SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
According to the Guardian--which first reported on U.S. opposition to the measure on Monday--Trump officials are objecting to the resolution's "language on victims' support from family planning clinics." (Photo: Shawn Baldwin/AP)
'Morally Despicable': Trump Administration Threatens to Veto UN Resolution Combating Rape as Weapon of War
The U.S. is reportedly opposing the resolution over language on reproductive health for victims of rape
Apr 23, 2019
In what critics denounced as the Trump administration's latest attack on women's rights across the globe, U.S. officials are reportedly threatening to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution seeking to end the use of rape as a weapon of war over its language on reproductive health.
"In the latest step in Trump's war on women, U.S. opposes healthcare for survivors of rape during war. Yes, you read that right."
--Heather Barr, Human Rights Watch
According to the Guardian--which first reported on U.S. opposition to the measure late Monday--Trump officials are objecting to the resolution's "language on victims' support from family planning clinics."
"In recent months, the Trump administration has taken a hard line, refusing to agree to any U.N. documents that refer to sexual or reproductive health, on grounds that such language implies support for abortions," the Guardian reported. "It has also opposed the use of the word 'gender,' seeing it as a cover for liberal promotion of transgender rights."
The Trump administration's opposition to the measure, proposed by Germany, quickly sparked international outrage.
"If we let the Americans do this and take out this language, it will be watered down for a long time," an anonymous European diplomat told the Guardian. "It is, at its heart, an attack on the progressive normative framework established over the past 25 years."
Heather Barr, acting co-director of the women's rights division at Human Rights Watch, tweeted: "In the latest step in Trump's war on women, U.S. opposes healthcare for survivors of rape during war. Yes, you read that right."
Others also took to Twitter to condemn the Trump administration's efforts:
Pramila Patten, U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, told the Guardian that the resolution's passage is now in serious doubt due to U.S. opposition.
"We are not even sure whether we are having the resolution [Tuesday], because of the threats of a veto from the U.S.," Patten said.
The resolution seeks to improve monitoring of sexual violence in conflict, punish perpetrators, and increase support for victims.
Patten said the language on reproductive health "is being maintained for the time being and we'll see over the next 24 hours how the situation evolves."
"It will be a huge contradiction that you are talking about a survivor-centered approach and you do not have language on sexual and reproductive healthcare services, which is for me the most critical," said Patten.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In what critics denounced as the Trump administration's latest attack on women's rights across the globe, U.S. officials are reportedly threatening to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution seeking to end the use of rape as a weapon of war over its language on reproductive health.
"In the latest step in Trump's war on women, U.S. opposes healthcare for survivors of rape during war. Yes, you read that right."
--Heather Barr, Human Rights Watch
According to the Guardian--which first reported on U.S. opposition to the measure late Monday--Trump officials are objecting to the resolution's "language on victims' support from family planning clinics."
"In recent months, the Trump administration has taken a hard line, refusing to agree to any U.N. documents that refer to sexual or reproductive health, on grounds that such language implies support for abortions," the Guardian reported. "It has also opposed the use of the word 'gender,' seeing it as a cover for liberal promotion of transgender rights."
The Trump administration's opposition to the measure, proposed by Germany, quickly sparked international outrage.
"If we let the Americans do this and take out this language, it will be watered down for a long time," an anonymous European diplomat told the Guardian. "It is, at its heart, an attack on the progressive normative framework established over the past 25 years."
Heather Barr, acting co-director of the women's rights division at Human Rights Watch, tweeted: "In the latest step in Trump's war on women, U.S. opposes healthcare for survivors of rape during war. Yes, you read that right."
Others also took to Twitter to condemn the Trump administration's efforts:
Pramila Patten, U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, told the Guardian that the resolution's passage is now in serious doubt due to U.S. opposition.
"We are not even sure whether we are having the resolution [Tuesday], because of the threats of a veto from the U.S.," Patten said.
The resolution seeks to improve monitoring of sexual violence in conflict, punish perpetrators, and increase support for victims.
Patten said the language on reproductive health "is being maintained for the time being and we'll see over the next 24 hours how the situation evolves."
"It will be a huge contradiction that you are talking about a survivor-centered approach and you do not have language on sexual and reproductive healthcare services, which is for me the most critical," said Patten.
In what critics denounced as the Trump administration's latest attack on women's rights across the globe, U.S. officials are reportedly threatening to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution seeking to end the use of rape as a weapon of war over its language on reproductive health.
"In the latest step in Trump's war on women, U.S. opposes healthcare for survivors of rape during war. Yes, you read that right."
--Heather Barr, Human Rights Watch
According to the Guardian--which first reported on U.S. opposition to the measure late Monday--Trump officials are objecting to the resolution's "language on victims' support from family planning clinics."
"In recent months, the Trump administration has taken a hard line, refusing to agree to any U.N. documents that refer to sexual or reproductive health, on grounds that such language implies support for abortions," the Guardian reported. "It has also opposed the use of the word 'gender,' seeing it as a cover for liberal promotion of transgender rights."
The Trump administration's opposition to the measure, proposed by Germany, quickly sparked international outrage.
"If we let the Americans do this and take out this language, it will be watered down for a long time," an anonymous European diplomat told the Guardian. "It is, at its heart, an attack on the progressive normative framework established over the past 25 years."
Heather Barr, acting co-director of the women's rights division at Human Rights Watch, tweeted: "In the latest step in Trump's war on women, U.S. opposes healthcare for survivors of rape during war. Yes, you read that right."
Others also took to Twitter to condemn the Trump administration's efforts:
Pramila Patten, U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, told the Guardian that the resolution's passage is now in serious doubt due to U.S. opposition.
"We are not even sure whether we are having the resolution [Tuesday], because of the threats of a veto from the U.S.," Patten said.
The resolution seeks to improve monitoring of sexual violence in conflict, punish perpetrators, and increase support for victims.
Patten said the language on reproductive health "is being maintained for the time being and we'll see over the next 24 hours how the situation evolves."
"It will be a huge contradiction that you are talking about a survivor-centered approach and you do not have language on sexual and reproductive healthcare services, which is for me the most critical," said Patten.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.