UN Targets Kids With Its Sexual and Abortion Agenda

For more than thirty years, other members of the National Right to Life international team and I have walked into UN conference rooms from New York to Geneva to Cairo and Beijing and warned delegates that the sexual and reproductive agenda they promote is not neutral.

Twenty years ago, we began to expose that so-called “comprehensive sexuality education,” [CSE] adolescent “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” confidential services for minors, and the normalization of abortion and self-managed abortion pills form one coordinated program. I told them that UN agencies, treaty bodies, and their favored NGOs use technical guidance and grey literature to smuggle abortion into education, health care, and law, even in countries that protect unborn children and respect parental authority.

They denied it. For years, they rolled their eyes.

Diplomats from abortion-strong countries laughed and told us we exaggerated. UN officials assured us that CSE only promoted “health” and “rights.” NGO lobbyists from the abortion industry swore there was no link between CSE and abortion.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

They accused us of paranoia. They said we invented a connection that did not exist.

Now their own call for papers exposes the truth they denied.

A UN-linked research team is “conducting a global rapid review to understand how abortion care information is included in comprehensive sexuality education materials and guidance for young people.” They are not even subtle. They want proof of how deeply abortion already lives inside CSE. They want the paper trail. They want to map it, standardize it, and spread it.

They ask for “grey literature.” Not peer reviewed. Not debated in public. They want the hidden material that actually shapes policy and programs:

• CSE curricula and training packages
• Implementation manuals and monitoring reports
• Policy briefs and commentaries
• Guidance from global and regional organizations outside the journals

They want it in English, French, and Spanish, stretching back to 2009. They even set a deadline and created a submission form. They treat abortion inside CSE as a given. They only want to catalog it.

So after decades of denial, the mask slips. The question is no longer “Does CSE connect to abortion?” The question they now ask is “How do we make that connection stronger, clearer, and more consistent for young people?”

This is exactly what we warned about.

When we fought the term “comprehensive sexuality education” in negotiated texts, we did not object to age-appropriate lessons about biology, respect, or self-control. We objected to an ideology.

CSE, as the big UN agencies promote it, does not simply teach facts. It rewrites morality. It treats sex as recreation, fertility as a problem, parents as obstacles, and pregnancy as a failure that “care” must fix.

From the beginning, the same actors who wrote CSE guidelines also pushed a package: contraception on demand, abortion on demand, and a rights language broad enough to swallow parental authority and national law. They hid abortion under phrases like “sexual and reproductive health services” and then insisted that we read too much into it.

Now they do not hide it. They say “abortion care information in comprehensive sexuality education” in one breath.

Look closely at the target of this new project. They do not ask how abortion literature shapes medical schools or legal training. They ask how abortion care appears “in materials and guidance for young people.” That phrase should stop every delegate cold.

What does “abortion care information” for a 13-year-old look like? A list of local providers? A script for what to say to a doctor in a country that protects unborn children? Instructions on how to order pills online and hide them from parents? Activist talking points to recite in class when a classmate disagrees?

The architects of this review know exactly what they want. They want to normalize abortion in the minds of children before those children ever hold their own baby in their arms. They want classrooms to do what laws in many countries still forbid. They want teachers to point teens toward abortion regimes that operate across borders, across screens, and across every boundary of family and culture.

That is why they crave “grey literature.” This is not neutral academic curiosity. Grey literature drives programs on the ground. A guidance note from a UN agency becomes the backbone of a national curriculum.

A “best practice” report from an NGO turns into a funding condition. A training manual for peer educators becomes the script that shapes how a 15-year-old speaks to her pregnant friend.

We have watched this playbook for years. They first create the documents. Then they create the “consensus.” Then they claim the “obligation.” By the time national lawmakers wake up, bureaucrats already treat abortion inside CSE as settled law.

I have sat in too many UN meetings where officials recited slogans about “evidence-based” policy. Here, the evidence they seek is not neutral. They want proof that their network already teaches abortion inside CSE, so they can present that network as a model to everyone else.

They will not invite serious scrutiny of what this content does to girls and boys. They will not ask how many young women felt pressured into abortion because every adult voice around them treated the child inside them as a mistake.

So what do we do with this moment of clarity?

We rally governments that still protect unborn life and parental rights.  We will not let them turn classrooms into recruitment centers for the abortion industry. We will not let them dress up the destruction of unborn children as a lesson plan. We owe our children better than that. We owe every child, born and unborn, the protection that the United Nations once promised to the human family.

And we will not stop saying it in every negotiating room, in every side event, and in every report they insist on reading.

LifeNews.com Note: Raimundo Rojas is the Outreach Director for the National Right to Life Committee. He is a former president of Florida Right to Life and has presented the pro-life message to millions in Spanish-language media outlets. He represents NRLC at the United Nations as an NGO. Rojas was born in Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba and he and his family escaped to the United States in 1968.