Saturday, May 21, 2022
HomeCulture WarsWHO’s abortion guidelines find humans such a nuisance

WHO’s abortion guidelines find humans such a nuisance

-

THE past two years has shown how eager governments are to obey any diktats from the World Health Organisation (WHO), no matter how harmful they are. This worrying pattern is set to continue with the recent publication of the WHO’s new ‘abortion care’ guidelines. 

A strong whiff of eugenics permeates this publication which advocates global access to limitless abortions. Unsurprisingly, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), with its own history of eugenics and allegations surrounding the selling of aborted babies, is a contributor.  

The WHO insists that limitless abortion promotes health but these guidelines entrench its progressive ideology, which at best views humans as a nuisance, and at worst, a virus to be eradicated. They read like a malevolent recipe for depopulation, aided by Big Government. Teenagers seeking an abortion can do so without parental knowledge or consent (page 9). Governments are instructed legally to ‘recognise children’s and adolescents’ evolving capacity and their associated ability to take decisions that affect their lives’, effectively dissolving parental care and responsibility. Fathers are also denied a say (page 44).

Denying parental authority is a favoured method of control practised by socialist/fascist regimes. Schoolchildren are being given the experimental Covid-19 vaccine without their parents’ permission; this practice can now be extended to abortion. The procedure is traumatic enough for an adult woman, any adolescent girl undergoing it without support from her family risks a mental health crisis.

A further socialist agenda is being pushed by WHO’s shilling for Universal Health Coverage (UHC), funded, of course, by the middle-class taxpayer (pages 13-14). Free abortions for all will be made a priority under the WHO’s ‘global competency framework for universal health coverage (UHC)’ (page 16). The WHO neglected many health issues with its approach to Covid-19. Will the same happen with abortions? Anyone suffering from life-threatening diseases risks being discarded like a used tissue, mimicking the experience of these past two years. These abortion guidelines will enable eugenics to be practised in multiple ways. 

This sinister global health system will no doubt be implemented by governments corrupted with power, taking orders from an organisation which cares little for genuine female needs, health and wellbeing, and which denies real science and biology. The WHO champions itself as ‘scientific’ yet promotes transgender magical thinking when it comes to biological science. Women are just one category of ‘pregnant people’ according to the guidelines, which use misogynist terms such as ‘cisgender’ to describe them and ‘recognises that . . . nonbinary, gender-fluid individuals’ can become pregnant (page 3). How disturbing that an organisation which professes to care about female sexual health cannot even get basic biology correct. 

Not content with distorting the biological concept of what it means to be female, the WHO perniciously seeks to normalise the word ‘abortion’. The guidelines refer to miscarriages as ‘missed abortions’ (page 74) and ‘spontaneous abortions’ (page 80). 

Even more foreboding are the recommendations for late or full-term abortions (page 27). So eager is the WHO to make these abortions easy that it rules out using ultrasounds before an abortion, as these could ‘limit the availability of abortion by gestational age’ (page 47). The guidelines also state that ‘pregnancy can safely be ended regardless of gestational age’ and that ‘gestational age limits are not evidence-based; they restrict when lawful abortion may be provided by any method’. Both are outright lies given the multiple dangers these forms of abortion pose to mothers, including excessive bleeding, laceration to the uterus and blood clots.

The WHO may protest that its guidelines are there to prevent ‘unsafe abortions’ but late and full-term abortions are a proven risk to the mother’s health or even life. Currently, UK law states that most terminations must be carried out within 24 weeks of conception, with earlier abortions being safer. Only in exceptional circumstances, such as a risk to the mother’s life, are abortions carried out after 24 weeks. This will change should the UK sign up to the WHO’s abortion agenda. As it will for any other European country to do so, though many currently allow abortion on demand only up to 12 or 13 weeks, after which it is limited to cases where the baby or mother is at risk. The UK with the Netherlands and Switzerland is an outlier. Polling in Britain suggests nearly 50 per cent of younger women want reduction in the abortion time limit. 

The WHO contradicts itself too. In one part of the publication it suggests that dilation and evacuation (D&E) should be used for pregnancies past 14 weeks, including late and full-term abortions (page 62); yet on the next page it warns that ‘observational studies indicate that vacuum aspiration is associated with fewer complications than D&E’ (page 63).

Another malignant recommendation is for ‘self-managed abortions at or before 12 weeks’, to be induced by medication without the supervision of trained healthcare workers (page 98). Women can then use a checklist to ‘self-assess’ the ‘success of abortion’ (page 99). This callous approach to women is entrenched by the fact that anyone who ‘enhances health’, even non-medical professionals, can perform abortions under these guidelines. The only requirement is ‘basic training’. In other words, anyone can set themselves up as an abortionist, funded by the taxpayer. It’s astonishing that the WHO purports that its guidelines prevent female abortion morbidity yet it encourages abortions to be performed by those with little or no medical training.

Should any medical professional object to the WHO’s abortion guidelines they will be silenced under the guise of ‘human rights’, a sick irony given who runs the WHO. Its Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, shills for China and is suspected of aiding genocide in his own country of Ethiopia. The WHO’s decision-making forum, the Executive Board, includes Syria and Afghanistan.

Together with China, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) dominates the WHO. Given that the GF is a prolific funder of IPPF, and Bill’s father sat on its board, it is highly suspicious that the WHO is now pushing for global, unlimited abortion. 

Nothing good ever comes from the WHO. Its new abortion guidelines, which should be renamed ‘Eugenics Updated for the 21st Century’, is no exception to this precedent. 

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Karen Harradine
Karen Harradinehttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk
Karen is an anthropologist and freelance journalist. She writes on anti-Semitism, Israel and spirituality. She is @KarenH777on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.