Stopping Pro-Abortion Agendas at the Organization of American States

Do you know what’s happening behind the scenes at the Organization of American States (OAS)? This intergovernmental organization has a huge influence in the laws and policies of many countries in the Americas.

On today’s episode, Luis Martinez, who leads HLI’s mission at the Organization of American States, explains how global activists are using OAS policies to pressure pro-life countries to legalize abortion and adopt LGBTQ ideology. Learn how terms like “gender-based violence” could be used to discriminate against pro-life voices, how Canada is pushing abortion and LGBT policies in the Caribbean, and how the recent Trump administration changes have affected the fight for life and family at the Organization of American States.

Martinez also shares how HLI helped defend El Salvador’s pro-life laws by influencing key commissioner elections, and what Catholics can do to fight back against international pressure threatening life, family, and religious freedom.

📢 Support HLI’s OAS Mission! Help us proclaim the truth about life, family, and human dignity on the world stage. Send your best gift here: Give the world another pro-life leader | Human Life International

Follow HLI’s podcast on social media: @cultureoflife_podcast | Instagram, @cultureoflife_p / X.

Transcript:

Colleen (Host): Hello and welcome back to the Living a Culture of Life podcast by Human Life International. I’m your host, Colleen, and I’m really excited to share today’s episode with you.

Today, I interview Luis Martinez, who heads up HLI’s mission to the Organization of American States. If you’re anything like me, you’ve probably never heard of—or don’t know much about—the OAS. Basically, it’s like the United Nations for the Americas, including countries from North America, South America, and the Caribbean.

Luis explains to me how anti-family organizations use the Organization of American States to pressure pro-life countries to change their laws. It’s a fascinating episode where Luis gets into all the dirty details about how phrases like “gender-based violence,” which might sound neutral or even good, could be used in the future to discriminate against pro-lifers.

I really enjoyed this episode. To me, Luis seems like a detective, because he basically has to look at how phrases are used in proposed policies, see how they’ve been used in other documents, and then evaluate whether or not this could be used to hurt life and family in the long run.

As always, if you’re listening on audio platforms, please like, subscribe, and leave us a five-star review.

If you’d like to support HLI’s mission to the Organization of American States and our work training pro-life leaders around the world, please visit hli.org/giving and send your best gift today. Without further ado, please welcome Luis Martinez to Living a Culture of Life.

Colleen: Welcome to the podcast, Luis. It’s an honor to have you here.

Luis Martinez: Thank you so much, Colleen. The honor is mine. It’s a pleasure to be here talking about the OAS—so let’s go!

Colleen (Host): Yeah! I’ve been reading your reports for months, ever since I started here and began writing about the Organization of American States occasionally. It’s great to meet you in person and have you here on the podcast.

So, let’s just start for our audience. Our topic today is the recent General Assembly of the Organization of American States. And if our audience is anything like me, they’ve never heard of the Organization of American States—or the OAS—before. Could you just start by telling our audience what the OAS is, and how it impacts countries?

What is the Organization of American States?

Luis Martinez: Sure, sure. It’s normal—this topic is very interesting, but at the same time, it’s not as well known by most people. So, it’s a very good opportunity to talk about it.

The OAS—the Organization of American States—is essentially the premier regional forum of our Western Hemisphere. It comprises almost all the nations in the Americas, from Canada down to Argentina. Let’s think of it as a kind of United Nations, but especially focused on the issues of our own hemisphere. It aims to foster cooperation, democracy, security, development, and human rights among the nations of the Americas—there are 35 member states.

Colleen (Host): If the Organization of American States—obviously—can’t make laws for countries, how does it affect the laws and cultures of the countries that are included?

Luis Martinez: Yeah. In general, the Organization of American States is continuously addressing pressing issues and adopting resolutions—sometimes even setting jurisprudence through the Inter-American Court. So, in the OAS, policies are debated and adopted, and they have far-reaching consequences for individual nations.

These resolutions, even when they are often not binding, carry enormous political weight. They can shape international norms, influence our national legislation, and even sometimes provide a pretext for external intervention in a nation’s internal affairs.

