Our concern is that as we witnessed on February 23 rd at Imperial Royale Hotel, EALA members consulting and or facilitating the public hearing, liaised and invited Civil society Organizations, some individuals and governments departments some of which
support Sexual and Reproductive Health rights, or comprehensive Sexuality Education which favors abortion on demand as well as contraception to every one including children. The lists of the invitees for the public hearing is so clear, as to the intended participants. Key stakeholders were not invited to the said hearing, and many did not know about it. Hence given the manner in which the EAC SRHR BILL is being pushed now as well as the general push for “Comprehensive” Sexual Reproductive Health rights, one cannot but suspect that such a move is not from East African member states. We see that this is an agenda by the Western elites pushing population control agenda through the EALA by using EALA as a conduit to mandate abortion and contraceptives to all. This time, children are not spared! We appeal that EALA representatives should not allow themselves to be used by powerful multilateral organizations seeking to implement population control in developing countries, for selfish reasons. It would be prudent for EALA members to complete their term in June 2017 without compromising their integrity by quickly drafting and passing this controversial Bill (EAC SRHR BILL 2017). This is a BILL drafted in January 2017, and the current EALA members want to pass it into an ACT before their term ends on June 4 th 2017. Why the rush?
Secondly, at international level, there has never been any resolution, even at the UN level that recognizes “sexual and reproductive health rights. (SRHR)” Specifically, the promoters of EAC SRHR BILL 2017 tend to imply that the bill recognizes a 2013 resolution from the UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD). Interestingly there has been NO UN resolution adopted ever that recognized “sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR)”. We are aware that some countries have recognized “reproductive rights” or rights related to reproductive health but NEVER “sexual and reproductive health rights” because in SRHR, the word “sexual” modifies “rights” which equates to “sexual rights.” This is because the terms “sexual and reproductive health rights” and “sexual rights” can encompass almost anything including the promotion of homosexuality, abortion, explicit and graphic comprehensive sexuality education for children as young as five years and much more. This would not be a Tanzanian value, and or something that the people of the East African region aspire to have. In fact, African diplomats that negotiate for the African states at the UN ALWAYS reject any proposals to recognize “sexual and reproductive health rights.” Yet Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights” is the title of the proposed EAC SRHR BILL 2017.
The EAC SRHR BILL 2017 also makes sweeping reference to the Maputo Protocol, and yet, a country like Tanzania, ratified the Maputo protocol with reservation to Article 14 (2) (c), meaning that Tanzania is not party to such a provision that promotes abortion on demand. Besides that, Comprehensive Education on Sexual and Reproductive Health, as specified by the meeting of the 1st African Union Specialized Technical Committee on Health, Population and Drug Control (STC-HPDC) in 2015 refers to “age-appropriate and culturally sensitive comprehensive education on sexual and reproductive health for young people that involves parents and communities” In contrast, the EAC SRHR bill in defining abortion states in Part III –Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Services—Article 15:(1) The Partner States shall safeguard and give effect to the reproductive rights of a woman by permitting the termination of pregnancy when in the opinion of a trained health professional, the pregnancy endangers the health or life of the woman.
This definition disregards national laws and policies in order to advance broad access to abortion by using the very broad expression, ‘endangers the health’, and allowing a mere ‘trained health professional’ to decide if a woman meets the criteria for abortion. The bill defines ‘healthcare provider’ as meaning ‘any person or institution that has been authorized to deliver health care services’. A very broad definition that can easily be manipulated by organizations like IPPF and other abortion industries/abortion providers that seek to open new “Markets” by supporting abortion on demand in developing countries (poor countries).
As I see it, from the “optics” point of view, how is EAC SRHR BILL perceived by local people other than the elite? The great weakness of this Bill is that it follows exactly the blueprint laid out by the United Nations and the rich Western population control organizations primarily located in New York City and London. In other words, it has no regard whatever for African culture, customs, beliefs or faith. As always, it is in no way an African document and has nothing of African values in it. It is a creature of the West, pure and simple. Africans (EALA members) may be presenting it to the region, and may perhaps even have written it, but you can be sure they are mere well-paid puppets who have been subverted by money and influence.
The primary point on concern comes with regard to children; during the meeting at Imperial Royale Hotel, the participants were asked by one Pius Okiror, one of who were very critical and suspicious of the EAC SRHR BILL, the question was, whether they any one from the audience would allow their 10 year old child, or child for that matter to be put on contraceptives, or have access to abortion with or without parental consent? None of those present, including EALA members responded in the affirmative. I believe one cannot be separated from that which they value most (EAC SRHR bill); so if the writers and the lawyers backing it up whether from the West, and or from EALA would not allow their children to be subjected to the provisions of the EAC SRHR BILL, by NGOs, or any abortion and contraceptive providers, then whose child do they seek to subject?.
