who desperately need it for life-saving interventions, even if it gets funneled into abortion, as well. It was almost as if she was identifying that Kenyans were accepting the cost of abortion funding if it meant they received other resources too—a situation that doesn’t need to be the case. Instead of funding these women to kill their children, why not use the money to provide them with support? Clean water, sanitation, and legitimate healthcare? The concept of coercive diplomacy is a continued concern – using force of money to coerce recipient nations to bend their principles so that they can also receive funding to address real, pressing issues like maternal mortality rates.

In the event titled “Digital Solutions for Gender Equality and SRHR,” organized by the Governments of Norway and Colombia, in cooperation with UNFPA and WHO, the key focus of discussion was developing “digital solutions” to expand SRHR for adolescents. More specifically, they aimed to provide online information about sexuality, relationships, reproductive health, and comprehensive sexual education (CSE) for children – much of which is age-inappropriate and not in alignment with biblical principles on human sexuality.

The event commenced by showing a disturbing video, which displayed an interview of several children, and posed the question: “Why is it important to use digital media as a means of learning more about sexual and reproductive health and rights?” The children shared that they could use social media to become comfortable with their own bodies and learn more about “safe” abortions, contraception, and sexual intercourse. The interviewers then asked the children who they believe should teach CSE. The children's responses were very telling. They listed school teachers, social media pages, and online websites – omitting any mention of parents as primary educators on human physiology and sexuality. This disturbing revelation highlights a major concern – that the role of parents in the education of their children is being outsourced to activist groups and age-inappropriate, progressive CSE curricula in schools.

Tigest Tamrat, a scientist with the WHO, announced a CSE-focused app that was created to provide young children with information on all things SRHR – which again, circumvents the need for parents to serve as moral authorities on issues related to human sexuality. If that wasn't disturbing enough, another panelist, Marianna Sanz de Santamaria, who was an educator from Colombia, stated that she has an “obsession” with teaching children about CSE and SRHR. Her journey started when she aided in the care and support of students who had been sexually assaulted and experienced child pregnancy. Marianna believed that all of these horrendous abuses on these students could have been avoided if they were properly educated on CSE and SRHR. Notably, she said that she wants to help educate young children on abortion and contraceptive access, and what it means to "feel pleasure." It remains evident that these CSE “educators,” apps, and social media pages are predatory in nature. They seek to isolate children from the protection of their parents, to reach them with inappropriate and highly sexualized content.

In a parallel event, titled “Financing Fascism and Fundamentalism - Corporate Funding Flows Sowing Hate” that was co-organized by Noor & The Institute for Journalism and Social Change (IJSC), vulgarity and hostility took centre-stage. The moderator of the event, Mona Eltawahy, an Egyptian-American journalist, social commentator, and advisory board member of The Institute for Journalism and Social Change (IJSC), opened the meeting by warning attendees that “If anybody disrupts this panel, [she] will halt the panel and will gather enough feminist strength to kick you out” - followed by some profane language to further illustrate her point and gravitas. While the event was primarily focused on criticizing capitalism and corporate elites to make way for a Marxist, feminist economic model, there was much anti-Christian and anti-conservative rhetoric. One of the panelists claimed that both “Donald Trump and white, Christian Nationalists” are, indeed, “fascists.” Moderator Eltawahy concluded the discussion with an incredibly vulgar remark suggesting that attendees must "f*** the patriarchy, f*** fascism, and f*** fundamentalism.” It was certainly an “enlightening” event. It’s not surprising that this sort of vulgarity is permitted in these forums; meanwhile, pro-life perspectives are branded as “unacceptable” in these spaces.

The second day of the UN's 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women highlighted a growing ideological divide on key issues such as reproductive “rights,” gender equality, and the role of traditional values. Pro-life and pro-family delegates, including our team, made significant contributions to the discussion, emphasizing the importance of protecting the sanctity of all human life.

While progressive voices, such as those from Nordic ministers and global activists, continue to advocate for expanded access to abortion and comprehensive sexual education, there remains an undeniable pushback from those who prioritize the protection of life and the preservation of moral and cultural values. The rhetoric from proponents of abortion and gender ideology reflects a determination to reshape societies, often overlooking the complexities of cultural and religious beliefs, especially in the Global South.

Furthermore, the growing trend of coercive diplomacy and the use of public funds to promote contentious policies, such as abortion, raises significant ethical concerns. The focus on leveraging digital platforms to educate children about sexuality and reproductive health also underscores the tension between state-led initiatives and parental rights.

Ultimately, the discussions at the UN CSW reflect the ongoing battle between competing worldviews on human rights, gender ideology, and family values. While pro-abortion and pro-gender ideologues continue to push their agenda forward, the pro-life movement remains steadfast, countering these efforts with a strong moral voice in defense of life, parental rights, and the preservation of traditional family structures. The outcomes of these discussions will undoubtedly shape future global policies, making it imperative for pro-life advocates to continue making their voices heard.