So, if the wrong kinds of measures are taken at the Organization of American States, they can lead, for example, to abortion on demand in one of our countries—even when the national laws forbid abortion. The OAS is capable of pressuring those laws and even forcing the redefinition of marriage or, among other topics, causing the erosion of parental rights and the freedom of conscience, among other calamities.

In the countries in our hemisphere there is a very big influence from the Organization of American States. Every year, almost every month, through the General Assembly, the Inter-American Court, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and other entities like the Inter-American Commission for Women, the Pan American Health Organization, and others. But they do have such a big influence in our nations. They pressure politicians. They pressure laws.

Colleen (Host): Yeah. Does it tend to have more impact in smaller countries? Because, again, I haven’t heard of it affecting American law—and it might be, and I just haven’t heard of it—but it seems like something that larger countries would have a lot more influence over, especially in the legislation of smaller countries.

Luis Martinez: Yeah, that’s right. Absolutely. Even though each country at the Organization of American States has one vote—equally, whether they’re big or small—in practice, day by day, there are some big countries with strong economies that have a very big influence. They pressure small nations to adopt, in this case, what matters to us: anti-family policies, anti-life policies.

And this happens through cooperation funds. For example, countries like the U.S.—although right now, the current influence of the U.S. could actually be positive—but others, like Canada, the European Union, and recently even China, that maybe are not in our continent but are present as permanent observers at the OAS. They exert a conditional influence, pressuring small countries—for example, the Caribbean ones.

This pressure takes many forms, like development aid that’s conditioned on the acceptance of certain social policies, diplomatic pressure, and maybe the worst of them: the funding of local activist groups to promote gender agendas or abortion agendas in Latin America. The big countries that exert the most influence in the Caribbean, for example, are—sadly—Mexico and Brazil, whose influence is unfortunately also negative.

This is very important because these policies strike at the heart of society—the family—and also at national sovereignty. Small nations are being bullied into abandoning their cultural values and traditions in exchange for financial assistance.

And this is especially important—and terrible—because, for example, the Caribbean nations make up more than a third of the votes at the Organization of American States. And even though many of them are conservative nations, their votes—a third of the total—are being wasted.

Proof of this is that the worst resolution in this General Assembly—one on the so-called “mental health crisis in the Americas”—was actually proposed by one of them, by one Caribbean country: Antigua and Barbuda. Even though Antigua and Barbuda is a conservative nation.

Colleen (Host): Interesting. Yeah, so it has a lot of influence over these countries, and since most people don’t know what’s happening, it’s kind of happening in the dark.

Luis Martinez: Yeah. There are hundreds of millions of dollars—maybe in one case or two, even thousands of millions—moving from the north of our continent to the Caribbean every year. So yes, it’s a big influence. They are often forced to vote in line with what the big countries tell them.

Why HLI has a Mission at the Organization of American States

Colleen (Host): So, you’re the director of our mission at the Organization of American States. Could you tell our audience a little bit about why HLI has a mission there—and what the coalition is as well?

Luis Martinez: Yeah, that’s a very interesting question.

HLI was the first pro-life civil organization to participate at the Organization of American States, starting in 2012—more than 10 years ago. And we are there because we are convinced—we are sure—that the Organization of American States is increasingly becoming a key battleground for values. Anti-life and anti-family officials, along with civil society organizations funded by powerful international interests, are continuously pushing their agenda at the OAS.

So, we need to be there to counter those efforts, to protect the preborn, to defend the natural family, and to uphold the rights of parents—rights that are being attacked day by day through undue external pressures on our nations.

Our goal at the Organization of American States is to educate, advocate, and mobilize support for policies that truly reflect our values in the Americas: life, family, freedom of conscience, and liberty of religion, resume the dignity of the human person from conception until natural death. We seek to be a positive influence on resolutions, on policies, on the election of OAS officials, and even on the broader culture within the Americas—spreading the Gospel of Life through the OAS.

Colleen (Host): And the coalition is a group of many pro-life organizations who are at the Organization of American States, right? That we kind of brought together into one group?

Luis Martinez: Yes, yes. Since we started there in 2012, we were increasingly growing. Right now, we have a coalition of about 60 organizations from 24 countries across the Americas. We are in all four subregions: North, South, Central, and the Caribbean.

For example, in the General Assembly, the only way civil society can participate is through coalitions. There are currently about 23 coalitions that bring together between 800 and 1,000 organizations from across the Americas, representing all kinds of ideologies.

