One of the main activities of the Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) annual two-week session at UN headquarters is the hosting of, and attendance at, the hundreds of side and parallel sessions organized by a mix of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), UN member states and agencies.

Given the ideological bent of the majority of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) affiliated with the CSW, a self-proclaimed “feminist” initiative, pro-family and pro-life organizations are rarely asked to co-host, unless in conjunction with the Holy See. The Holy See, along with the Knights of Malta, have permanent observer status at the UN and organize a number of side sessions. This year the Holy See will host three events on the topics of sex-selection practices, motherhood and the “scourge of porn.”

There are also parallel sessions that take place offsite and are coordinated by an NGO forum. The NGO CSW website says that the parallel sessions provide an opportunity for those organizations who “may not have a voice at/access to the UN,” to have a presence at the CSW, “but they also allow for education and galvanizing around different issues and topics within the feminist and women’s movement.”

However, the ability of pro-life organizations to have a presence at CSW was further curtailed several years ago. According to Josie Luetke, director of education and advocacy at Campaign Life Coalition, the NGO CSW Forum asked all groups seeking to hold parallel events to “sign off on our agreement on gender identity and gender expression.”

“A lot of organizations like ours said, ‘We can't sign the attestation,’ ” said Luetke.

Those groups, including the Heritage Foundation, Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), and Campaign Life, then took it upon themselves to organize an unofficial event entitled Conference on the State of Women and Family. Though the March 12-13 conference was not listed on the CSW69 website, several of the presentations were standing room only, with the excess crowd spilling out onto the stairwell. 

On March 13, Campaign Life hosted a talk on “Abortion Bubble Zones.” Ruth Robert, Campaign Life’s Atlantic Region Coordinator, gave an impassioned talk on her personal connection with the genesis of “bubble zone” legislation in Nova Scotia.

Robert related how she had drawn the negative attention of fellow university students six years ago when she organized and participated in a 40 Days for Life campaign outside of an abortion-providing Nova Scotia hospital. The students saw Robert praying throughout the 40-day period, took offense and complained to their local MLA. Shortly after a bill was proposed to create safe access zones.

Robert appeared before the provincial Law Amendments Committee to assert that there were already statutes in the code to handle cases of intimidation or harassment.

“If we were doing everything they were accusing us of doing, you could arrest us already,” Robert told the committee.

“Those things should be illegal, and I don't contest that, but if I were doing them, I would already be facing criminal charges because those things are criminal.”

Participants in 40 Days for Life are required to sign a “Statement of Peace” stating they will not threaten or intimidate employees or patients, or block driveways or sidewalks.

The Nova Scotia law, An Act to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care, was passed in March 2020, moving from first reading to royal assent in eight days. The law states that there is a 50-metre zone around facilities that provide abortion within which protest is prohibited. In practice, this affects all forms of protest including silent prayer.

The short timeline and lack of debate shocked Roberts.

“It made it clear that they did not care about ascertaining what was actually happening. They did not care about what the data said. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's own data said that over the last 20 years there has been no significant pro-life violence.”

Enza Rattenni, a former sidewalk counselor and director of Choose Life Niagara, gave a testimony of her experience of providing information and support to women who were about to enter an abortion clinic, support, she says, that enabled those women to decide to keep their baby.

In very many situations, said Rattenni, women do not want abortion.

“They want real support. They want a friend who will journey with them as they navigate through their difficult circumstances while keeping their child. Bubble zone laws deny women the same opportunity that Pamela Sandy, Roxanna and Roberta had to be fully informed of their options.”