The UN’s Panel on Maternal Mortality
| October 19th, 2004This was forwarded from an email list. It’s now moot - the action it called for ended at noon EST - so I’m hiding most of the entry.
Please join me in sending a fax right now to protest the fact that the U.S Mission to the UN has packed a panel on maternal mortality it’s hosting tomorrow with anti-choice and even anti-contraception ideologues. Their views reject scientifically proven data, shun medical science, and endanger the lives of women in the developing world - the same lives they supposedly trying to save.
Your fax must be sent before noon on Tuesday, October 19th as the panel takes place Tuesday afternoon. Click this link ( tinyurl.com/5onux ) to send your fax to John C. Danforth, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations now.
Tell Ambassador Danforth that it’s unacceptable for the U.S. to promote viewpoints that endanger the health and attack the rights of women around the world. Please also ask him to explain the role in this panel of C-Fam (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute), a far-right group that disrupts efforts of
legitimate NGOs to advance women’s rights and attacks UN agencies such as UNFPA and UNICEF. Despite the fact that C-Fam has no standing at the United Nations, it is claiming to be in charge of all RSVP’s for this U.S. government-sponsored event.
Click this link to send your fax now before it’s too late! Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/4uc6u .
October 19th, 2004 at 6:08 am
I find it very annoying that at the link provided they don’t provide an option to opt out of their “periodic campaign updates”.
This comment was written by Dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2004 at 7:26 am
Dylan: I have a separate email account that I use for just that reason. I only check it once a week or so. This allows me to send all the emails I want without worrying about politico/philanthrospam. (That doesn’t mean it’s not annoying, of course; I’m just suggesting one way around the problem.)
I have a different peeve: when writing such letters, I believe it pays to be specific. What are the NAMES of these anti-choice ideologues, how do we know that they are biased and untrustworthy, and what are some names of better qualified experts? I could not find that information on the Free Choice site, and do not have the time to look it up at 8am on a workday.
I’ve sent this because it’s amp asking and I have reason to trust his judgement, but in future I won’t lend my support to a campaign that does not provide me with a reasonable amount of information.
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2004 at 8:30 am
Who gets to decide which viewpoints it is acceptable to promote?
Who gets to decide which NGOs are legitimate?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2004 at 9:26 am
Well Robert, obviously in this case the US Ambassador gets to decide. However, if enough people screm loudly enough that his decision was wrong and unjust, then it is possible that he will change his mind, and perhaps allow a wider range of viewpoints and NGO’s to be included.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2004 at 9:30 am
From what I can see, the objection seems to be that groups like C-Fam are being included, not that others are being excluded.
What views and NGOs are not being included?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2004 at 9:40 am
Well, I would say from past track record that competent public health specialists are routinely excluded from these events.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2004 at 6:17 pm
If anyone wants a Gmail account (I have five to give away) so they can have a “throwaway” email account for such purposes, please email me and I’ll send you an invite.
Love,
Hanna
hannaw at gmail dot com
This comment was written by Hanna.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Sorry - all things UN are bad! The UN does 0 (zero) to protect women (just read any news article about the UN “peacekeepers”). If they say they are doing this or that they take their time about it, spending as much $$$ as they possibly can, write as many reports as they can dream up, have so much red tape - in the end whatever they were claiming to help never gets helped at all - just a few more pockets lined with other countries money.
This comment was written by JustaDog.Report this comment to the moderators