HLI coordinates one of those 23 coalitions. And it may be the most representative at the Organization of American States, because we include organizations from all four subregions and many countries. We work together throughout the year virtually and then gather in person for each General Assembly. We work together in a very tight strategy to achieve a couple of objectives every year. There are many big leaders in the coalition—amazing people—who support HLI year after year, helping us become a big positive influence at the Organization of American States.

Colleen (Host): Nice. Can you think of any examples from past General Assemblies, or times you’ve been involved at the OAS, where the coalition was successful in advancing something good—or in stopping something bad?

Luis Martinez: Yeah. We usually work toward several objectives, but most of them fall into two main categories:

One is influencing the wording of the resolutions. The other is promoting and pushing for very good candidates for the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission—because those are the two most important entities within the Organization of American States.

So, for example, in 2023—two years ago in Washington—we pushed for two pro-life candidates for the Inter-American Commission: one from Guatemala and one from Peru. Both of them were elected to the Inter-American Commission. Right now, they are active commissioners. They’re operating there as we speak.

Now, we weren’t the only ones pushing for them. It was part of a broader strategy among countries and other civil society organizations. But HLI and our coalition had a very good impact in lobbying for those candidates.

Last year, we did the same for elections to the Inter-American Court, and we succeeded in getting one pro-life judge elected to the court. This year, we did it again. In fact, we succeeded in helping elect a candidate from the U.S.—a very good candidate—Rosa María Payá Acevedo. She was proposed by the United States of America, is deeply pro-life, and was elected in this General Assembly.

As for resolutions, every year we work with the delegates of member states in a strategy to first identify the most threatening paragraphs in the draft resolutions, then analyze them, and try to change the wording. Every year, we’ve seen very good outcomes. Last year, for example, there were several mentions of sexual and reproductive rights in two or three resolutions—including one about children, specifically young girls in rural areas.

With the support and coordination of a few member states—like Paraguay, Peru, and Argentina—we were able to change the language. On those three attempts to insert sexual and reproductive rights language, none of them were approved. All three were removed from the final resolutions. So those are a couple of examples of our work. Every year, it’s essential that we are there. We’ve seen that we truly have a strong impact—and we cannot leave that position.

Colleen (Host): Yeah. Well—and you also mentioned the Court—the Inter-American Court, I believe the name is. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the court can basically issue rulings that pressure countries.

For instance, I believe El Salvador has a pro-life law, and somehow a case made it to the OAS’s Inter-American Court. The court ruled that El Salvador’s pro-life law violated human rights, which then puts pressure on that country to change its laws and allow more abortion access. So, that would be one reason why it’s important to have pro-life people on the court—because it’s used to exert pressure on countries that have pro-life laws. Is that a correct assessment?

Luis Martinez: Yeah, totally. Totally. And that’s a very good example.

There were actually two rulings about El Salvador in the Inter-American Court. The first one was very bad. But the last one, about a year ago, was not so threatening to El Salvador’s pro-life laws. That’s because one of the judges made a very important statement. He argued that the case wasn’t really about abortion—it was about medical care in general and some issues related to health protocols.

Other judges had tried to push abortion into the case, but because of that one judge’s influence, the final ruling was still against El Salvador—but it only required changes to some healthcare protocols. It didn’t touch the abortion laws at all. So, that was a big success.

And that judge—the one who had that positive influence on the ruling—was the very candidate we helped elect during the 2024 Assembly in Asunción. HLI made a big difference by supporting that election, and we saw the direct impact in the final resolution for El Salvador.

That’s a real-world example—a concrete outcome—where our advocacy helped El Salvador maintain its pro-life laws.

Colleen (Host): Nice. Yeah, I didn’t realize how closely connected that was. I just remember reading about the case and hearing it was the Organization of American States court—and kind of putting the two together. So basically, they told El Salvador that they had to change how they approached certain medical procedures, but they left the pro-life law alone, so it wasn’t as damaging as it could have been.

Luis Martinez: That’s right. And that’s a good example of why we need to be there. Because the Organization of American States—in this case, for example—is clearly trying to change national laws.