For instance, looking at the first definition in Part I (2.) of the Bill; “Adolescent” means “any person aged between ten and nineteen years.” This is crucial: The Bill demands legalizing “sexual and reproductive” health for ten-year- old girls. Section 17(2) of the proposed Bill states that “The Partner States shall ensure that adolescents and young persons get access to relevant quality and youth friendly sexual and reproductive health services including contraceptives and condoms.” Now who is going to have sex with ten-year- old girls? Do we still have protection from sexual exploitation for children in our East African Countries? The answer is we do! Hence those who are going to have sex with ten year olds who must be provided contraceptives, and have access to abortion without any written or verbal permission from their parents or guardians are certainly not ten-year- old boys! And that is also NOT the interest of the children! It will be teenagers or much older men who have a “taste” for this kind of young girls, and there are many such perverted child molesters in every Country. This is a big problem even in developed Countries such as United States of America, with many incidents reported of men in their 30s or 40s usually, who go to abortion clinics to have these little girls abort against their wills — and the abortion clinics usually cover up for them, thus sending them back to their molesters to be abused yet again. This cannot happen at our watch, and it should not be marketed through EALA.
In other words, this Bill is a license for sexual abuse of little girls, claiming that it is all done with the best of intentions, and the best interest of the child. Whose child is interested in being given contraceptives, and abortion? For those who talk of children who are emancipated or children who have moved from dependence to independence; whose child is that emancipated and independent at 10 years in our region? Thus, the beginning of the Bill’s Memorandum says that its purpose is “to protect children, adolescents and young persons from sexual abuse and other forms of exploitation ...” which precisely the opposite of what the Bill will actually do if it is enacted. The BILL actually facilitates economic growth of abortion industry and those that are specialized in contraception; as the BILL broadens their clientele base and market frontiers. SRHR just like Comprehensive Sexuality Education creates more demands for contraceptives, and when contraceptives fails, more need and demands for abortion would be effectively created, of which the proponents would be happy to provide facilitated by the EAC SRHR BILL.
Like all such bills, the Western sexual agenda is advanced under soothing promises and a faux concern for problems that actually exist; in other words, they talk about eliminating “harmful practices” such as “child marriages, female genital mutilation, retrogressive practice during circumcision of boys and gender-based violence” [3c], but their real concern, and where the real money will go, is towards pushing population control. They invariably present items that almost everyone can agree on, but use it as a cover for more controversial ideas.
This is why part (c) of the Memorandum states that the Partner States will be “cooperating in the development of specialized health training, health research, reproductive health pharmaceutical products and preventive medicine.” Certainly “preventive medicine” in this context is “pregnancy prevention.” This will certainly involve the hormonal methods of birth control. This should be clarified to include the long list of side effects that these methods have, and the fact that they all act as abortifacients most of the time. This is specified in the patient information pamphlets that come with the products — pamphlets that are published by the pharmaceutical corporations themselves, making them immune to charges of bias. 1
“This Bill recognizes … (b) the United Nations Commission on Population and Development 2013 resolution that recognizes that sexual and reproductive health rights as well as population and development education and gender equality are integrally linked to global efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development.” Where has abortion and birth control reduced poverty? I watch such things, and have never seen a shred of evidence that having less children has made any person or any nation rich (except for those people selling them; the pharmaceutical corporations are making billions off of getting African women hooked on their products, just another way to profit from Africa). The fact that millions in Africa still have no clean drinking water is a telling point. According to Brian Clowes a director of Research at Human Life International, more than $65 billion has been spent on population control in Africa over the past twenty years. Hence, if the people who write these documents were truly concerned about the health of Africans, every African would by now have clean drinking water, which extends life and improves health more than any other known health measure.
This Bill intends to … prevent unwanted pregnancies, risky abortion and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV …” “prevent unwanted pregnancies and risky abortions” 3(d). Who is causing “risky abortions?” Why, illegal abortionists, of course! If mortality and morbidity from illegal abortions is such a problem, why not arrest the abortionists who are butchering women? Everyone knows who they are, and many advertise openly. They say that women are dying and that this is a terrible shame, but the fact is they want this butchery to continue so that abortion can be legalized. If they deny this, then ask why the illegal abortionists have not been arrested and charged.
