The US has taken international leadership back from an politically compromised United Nations political structure in a widely commended effort to restore pre-born security for each child.
USAID has demanded that the organisation remove abortion clauses from its global coronavirus emergency program in Monday ‘s letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.
“The United States stands with nations committed to protecting the unborn,” read the letter.
Since the beginning of the human rights movement after the Second World War, it has been widely accepted that neither governments nor individuals may derogate from safeguarding each human being’s inalienable right of life. Any exceptions to a non-derogable right under the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be inadmissible.
Article 4 provides that, if a “public emergency” exists, no country may derogate from the security of the right to life.
Of course, the U.N. There is no enabling authority for prenatal death, not even in an emergency coronavirus.
ONE. Member States have pledged “legal defense to every child before as well as after birth”
(This recognition is verified within the historic context and analysis by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Derechos in ‘Human Rights and the Unborn Child’) The US is still a party to the fundamental universal human rights instruments formal to the rights of every child to legal protection both before and after the birth (
The U.N thoroughly discussed the implementation of each principle in the Universal Declaration (1948). A significant contingent of able and smart US delegates included delegations. delegations
The United States in the Declaration on the Rights of a Child (1959) formalized an agreement to “recognize the need for such special protections … by virtue of its physical and mental immaturity, special assurances and treatment, including adequate legal protections both before and after birth …
The only recorded effort to implement abortion as an exception to the right to life, as part of the drafting of the Right to Life Article 6 of the International Agreement, was also made at the Second Meeting of the Working Group (1947). This was voted on by the Human Rights Commission and rejected by American leadership. It was firmly rejected.
There was a principle in the exercise of the court sentence following conviction of a crime for which the penalty was imposed, in which a sole exception to the unlawful deprivation of life was adopted.
America. U.S. Global Human Rights Policy in post-World War II
The first human rights conventions (Travaux Préparatoires, editorial history) codified the principles in modern international human rights law revealed that U.S. delegates were mostly involved in negotiating the agreed texts.
RELATED: OB-GYN Who knows McCorvey ‘s stories are very different from those of the media
Such principles were never unilaterally defined in the United States, but they were negotiated in good faith, discussed carefully and embraced freely by subsequent U.S. delegations with the authority of the governments of the United States lawfully elected by them.
We all understand that treaties, like statutes, under U.S. domestic law must comply with the requirement of the Constitution; no provisions of the Treaty shall have law if they contradict the Constitution. (Abbot v. Covert, 1957)
But logically we also recognize that all the provisions of the Treaty on Child Protection must have met the US constitutional requirements as no reservations were put forward to rule out the legal protection of a child before birth on the grounds that such protection was in conflict with the USA. Constitution.-Constitution.
“The Innocent Unborn Child” to save life
The United States upheld the rule that every citizen, without exception, has the right to equal law protection, after the Second World War and prior to the steady rise in the disagreeable values of the sexual revolution.
One of the first things the United States and the other international community agreed upon during the UN Declaration negotiations of 1947-48 was the legal protection of the “innocent unborn child.”
Throughout the ICCPR ‘s history, security of law “with all unborn children” has repeatedly been documented.
René Cassin was one of the main draftsmen and put forward the principle of “all people having the right to recognize everyone as a person before the law.” He had experienced the loss of 39 family members in Nazi Concentration Units, becoming a leading French lawyer and Zionist. He convinced the drafting committee, precisely since Hitler had begun his killing programmes, “by reiterating the inequality” of certain human beings considered socially unwilling to be “a basic principle of human race unity.”
100 and 30 years ago, the United States. This same principle of inclusion was developed by the Supreme Court:
“All human beings … recognize the entire human race.” (U.S. v. Palmer 1818) “The words” every individual, or individuals.
There was, lamentablely, a disassociation between what the US agreed to amend international law after the Second World War in the 1940s to spare troops, seafarers and airmen and what the Supreme Court reneged on the domestic law of the 1970s.
Roe v. Wade’s 1973, with his despicable theory that the unborn child is not a “full” person, was the solemnly promised universal protection for all the members of the human family.
and the concept of legal individuality Eleanor Roosevelt
In 1947-48 the drafting committee of Article 6 of the Universal Declaration was headed by Eleanor Roosevelt.
In 1949, she strongly recalled the deliberation leading to the universal acknowledgment that every human being is unfairly denied legal personality:
“The suggestion was made by [Cassin’s] we have an article that reads in French: ‘Nobody must be private of his legal personality;’ and I translated it into English, without legal knowledge, as: ‘No one is deprived of his legal personality.’
“Oh, what I had started, I didn’t know. There was a storm behind my back, with lawyers sitting in the Washington departments. And all of those who were United Kingdom gentlemen who were lawyers put their heads together and said ‘no’ very firmly on me, and all of those people were lawyers. They said that they were “lawyers.” So I knew I didn’t have the correct word. They continued to argue behind my back, saying what it means, “without the law,” but how can you put it? Ok, it took a long time to argue that one day young lawyers handed to me a paper from my Justice Department and said, “You should recognize the” legal personality “translation — once in the American law.”
“How do you believe it has been used? This was used in the case of Dred Scott when Judge Taney said, “A slave has no legitimate personality.”
Borrowed from the US State of Independence Universal Statement
“[A]knowing the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all the members of the human family is the basis for freedom , justice and peace in the world,” the Universal Declaration, which is based on the American declaration of Independence, began by stating that “this is a declaration of general principle which was independent of the existence of the UN
In fact, the draftsmen of the Universal Declaration drew on the understanding of the truth of themselves and of the inalienable rights of the American Founders.
In fact, for a short time, after WWII and pre-Cold War, the nations of our troubled world joined together to acknowledge protection of human rights for ‘all without distinction’ at an instant of grace, honesty and goodwill.
Under United States leadership, sovereign nations have agreed to accept without reservation the equal and inalienable human rights of all humans.
Well done, America! Well done! Come on now — do it!