Colleen (Host): Okay. Yeah. Is the vision for HLI’s mission at the Organization of American States mostly to stop top-down pressure—like, stop the pressure of the Organization of American States on smaller countries—or is it also to use the OAS as a force for good, where we’re advancing pro-family policies? I’m guessing it’s a little bit of both.

Luis Martinez: Yeah. Yeah. I think the influence of countries like Canada or the European Union is maybe beyond what we can stop directly—because those are global powers with very large interests.

But what we can do is speak in person, one-on-one, with the delegates from smaller countries—especially in the Caribbean. We can provide them with legal analysis and help them understand the subtleties of what’s written in the resolutions.

Even though they are small countries, many of their officials aren’t as prepared as those from larger countries. So, they often need assistance—but they’re not always going to ask for it. That’s where HLI and our coalition come in. We approach those officials, help them understand what’s really at stake, and they are often very grateful for that support. There are many votes—especially secret ballots—where they’re free to vote independently, without direct influence from Canada or others. In those secret votes, we often have the advantage.

But in public votes, we see things that are difficult to understand—until you realize the power dynamics involved. For example, in a recent General Assembly, Haiti proposed a resolution about its own critical security situation. But two or three big countries refused to support Haiti’s petition.

Then, just a short time later, when it came time to vote for Inter-American commissioners, Haiti voted in favor of those same countries—because there had been financial pressure behind the scenes. In those kinds of votes, there’s not much we can do except try to support and inform them. But there are other moments—especially in secret votes—where we can make a real difference, particularly by supporting the natural conservative values many of those Caribbean nations hold.

Colleen (Host): You’ve mentioned the Caribbean a couple of times. So—are Caribbean countries getting pressured by countries like Canada to support pro-abortion, anti-family policies? Is that a correct assessment?

Luis Martinez: Yeah. Totally. And it’s documented.

There are about 13 Caribbean countries among the 35 Organization of American States member states—so that’s more than a third of the votes. And for the past 15 to 20 years, they’ve been receiving hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars every year. The country that’s received the most is, in fact, Haiti.

All 13 of them have a very strong economic dependence—and a tourism dependence—on Canada. Right now, Canada is basically the captain of the “culture of death” at the OAS. Along with Mexico—and until recently, Argentina—they were the most anti-life member states. But Argentina is now very pro-life again. So currently, it’s mainly Canada.

Even under this new Canadian government, things have actually gotten worse than they were under Trudeau. I couldn’t imagine it getting worse—but it has. Now, if it were the U.S. exerting influence on the Caribbean, it might actually be a good thing, because right now, the U.S. is having a more positive influence.

But Canada is not. Canada is pressuring those 13 member states to vote in favor of sexual and reproductive rights and pushing new language on gender identity and transgenderism. For example, whenever the word “woman” is used in a resolution, Canada tries to add language like “all kinds of women” to introduce the transgender concept—terms like “sexual and reproductive rights,” “transgender.” Now, words like “family,” “dignity of the human being,” or “human person”—all of these create conflict with Canada, which then mobilizes those 13 dependent countries to try to remove or redefine those concepts in the resolutions.

Colleen (Host): Is a big part of what the coalition—and what you do at the Organization of American States—focused on showing delegates how certain phrases actually carry deeper meanings? Like how “sexual and reproductive rights” implicitly includes things like abortion and LGBTQ ideology, or how “all kinds of women” includes transgenderism? Is that a big part of the education that goes on there?

Luis Martinez: Yeah. Yeah. That’s a key part of our coalition’s mission.

Starting a couple of months before each General Assembly, we begin by attending the virtual meetings of the OAS Permanent Council. That’s where the early discussions happen—about possible resolutions that might be presented.

We attend those meetings, we analyze the drafts, and we start spreading our legal analysis, opinions, and exhortations to the member states—through email, WhatsApp, and other channels. We alert them ahead of time about the risks in the language. We explain to them, for example, how a paragraph in a resolution about mental health might seem neutral, but is actually using victims of gender-based violence as a pretext to pressure mental health professionals into discriminating against defenders of life and family in the Americas.

We walk them through how the paragraph is linked to a WHO declaration, or a resolution from UNESCO or the UN. We also prepare documents to hand out in person during the General Assembly. Every year, we distribute a folder with materials—including a one-pager summary or briefing document.

