Ripe and about to burst from its cyclical consumption and regurgitation of sexual excess, and giddy from its assertion of “rights” intended to ensure that depravity will run rampant, IPPF brandishes its sword of bravado and demands laws to enforce its newly-defined “sexual rights” by any and all means.

As we previously reported, after two years of preparation, International Planned Parenthood Federation has issued a document intended to create “change,” promote and ensure “sexual rights” as human rights, and promote the use of legislative and judicial action to enforce these supposed rights. It is titled Sexual rights: an IPPF declaration. We conclude our special report on IPPF’s declaration on ‘sexual rights’ with this issue of the Wednesday STOPP Report.

In this dangerous declaration of “sexual rights,” IPPF lays claim to many so-called rights that simply have no basis in truth. Thus, the declaration itself becomes a lie and leads to disregard for genuine human rights.

We have previously discussed the preamble, the seven “principles” upon which these supposed “sexual rights” are based, and the first five of the 10 “sexual rights” PP is espousing. We will now take a close look at the final five “rights.”

IPPF leaps beyond its usual defiance of social, cultural and moral norms, claiming the “right” to spit in the face of public order, public morality, public health and public security for the sake of expressing ideas about sexuality.

Further, we see IPPF laying claim to our children once again, as it attempts to exclude the influence of parents through demanding the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to hold opinions without interference, within a framework of non-discrimination and respect for the evolving capacity of children.”

In the third paragraph, IPPF attempts to free “all persons” from “fear, shame, guilt, false beliefs and other impediments to the free expression of their desires.” Does this not sound like Satan himself, skulking in the shadows, claiming the ability to take away shame, guilt and, yes, those ridiculous false beliefs that would prevent a person from pursuing whatever he might desire?

IPPF then makes another pathetic attempt at establishing itself as the supreme authority regarding our children, by claiming everyone has the “right” to “receive and impart information and ideas with regard to… sexuality through any legal medium and regardless of frontiers,” and—surprise—relying on its favorite phrase yet again: “within a framework of non-discrimination and taking into consideration the rights of others and the evolving capacity of children.”

This article concludes by claiming the “right” to do all of the above through groups and organizations, “through any medium.”

IPPF attempts to lay waste to the conscience rights of those health-care providers and others who do not wish to participate in its mandate of unbridled sex, immoral reproductive technology, dangerous contraception and abortion, by stating, “All persons shall have access to health care and services independently of the conscientious objection of health service providers” (emphasis added).

Here IPPF also attempts to ensure the “right” to “reproductive health technologies, services or medical interventions,” once again invoking the “principle of the evolving capacity of the child.”

Among the many descriptive terms that come to mind regarding this declaration, “redundant” looms large.  It’s as if IPPF believes that if it repeats something often enough, it will become truth and law.

IPPF claims that all persons have the “right” to “comprehensive sexuality education and information.” As we reported earlier in our analysis, Planned Parenthood pushes for what it calls comprehensive sexuality education, as opposed to abstinence education, which PP opposes.

Article 8 also calls for “empowering [young people] to participate in determining policy regarding sexual health and sexuality education.”

It further claims the “right” to educate children about all sorts of perverse sex, saying, “Young people in particular shall have access to information on sexuality and gender non-conforming lives and sexual relations.”

Next, IPPF seeks to ensure that this education in perversion is available free from parental interference, in school-, health-service- and community-based settings. Included in this section is the assertion that all persons will decide “when, how, and with whom to have sex and when sexual behavior will become reproductive.”

As this document nears its end, it becomes clear that IPPF is attempting to eradicate the most basic building block of our society: the institution of marriage.

The traditional family consisting of one man and one woman joined in marriage and surrounded by the children who are the very expression of the spouses’ love for one another, is the model designed by God Himself for the happiness and survival of the human race.

In his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage), Pope Pius XI grieved that “a great number of men, forgetful of that divine work of redemption, either entirely ignore or shamelessly deny the great sanctity of Christian wedlock, or relying on the false principles of a new and utterly perverse morality, too often trample it under foot.”

He went on to explain that “since these most pernicious errors and depraved morals have begun to spread even amongst the faithful and are gradually gaining ground,” he was duty-bound to raise his voice to keep the flock committed to his care “from poisoned pastures.” By way of this article, IPPF spreads its most lethal poison on the verdant pastures that are intended to support human life.

In the initial paragraph of this article of the IPPF declaration, claim is made to laws and policies that “recognize the diversity of the family forms as including those not defined by descent or marriage.”

Broadcasting the toxic idea of even children entering into these types of relationships, the document claims the “right” for all persons to “enter freely and with full consent into marriage or other partnership arrangements.”

Article 9 then attempts to force you and me to pay for these illicit partnerships, by claiming to grant the “right” to “family-related social welfare” benefits, “independently of the family form they have chosen to found, including those not defined by descent or marriage.”

It then claims the “right” to adopt or create children within these unholy bonds, and to “reproductive technologies, and treatments” deemed necessary for accomplishing those goals. It seeks to ensure the utilization of life-destroying contraception and abortion and, once again, invokes the “evolving capacity of children.”

Then, invoking perhaps the biggest oxymoron ever, it calls for the “right” to “safe abortion…  accessible, affordable, acceptable and convenient to all users” (emphasis added). Abortion always involves the termination of an innocent human life. Safe abortion? For whom?

“Article 10. Right to accountability and redress”

“All persons have the right to effective, adequate, accessible and appropriate educative, legislative, judicial and other measures to ensure and demand that those who are duty-bound to uphold sexual rights are fully accountable to them,” it states. “This includes the ability to monitor the implementation of sexual rights and to access remedies for violations of sexual rights, including access to full redress through restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, guarantee of non-repetition and any other means” (emphasis added).

It then calls for States to “establish mechanisms of accountability for ensuring that their obligations related to the guarantee of sexual rights are fully upheld,” and specifically calls for “non-state actors whose actions or omissions impact upon [all persons’] enjoyment of sexual rights” to be held accountable for the lack of such enjoyment.

This rehashes Principle 7, which specifically names not-for-profit and religious entities among those who should be held accountable for actions and omissions that deprive persons of the enjoyment of “sexual rights.”

In his 1930 encyclical On Christian Marriage, Pope Pius XI apparently foresaw attacks on the traditional family:

Some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times… These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring…

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern ‘culture’ in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples…

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.

He called for a return to the divine plan for marriage.

Pope Pius XI said:

"Wherefore, since the chief obstacle to this study is the power of unbridled lust, which indeed is the most potent cause of sinning against the sacred laws of matrimony, and since man cannot hold in check his passions, unless he first subject himself to God, this must be his primary endeavor, in accordance with the plan divinely ordained."

"For it is a sacred ordinance that whoever shall have first subjected himself to God will, by the aid of divine grace, be glad to subject to himself his own passions and concupiscence; while he who is a rebel against God will, to his sorrow, experience within himself the violent rebellion of his worst passions."

If our society is to avoid terminal decay, we must subject our passions to God’s will. IPPF’s rebellion against God and His plan for chaste marriage is destined to bring those who revel in this rebellion to ruin.