After a United Nations (UN) agency published a paper addressing online abortion-related “misinformation,” a human rights research institute is warning it could be used to justify the suppression of pro-life viewpoints by treating them as harmful speech.

Rebecca Oas, director of research for the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), wrote that the UN’s Human Reproduction Programme claims access to abortion is a part of “sexual and reproductive health and rights.” The Programme operates under the World Health Organization, which the U.S. recently cut ties with, as Zeale News has reported.

Oas argued that the paper discusses abortion access as an established human right, though no international human rights treaties have approved it as such.

The paper also fails to reference key international agreements, Oas wrote, including the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, which affirmed that abortion policy is a matter for individual governments to decide. She further said that the paper cites independent experts and committees “as sources of human rights standards,” but noted that those experts or committees are not authorized to create new rights. Rather, they are only permitted to advise on human rights treaties.

The paper defined misinformation as “false, inaccurate, or misleading information shared without intent to deceive.” As part of its warnings against misinformation, the paper favorably cited an article about fetal pain that argues current ideas about when an unborn child can feel pain are linked to pro-life views. 

The paper also cited a leftist article criticizing Project 2025, claiming the initiative promoted strategies to “embed misinformation into federal governance” surrounding abortion as well as sexual and reproductive healthcare. Oas wrote that the paper additionally “is broadly critical of traditional cultural and religious views,” pushes aside religious beliefs in favor of abortion access, and construes anything that opposes abortion as “misinformation.”

Oas questioned the authors’ credibility, citing “their own ideological biases and overreliance on citing others who share them.”

She added, “Ultimately, whatever policy and legal solutions they recommend will have the effect of stifling pro-life voices and censoring conservative viewpoints if they are implemented.”