So the delegates are continuously receiving our analysis. Some of them reach out with questions or ask for further explanations. And at the Assembly itself, we approach them in person. Even if it’s just for a couple of minutes—because they’re very busy—we talk to them about specific phrases, how to reverse problematic wording, and which alternative expressions we recommend. We also share how other member states are raising similar concerns, so they know who they can align with to build support and potentially change the outcome of a vote.

Concerning Wording in OAS Policies

Colleen (Host): Yeah. Interesting. Wait—did you say that they’re using gender-based violence as a way to discriminate against pro-lifers?

Luis Martinez: Yes. Not explicitly, but that’s what’s happening—especially in this last General Assembly.

The worst resolution this year was the one on the mental health crisis in the Americas. The Permanent Council had stated that there would be no new resolutions this year—but at the last minute, they introduced six or seven new ones.

Two of those had serious issues with their wording. The others were either neutral or relatively safe for now, though with some long-term risks. But the worst by far was the resolution on the mental health crisis. Even though it doesn’t say outright that defenders of life and family are violent, the resolution includes several “considerative” paragraphs that reference other documents—resolutions from the UN, WHO, and other OAS entities.

At first glance, that might not seem problematic. But when you go and look up those referenced documents, you’ll see they’re not binding—they’re often just declarations written by activists, sometimes lawyers, sometimes not. These are low-profile documents in international law, but they’re still cited in Organization of American States resolutions.

And in those referenced declarations, they include language about helping victims of gender-based violence—such as women who want to have abortions. People who oppose those abortions are characterized as part of the violence. And then the mental health professionals are told they should “respond” to that influence—meaning they should treat defenders of life and family as a threat.

So, in the big picture, if the OAS continues down this path—just two or three more steps—we could see a situation where defenders of life and family are labeled as having mental issues. Why? Because we’re considered “violent” or “dangerous” to women. That is the logical consequence of the language they’re inserting.

Colleen (Host): Wow.

Luis Martinez: Yeah. And that resolution should never have passed.

First, they had promised that no new resolutions would be introduced. Second, the proper procedure was violated. Usually, all resolutions go through the General Committee, where they’re debated and revised.

But out of the seven resolutions, only two were discussed in committee. The mental health resolution—the worst one—was approved directly in the plenary session, with no discussion at all. We weren’t able to debate it, propose changes, or stop it. It was rushed through—like a power move, or what we’d call in international law a bad faith action. They didn’t allow us to to present considerations against that resolution. So it was the worst thing in this General Assembly.

Colleen (Host): Yeah. Interesting. I’ve definitely seen groups like International Planned Parenthood talking about gender-based violence before, and I always thought there was something fishy about it. It was always connected to sexual and reproductive rights, but it didn’t even occur to me that you could use that phrase to go after pro-lifers.

Luis Martinez: Right. And there are other consequences—like the consideration of post-abortion syndrome, which is being forbidden or at least excluded from mental health education. Another example is the treatment—effective or behavioral treatment—by professionals in cases of same-sex attraction. Right now, there’s a push in our nations for that kind of therapy to be forbidden, even punishable.

What is the Organization of American States General Assembly?

Colleen (Host): Could you tell our audience just a little bit about what the General Assembly is? You already gave us one example of something that was a loss at the General Assembly, but just briefly—what recently happened there? Because it took place at the end of June, so it’s a pretty new event.

Luis Martinez: Yeah, yes. It’s an annual event. It’s the supreme decision-making body of the Organization of American States. The member states get together and set the organization’s agenda, discuss pressing issues, and adopt resolutions.

They debate and adopt policies that, as we already said, have far-reaching consequences. They meet every year. There are two main spaces: the General Committee, where they discuss the legal wording of resolutions, and the Plenary Session, where they talk among themselves about the most important topics.

This year, for example, they discussed the threats to democracy in the Americas, the situation in Haiti—good topics. One interesting thing was that they discussed the legacy of a Catholic pope. So that part was good. But we warned our delegates—those who are more polite and diplomatic—that other delegates might try to use that resolution in the future. Right now, the resolution is not bad, but in the future they could use it for events, meetings, or declarations that reinterpret that legacy—using it to promote gender ideology or alternative family structures based on a misreading of the pope’s values. So yes, it was a good resolution in appearance, but I think the intention behind it was not good.

