Last week’s Tribune reported that an Amnesty International chapter at Marquette was off and running and had been approved by the Office of Student Development. The other day walking to my Latin class I saw a huge Amnesty International banner and table signing up members in the lobby of Lalumire.
Apparently the Office of Student Development did not know, or ignored, the fact that Amnesty International actively promotes the designation of abortion and other “reproductive rights” as “fundamental human rights.” Moreover, Amnesty has gone so far as to include the Vatican in “an unholy alliance” of nations accused of “hold[ing] women’s rights ransom.”
Amnesty’s most recent statement regarding “reproductive rights” was issued on March 7, 2005, and concerns the U.N.’s Beijing +10 framework. Amnesty said:
During consultations on the draft declaration, the United States and a couple of other countries had proposed amendments aimed at weakening and undermining the commitments to realizing women’s human rights. The US proposal sought to restrict the scope of the Beijing commitments by stating that these did “not create any new international human rights” and in particular that they did “not include the right to abortion”. Amnesty International views this not only as an attack on sexual and reproductive rights as enshrined in the Platform for Action, but also more generally as an attempt to stifle the evolution of the human rights framework.
Organized around 12 Critical Areas of Concern, the Beijing Platform for Action sets out an extensive program to advance the status of women and strengthen the protection of their human rights. Building on the rights and principles enshrined in international human rights standards, the Platform contains important progressive language in a number of areas. In the area of sexual and reproductive rights, the Platform stipulates that women “have the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence”. Since the adoption of the Platform in 1995, several of the UN‚Äôs human rights experts have given consistent attention to sexual and reproductive rights issues.
On 21 April 2004, Amnesty issued a public statement concerning a UNCHR session, saying,
As the UN Commission on Human Rights draws to an end, activists and like-minded governments have achieved an important victory over a concerted backlash against sexual rights, with the reaffirmation in the Commission‚Äôs resolution on violence against women that “…women have the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence”. The text had proved contentious during negotiations but was adopted without challenge.
“Sexual rights are human rights,” Amnesty International affirmed today. “There is a long legacy of advocacy on sexuality and human rights within the UN arena that will continue until all people are free to exercise all their human rights without discrimination of any kind. The lives and security of countless people across the globe will depend on it.”
In addition to abortion advocacy, Amnesty has criticized the Vatican’s stance on AIDS and condoms. In a 28 November 2003 statement, Amnesty said:
Amnesty International criticized conflicting messages from influential leaders that will make it harder for people to get the full and accurate information necessary to prevent the spread of HIV infection and mitigate its impact. The organization cited the comment in October 2003 of a senior cardinal from the Vatican that HIV can pass through condoms.
“Medical scientists and public health professionals overwhelmingly state that condoms are an effective and necessary method of preventing HIV transmission. Nevertheless the cardinal‚Äôs statement reflects the Vatican‚Äôs policy against condom use in all circumstances, a policy which conflicts with scientific knowledge and which places lives at risk,” said Amnesty International.
The “senior cardinal” referenced is the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo.
Amnesty has also battled against the U.S.’s Mexico City Policy, saying in the same November 03 statement,
A policy reintroduced in 2001 by the US government, the Mexico City policy (known unofficially as the “global gag rule”), bars government funding to groups which practice, advocate or just mention abortion, even if this is a small part of their overall message and work.
“This policy effectively silences foreign non-governmental health and advocacy organizations. The prohibition of funding for organizations working in women‚Äôs reproductive health can have a serious impact on work against HIV/AIDS,” said Amnesty International.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has on multiple occasions urged Congress to keep the Mexico City Policy, first introduced under President Reagan, rescinded by President Clinton, and restored by President Bush.
And if Amnesty was critical of the pro-life position in Beijing +10, they went after the Vatican directly in their statement on Beijing +5 in 2000.
“In the preparatory sessions, some governments have been challenging the very basis of what was reaffirmed in Beijing: that women’s rights are human rights,” Amnesty International said.
