March 18, 2013

Shame on you, United Nations

The UN’s annual Commission on the Status of Women just came to an end. I spoke there last week, and urged other nations to protect their youth from the onslaught of US-made “comprehensive” sexuality education (CSE).

Why? Because the priority of CSE is sexual rights and sexual freedom, not sexual health. And in societies where sexual freedom reigns, women pay the highest price.

Here in the US, I said, sex education has been based on individual rights and freedom, and the results have been catastrophic, especially for girls. In this country, another young person is infected with an STI every three seconds.

With the conference focused on the status of women, you might think its organizers would welcome an event highlighting unique elements of female biology, and calling for measures to protect girls’ health and well being.

But in the upside-down world of the UN, my talk was considered highly controversial. You can probably figure out why: activists for “sexual rights” have campaigned aggressively there, and have convinced many countries that any other approach to sexuality is discriminatory and a violation of human rights. They demand CSE for all the world’s children.

It’s a child’s human right, they insist, to become sexually active at an early age, have multiple partners, and explore different lifestyles. It’s their right to have access to graphic information, contraceptives, and abortions without parental knowledge.

UN agencies like UNICEF, along with Western governments (including our State Department) put intense pressure on underdeveloped countries to accept these social agendas, or risk losing our desperately needed aid.

The UN member nation who sponsored the panel in which I participated is to be commended for its courage. Unfortunately, due to worry about the backlash, it prefers to remain anonymous.

I can certainly relate to that: My book Unprotected was published anonymously for the same reason.

Due to the pervasive intimidation, the event wasn’t publicized; people heard about it through word of mouth. But the room filled quickly, and the audience was attentive.

I criticized the UN agency UNESCO, and the giants of sexuality education, IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) and SEICUS (Sexuality Education and Information Council of the US). Both these groups have esteemed status at the UN, and influence the development of UN sexuality education programs.

As an example of CSE, I pointed to the IPPF pamphlet “Happy, Healthy and Hot: A Young Person’s guide to their Rights, Sexuality, and Living with HIV”.

This publication has come under fire before, so prior to speaking, I confirmed with IPPF’s main office in London that it’s still available.

You’d never know from reading this guide that HIV is a serious medical condition, that sexual activity places others at grave risk, and that an infected person has not only rights, but responsibilities.

There is no suggestion to abstain or even delay sexual activity until later in life. Instead, the guide informs infected youth of their right to “express and enjoy their sexuality”, the right to take risks: sex while high on drugs or alcohol, even sex without a condom is OK – “That is your choice”.

Also a choice: whether to inform partners of their HIV status. “You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.”

IPPF claims to be an advocate for reproductive health, I told the audience, but the advice in this pamphlet will make people sick. To the UN affiliates that produce and distribute it, I said, shame on you.

The discussion that followed was a real eye-opener. Individuals from a number of countries expressed their outrage.

CSE not only poses grave health risks to their children, they explained, it goes against the cultural and religious traditions of their nations.

“We don’t want this in our country”, one woman said with passion. “We are Christians, and we take our Bible very seriously. Why are we being forced to go against everything we believe in?”

“When our children have all these STIs, will IPPF be there to take care of them?”, another woman from the third world asked. “No, they won’t. Only we, the parents, will be there.”

They certainly appreciated the science I brought them, but in fact didn’t really need facts about the cervix and oxytocin to be convinced of the dangers of sex education based on rights and freedom.

Instead, the burning question was, “Why is there so much pressure on us?”

It’s painful to say this, but the answer is “cultural imperialism”. Social activists from liberal western countries are on a crusade to change the world, and they bully poor nations to reject millennia of tradition.

And these are the same people who, with zeal and self-righteousness, wave the banners of tolerance and multiculturalism.

Family Watch International has produced an excellent video that says it all: “Cultural Imperialism: The Sexual Rights Agenda”.

I urge you to watch it, and hope you’ll come back and share your reactions.

10 comments

  1. Elizabeth - reply

    Well done. You are swimming against the tide but keep going. I have a 7 year old daughter and I am greatly concerned about what awaits her.

  2. Shelley - reply

    It’s good to hear that someone is standing up and speaking out against this at a global level. Here in Ontario, Canada our Liberal government tried to push this type of sex ed into our school system a few years ago. Due to public backlash they backed down. Unfortunately the new leader of the Ontario Liberal party is a homosexual woman who strongly supports this model of sex ed and is going forward with full force trying to get this program back in our schools. I’m not sure if that would be considered “cultural imperialism” since Canada is part of the western world, but it certainly goes against the fundamentals of democracy – even though the majority of people don’t want this type of education, the liberal social activists keep trying to force it on us.

    Thank you for speaking out and arming us with the information needed to fight this form of “education” with medical facts!

  3. Sibyl - reply

    Equal shame goes to the APA groups, psychology and psychiatry, for their abandonment of science for political agenda.

    They have allowed the normalization of abnormal and high-risk lifestyles and have recently removed ‘gender identity disorder’ from the list of disorders in the new DSM-5.

    This is a way to enable (or force) the taxpayer to provide transgender reassignment surgery and treatment and to force society to accept one more psychological anomaly.

    Of course, doctors will be pressured (or forced as was attempted in the UK recently) to perform these procedures.

    PC really means Punitive Conformity to leftist ideology.

  4. Abigail - reply

    God Bless You. I’ll say it again, GOD BLESS YOU! The world desperately needs educated, passionate, wise and articulate women like you who are informed, truthful and courageous enough to speak out, so that those who care may be aware, those who don’t know may be informed, and those who don’t care may be opposed.

    ‘Swimming against the tide’ isn’t considered attractive or fashionable, but your gifted way of ‘telling it like it is’ is done with Grace, Truth and Virtue. Thank you : )

  5. J - reply

    Thank you for your insight. The UN has shown that it can’t be trusted.

  6. Jessica - reply

    Dear Doctor,
    Thank you for your sharing. I am from Taiwan(not Thailand.Taiwan is an island in Asia).

    In fact, We Taiwannese people recently are forced to accept the IPPF.

    The UN policy of “LGBT’s right” is used to change our country’s law by SEICUS supporters in our country.

    And some of our members of parliament agree their just because of the UN!

    Thank you for sharing the truth of UN. We still have to fight, not just for us, but for the undeveloped countries.

  7. Pingback: 西方開始質疑同志運動的原因 | SeeYin

    • MiriamGrossman - reply

      Thank you for your comment, See Yin. I translated it with google translate, some if it is not so clear, but your general idea comes through. May I ask, where do you live, and how did you learn about my website?

  8. MiriamGrossman - reply

    here is the comment from See Yin:
    […] 其實不止是同志運動,整個性解放運動亦是針對發展中國家。聯合國近年一次有關女性地位的委員會上,討論聯合國要在各個國家推行性解放教育,教導青少年避孕及墮胎都不需要通知父母、感染了愛滋病毒也不一定要告訴性伴侶等令人嘩然的內容。會議上一名來自第三世界的女士問到︰「如果我們的孩子都染上了性病,IPPF〔撰寫這教材的機構〕會來照顧他們嗎?明顯不會,只有我們這些父母會照顧他們。」是否有人只顧在發展中國家落實性解放觀念,卻不理人家若接受了會承受怎樣的後果? […]

  9. Pingback: 西方開始質疑同志運動的原因 / 楊思言

Leave a Reply