In the Plenary Session, they discuss the big issues. For example, the United States presented major concerns about democracy, about security, even about wars in other continents. And of course, during the Plenary Session, elections happen—for positions like the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court. Also, the Assembly is held in a different venue each year.

Colleen (Host): Can you explain the Catholic pope thing a little more? I’m confused about how that could be used to promote gender ideology.

Luis Martinez: Yeah, of course. This year, they approved a resolution called “The Legacy of Pope Francis in the Values of the Americas.” Right now, the resolution doesn’t include any wording that poses a direct risk to us, so that’s good. But it does include paragraphs saying that the Organization of American States needs to organize events throughout the year to reflect on these values and promote them in our countries.

So, they’re planning a couple of events this year around that reflection. But when you look at the values mentioned in the resolution—things like inclusion, non-discrimination, women’s rights—they can be interpreted in very different ways. If the Organization of American States were led by good people, those values could be upheld in a good way. But in the wrong hands, “inclusion” can be twisted to mean promoting gender ideology, transgender policies, and non-traditional family models.

They can present these ideas in events, using the legacy of a Catholic pope to suggest that even he was promoting gender ideology. That’s how they’ll try to convince Catholic communities that Pope Francis supported those ideas.

Colleen (Host): Yeah. Interesting. Okay, I can see how that could connect—and how they could use those vaguer phrases to push something further down the road. It seems like you have to connect all these dots. You have to ask: how has this phrase been used in other documents? That could be the implicit thing they’re trying to say, to push these ideas onto countries.

Luis Martinez: Yes. And as you said, sometimes it’s implicit. It’s not always very clear.

The good thing this year is that we didn’t have any explicit risks. The resolutions were good—with the exception of the crisis in mental health—but the rest were solid. But we can’t walk away with the impression that there’s nothing more to do, or that we’re all set with these resolutions. Because risks can come in the future, even from so-called “good” resolutions. We need to alert the delegates: “Yes, this is good now—but let’s think about the events and activities that will take place throughout the year as a result.”

Another resolution, for example, was called “Initiatives of Integral Development for the Americas.” It was good too, but it called for forums and discussions throughout the year on these development initiatives. And the OAS typically includes topics like population in its concept of “integral development.” That’s where they include sexual and reproductive rights, and issues around the care of children and teenagers. In that context, they’ve started attacking the family—indirectly—through the idea of development.

So right now, the resolutions weren’t bad. In fact, we finished the General Assembly with 100% no advancement of gender ideology. That’s very good. But we still need to stay alert. Even when resolutions are good, there’s still work to do and things to watch closely.

Colleen (Host): That’s awesome, though—that you had 100% no advancement of gender ideology. Are there any other things from the General Assembly that stood out? Either wins, losses, or anything the audience should be aware of?

Luis Martinez: Sure. This year, for example, we also managed to change the wording in one resolution about Haiti. Paragraph 6 was originally framing the topic of women in a problematic way—talking about “different kinds of women.”

Also, regarding elections, we influenced the appointment of one commissioner for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Rosa María Payá. That was a win. There were three vacant commissioner positions. The second one, unfortunately, was filled by a candidate known for a strong pro-abortion and anti-family track record. That was disappointing.

The third position was interesting—it came down to an epic tie. There were four voting attempts, and all of them ended in a tie between one of our candidates and a pro-abortion candidate. So, the member states were given 15 days to resolve it, and the final vote is scheduled for tomorrow in Washington. We’re hoping for another win with that vote by electing our candidate for the third commissioner position.

So, the second commissioner and the resolution on mental health were probably our two biggest losses at this General Assembly. But overall, we’re very happy. The best candidate was elected—one from the United States—and the other resolutions were good. So we’re motivated to keep going.

Colleen (Host): Yeah. Could you give our audience an idea of why the commissioner role matters? What exactly do people in these commission positions do?

Luis Martinez: Great question. We’ve been talking about the Inter-American Commission as if it’s widely known, but for the general public, it’s really not. And it’s very important.

Historically, the Inter-American Commission has been the most dangerous arm of the OAS when it comes to life and family issues. The Commission is composed of seven commissioners. Usually they are lawyers—not always, but typically. And historically, they’ve been activists for abortion and gender ideology.

