How Bad is the UN on Abortion? Here’s a Pro-Life Insider’s View

A week ago, as the National Right to Life Committee’s representative at the United Nations since 1993, I got the invitation. Filled out their forms. Got the confirmation. “Seat at the table” for Women’s Voices on Climate Resilience and Reproductive Choices, June 25, 3:00 PM London time. (10 AM on America’s East Coast)

At about 9:50, I made coffee, sat at the desk, and tried to log on. Registration canceled. Access denied. No explanation. Just… poof. Gone.

Not surprised. The international abortion crowd doesn’t actually want pro-life voices at any table unless we’re there to nod along. But I got curious. What exactly were they so afraid I’d hear?

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

So, I dug. With excellent help from my friends Grok and Claude, and with very well-worded prompts, I found the whole playbook. And what this webinar actually was.

It was not some neutral discussion about climate. It was the launch event for a new report released that same day by MSI Reproductive Choices, the recently rebranded Marie Stopes organization, one of the world’s largest abortion providers and profiteers.

The presenters included many of the abortion giant’s “researchers” whose names don’t really matter, but it included participants from Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Pakistan, which tracks because black and brown people have always been their target. The studies were funded by the countries of Denmark and Norway. Also, not surprising.

They spent donor money interviewing 197 people across Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Pakistan using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Then they packaged it as “women’s voices.”

Then they produced the revelations from their study. Hold on to your hats, folks.

According to their own report, here’s what climate change is really about:

• When it’s too hot, too flooded, too drought-stricken, or too cycloney, women’s access to Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) gets disrupted. Stock-outs happen. Roads flood. Clinics close. Therefore, more “unwanted pregnancies.” Solution? Obviously, more abortion services should be integrated into climate response.
• Economic stress from climate events leads to “transactional sex,” which leads to more HIV/STIs and, you guessed it, more need for their services.
• The crown jewel of their findings: “Reproductive choices are part of climate adaptation.”

Groundbreaking stuff right there. Not so much.

Translation from the international abortion dialect: If the weather’s bad, maybe don’t have that baby. Or space them out with long-acting methods. Or, you know, terminate. Because nothing says “resilience” like treating new life as a climate liability.

They want SRHR (their polite term for abortion-on-demand infrastructure) baked into every National Adaptation Plan. They want pre-positioned commodities, mobile clinics, telehealth for “reproductive care,” and yes, drones delivering supplies to disaster zones. All so women can exercise their “choice” when the forecast looks iffy.

They even cite their own earlier analysis claiming 11.5 million women have already lost access to SRHR due to climate displacement, with 14 million more at risk. The solution is never stronger families, better agriculture, real development, or actual resilience. It’s always more of their product.

This is ridiculous because they are ridiculous.

It’s hot? Don’t conceive. It’s cold? Same rule applies. Drought? Better stock up on pills. Floods? Definitely time for a procedure. Perfect weather? Still risky, but please check the long-range forecast first.

This is the level of intellectual seriousness we’re dealing with. Weather patterns, something humans have adapted to for millennia, are now being weaponized as justification for expanding the abortion industry’s reach into every corner of development and humanitarian work.

They call it “women’s voices.” What they really mean is curated voices that fit the predetermined narrative: every crisis, every weather event, every economic pressure must circle back to one thing, more access to abortion as the silver bullet for “resilience.”

So why was I blocked?

Because organizations like National Right to Life have been at the UN since 1993, calling this what it is: the systematic conflation of every human problem with the demand for abortion on tap. They don’t want debate. They want funding pipelines protected, and dissenters kept outside the Zoom room.

Real women’s resilience has always looked like strong families, communities that value life, practical adaptation to actual weather, faith, ingenuity, and yes, children. Resilience IS NOT treating pregnancy as a climate pollutant to be managed with pills and procedures.

The international abortion conglomerate has gotten very good at this game: rebrand, reframe, insert themselves into every issue from poverty to now the weather itself, and then act shocked when pro-life voices get uninvited.

I’m not shocked. I’m just documented.

And now you are too. Stay tuned for more.

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.