“The unholy alliance formed by the Holy See, Iran, Algeria, Nicaragua, Syria, Libya, Morocco and Pakistan has attempted to hold ransom women’s human rights.”
Why did the Vatican so strongly oppose Beijing +5? Well, the director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, Austin Ruse, called “the Beijing Platform for Action … one of the most radical and dangerous documents you can imagine…. You will work alongside Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims and Mormons…. We are the children of Abraham arising to fight for faith and family.”
What does all of this mean for us here at Marquette?
Recall the University’s standard for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group: “While some of the activities and causes of the Human Rights Campaign are certainly worthy and are compatible with Marquette’s own statement on human dignity and diversity, other issues, for example equal marriage rights, are inimical to Catholic teaching,” said Jon Dooley, assistant dean of student development, at the time.
I think one could accurately say the same about Amnesty by simple replacing “equal marriage rights” with “abortion as a human right.”
It is our sincere hope that OSD/Student Affairs staff will sit down with the Amnesty chapter’s leadership and make very clear the University’s expectation that none of this abortion advocacy will be happening on our campus.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
This is the second time that I’ve felt obligated to respond to inaccurate or ignorant postings about Amnesty International on this blog (the first one inaccurate this one ignorant). In order to avoid wasting my time in the future I would appreciate if you would research and give some thought to your posts before you write them.
You should know that student organizations with a national affiliation are required to put this article into their constitution. The article must be written in exactly this manner (but instead of Amnesty International it must be the name of the proposed organization).
Article IX: Affiliation
This organization shall be affiliated with the Amnesty International and shall abide by its constitution and by-laws in all cases where there is not conflict between their constitution and by-laws and this constitution and/or the rules, regulations, or policies of Marquette University. In instances of conflict, this constitution and/or rules, regulations or policies of Marquette University shall take precedence over the constitution or by-laws of Amnesty International
In summary, this “sit down” that you want has already occured and there will not be/cannot be any “abortion advocacy” on campus.
Zach Corey
Dear Zach,
First, I do not think my first post was really inaccurate. I continue to believe that letters from American college students will not convince the rulers of Sudan to end the genocide.
Second, I do not know that an article in a constitution counts to the same degree a “sit down” would. Honestly, I highly doubt that MU’s bureaucrats knew about Amnesty’s position on abortion. I’d also reiterate that the standard applied to HRC could certainly by applied to Amnesty International as well, since HRC was disqualified by what the national position was.
But more on HRC sometime later this week.
DANIEL
All of you need to go to Dr. McAdams’ blog, http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com.....ional.html. McAdams points out that Amnesty, in addition to being pro-abortion, is also pro-gay marriage. As always, he is a good read.
There is a “sit-down” meeting prior to the approval of every constitution with an MUSG committee as well as a meeting with Pam Peters. So, it’s an article in the constitution as well as 2 “sit-down” meetings.
Secondly, not every facet of every organization has to agree completely with Catholic Doctrine. I e-mailed Dr. McAdams an analogy that I think is accurate. The Republican party is generally for the death penalty. Since we go to school on a Jesuit campus, it can not do a “Pro-death penalty table”. There are parts of the Republican platform (in my opinion very few) that are congruous with church teaching. The College Republicans are allowed to advocate on behalf of those issues.
The same is true for Amnesty. There are parts of Amnesty International’s mission statement and opinions that are not completely congruous with church teaching and on a Catholic campus we forgo the right to advocate on behalf of those issues. There are many things that Amnesty does, however, that are directly in line with church teaching and we will continue to do those activities.
Zach Corey
I like the new format of having the reader click on the article if they want to read additional information.( I prefer Cliff Notes for the politically challenged.)
Watch out, those homos want to have the same rights as straights! It is gona be hell on earth!
[...] 4. You may recall that last school year I raised some flags over the opening of an Amnesty International chapter on Marquette’s campus because of Amnesty’s position on abortion. LifeSiteNews.com reported yesterday that: [...]
[...] chapter of Amnesty International as an official student organization. We have covered this issue before, and we return to it now because it is both informative and annoying to a few select readers and [...]