El Salvador recently had its turn to receive recommendations from other countries as part of the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which is a mechanism that is supposed to engender positive peer pressure toward meeting human rights obligations as set out in international treaties.

Twelve countries used this platform to pressure El Salvador to change its laws on abortion, removing protections from unborn children and expanding the grounds for legal abortion.

However, the basis of the UPR is human rights treaties, none of which contains or can be rightly interpreted as containing a right to abortion.

The UPR is now in its second round, which concludes in 2016.  However, a look at the recommendations mentioning abortion reveals a disturbing trend:


As this chart shows, the vast majority of recommendations tend toward expanding abortion, both by changing the laws and by liberally interpreting them to make abortion more acceptable and frequent.

However, very few recommendations have been made (and none at all in the first review cycle) to address the persistent problem of sex-selective abortion in countries like India and China.

Furthermore, the pressure is highly concentrated by region:


The vast majority of recommendations to expand abortion and strip away protections for the unborn come from Europe and are targeted at Latin America.  The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Finland) are particularly persistent, with Norway alone accounting for 13% of abortion pressure in the UPR system thus far.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

Like the treaty monitoring bodies that have pressured countries to legalize abortion through a faulty interpretation of human rights treaties, the UPR is becoming a pro-abortion echo chamber and risks losing its credibility as a platform for upholding a valid concept of human rights.

Reprinted with permission from Turtle Bay and Beyond.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.