Karol Darmoros
The authors of the document call for digital platforms to be held accountable for disseminating content that, in their opinion, restricts access to so-called sexual and reproductive health and rights. Critics warn that this is a step towards censoring pro-life advocates.
As reported by Zenit, the authors assume as a starting point that access to abortion is an element of human rights, although this term has not been adopted in binding international documents.
The analysis adopted a broad definition of “disinformation” as “false, inaccurate, or misleading information disseminated without intent to deceive.” The description goes even further, defining the phenomenon as particularly harmful, having the “potential to deliberately undermine the protection of human rights and restrict access to evidence-based care.”
As an example, the argument about the unborn child’s capacity to feel pain was given. The cited study states that “incorrect beliefs about fetal pain were associated with anti-abortion views, shaping attitudes towards access and policy.” Critics point out that such an approach eliminates important ethical and medical arguments raised by pro-life communities from public debate.
Religion under pressure
The fact that a Canadian Catholic hospital blocked access to abortion clinic websites was also considered “disinformation.” The document broadly criticizes traditional cultural and religious views. It also alleges that the American Christian right supports a movement in Ethiopia working to “dismantle the right to safe and legal abortion.”
The authors take it for granted that non-binding opinions of UN human rights experts take precedence over religious beliefs.
Critics emphasize that such an approach could lead to restrictions on freedom of conscience and expression. The threat of marginalizing Christian teaching on the inviolable dignity of life from conception is also highlighted.