“Reproductive rights” include the right of all individuals to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive lives free from discrimination, coercion or violence;” (2). This is a broad language; that makes it easy to be interpreted to include an acceptance of homosexuality and transsexualism, as well as sexual liberalism. As we all know by now, great advances are made by Western interests who deliberately refuse to precisely define terms so that they can be expanded later to include acts that legislators would never approve of through the normal process of lawmaking.
“Every individual shall have the right to seek and receive age-appropriate sexual and reproductive health information, in any form, either orally, in writing or in print, in art, or through any other medium of their choice, subject to restrictions imposed by law” (II,6,(1)]. This section continues: “The Partner States shall strengthen parents’ capacity to provide appropriate information to their children relating to sexual and reproductive health, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of their children” [II, 6, (2)]. T
The second part of the text sounds good. However, in practice, the first section always supersedes the second. Children are exposed to the most graphic imaginable imagery, which is designed to break down their inhibitions while grossly violating their latent period. In every country where sex education enters, we see that parents are completely cut out of the process and, in almost all cases, are forbidden from interfering with their children’s innocence being violated.
Of course, the ideal method would be to empower and inform parents to teach their own children in such delicate matters, but this almost never occurs. It is in the interests of the implementing partners, abortion providers and contraceptive industries for children to be sexually active — and sterile. When sexual inhibitions are broken down, children are more likely to follow the examples of the elite, who are seen as very sexually permissive. The question is often raised: “Why do we need years of sex education?” Is Comprehensive sexuality education, or SRHR the key priority for the EAC so much so that they are in such a rush?
Sex education as well as SRHR is reprogramming. It is a long-term program of propaganda, designed to slowly change the attitudes, beliefs and values of school children, and or a people. This is also an attack on the innocence of children; and yet we should be more strategizing to protect children from sexual attacks and exploitation.
With regard to abortion provision for women, section 14 (3) (f), every woman shall have the right to … safe abortion in accordance with Section 15 (1) “The Partner States shall safeguard and give effect to the reproductive rights of a woman by permitting the termination of pregnancy when in the opinion of a trained health professional, the pregnancy endangers the health or life of the woman.” It is evident that in every nation, abortion promoters allow an abortion exception to save the life of the mother; in effect population control groups often work to expand this exception to cover the health of the mother. They pretend that this is a very narrow and strict exception, and always play on the emotions. But they know better. This is why the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) adopted the World Health Organization definition of “health” as “A state of complete physical, mental and social well- being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.” 2 In other words, an abortion exception for the health of the mother is abortion on demand in practice.
Part IV — Assisted Conception.
In most developing nations we have seen, three primary problems occur when access to assisted reproductive technologies is enacted: (1) the rich have unequal access to all such technologies; (2) surrogacy becomes an exploitation of poor women by rich Western women, as we have seen in India; and (3) the disposal of many thousands of early embryos. 3
Section (26) mentions “vulnerable populations,” which usually encompasses special protections and rights by homosexuals. This is an excellent example of the use of vague language to conceal the true objectives of the Bill.
I believe that Section 28(1) is the first time I have ever seen a demand that traditional ceremonies and rites include sexuality education — apparently the Western writers of this Bill will leave no possible avenue untampered with.
From the forgoing, and as members of the Ugandan society, and concerned citizens we reject the EAC SRHR in totality, we reject attempts to attack the innocence of children, we do reject and denounce any move that expose children to sexual and economic exploitation through mandating/legalizing contraception and abortion on demand for all citizens including children; and we call upon the EAC representatives (EALA members) to focus their attention ushering the region to true and effective integration of the East African Community. We believe that the spirit of the integration shall be abused through BILLs such as the EAC SRHR BILL 2017.
Emil Hagamu, HLI Regional Director of Anglophone Africa
Reprinted with permission from Fr. Jonathan Opio of HLI Uganda. I have made some modifications to the original text.
1 These pamphlets can also be found at the following Web sites;
Emc+ Web site (DataPharm): http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/
Patient information pamphlets: National Institute for Health's DailyMed Web site at
Patient information pamphlet archives:
MyDR Consumer Medicines Information:
Medications for Birth Control; at Drugs.com:
2 United Nations World Health Organization journal paper. Sexual and Reproductive
Health: a Matter of Life and Death, at http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/
publications/general/lancet_1.pdf. Panel 2, “Cairo Definition of Reproductive Health,”
3 See “The Culture of Life 101” series in The Wanderer on assisted reproduction by Brian
Clowes (available by e-mail if required).