The Commission receives cases from any country in the Americas, dealing with a wide range of human rights issues. Sometimes these are neutral topics, like education, migration, security, or police conduct. But other times, the cases involve topics like a country’s prohibition of abortion, or a situation where a transgender person wasn’t allowed to adopt a child.

The Commission analyzes those cases and issues non-binding resolutions or declarations. But in the most important cases, they escalate them to the Inter-American Court. At that point, the Commission acts almost like a lawyer, advocating on behalf of the person or group claiming a human rights violation. The case is then judged by the Inter-American Court—and that court’s rulings are binding.

So the Commission is the first step—and historically, it has had a major influence on what the Inter-American Court does. It’s often used to push model cases that serve as pretexts to change national laws related to life and family.

In recent years, things have started to shift, but it’s still a very powerful and strategic body. In 2023, we had our first pro-life commissioner. So, among the seven commissioners, we have one who is pro-life. It’s a small part, but it’s a good influence and it’s the start—the first step.

This year, with Rosa María Payá, we have two out of seven. So we are working and starting to make a big change in the most anti-life and anti-family institution in the Americas. We already have almost 25%, maybe tomorrow we can have 30%, but we will continue working. Every two years, there is an election for commissioners. We hope that by 2027, we can add another one, maybe have four out of seven—that’s most of them—and finally write a new page in the history of the Organization of American States as a pro-life history.

Colleen (Host): Yeah, no, that’s really interesting. I find it fascinating how all these intergovernmental organizations affect hands-on legislation, laws, or the culture of countries, yet most people don’t really know what happens at these organizations or how they work. So this is really helpful to learn about.

Luis Martinez: The most interesting thing I’ve found about intergovernmental organizations, which helped me understand them better, is that when they have institutions requiring formal consideration or votes by member states, they cannot advance abortion or gender ideology.

They always need institutions that are less official, with “soft law” instead of “hard law”—like resolutions that are not binding, such as declarations. They start making changes in those entities first, and then, as a second step, they push those changes to the official entities. That’s the role of the Inter-American Commission: a soft law, unofficial entity, but it is the step to have an impact on the Inter-American Court.

Influence of the Trump Administration

Colleen (Host): Yeah. Have you noticed if there was a change at the Organization of American States General Assembly this year because of the recent change in the U.S. administration? Like, did the Trump administration coming in exert any positive or negative change on the OAS, or was it basically the same as before?

Luis Martinez: Very good question. Very interesting question.

Yes, it had a positive impact, but I don’t think it’s enough yet. The U.S. is a very important member state in the OAS—maybe the most important because of its influence. It influences discussions and negotiations on many agenda items.

During the previous administration—the Biden administration—the U.S. pushed gender ideology and sexual and reproductive rights very noticeably. Right now, with this new administration, that momentum has faded and shifted toward support for the pro-life cause.

For example, in this General Assembly, with the proposal of Rosa María Payá—the best candidate of all—incidentally, a U.S. delegate thanked HLI, saying our efforts really helped in her election. This indicated to us that the U.S. delegation is aware of HLI’s work and values our participation. That’s a good sign. In the past administration, it was the opposite, very clear. I remember at one General Assembly in Asunción, Paraguay, a U.S. delegate was reading our HLI folder with documents, laughing and commenting with a feminist activist nearby. They were laughing at our folder.

So, it’s totally different now. However, we know that the U.S. did not take the strongest stance against resolutions like the mental health resolution, nor was it the strongest pro-life delegation. It was during the first Trump administration in the past that the U.S. had a very strong pro-life delegation. Right now, it is pro-life, but it’s possible that the U.S. is balancing different priorities—like promoting economic and security interests, migration, maintaining good relations with other member states, and defending values mostly related to democracy.

So, the U.S. posture or role is complex. Priorities have changed, but it still has a lot of influence. Even with that, it is making a big difference in the Organization of American States in favor of us. We can presume two things. First, of course, we do not have the strong anti-life influence that the previous administration had. That influence was very strong. Second, even though the current administration is not notoriously pro-life, it is still pro-life. The candidate we supported was the best choice. There were a couple of mentions that the U.S. will not support the Organization of American States if it continuously adopts an ideological posture.

And third, which is very related to the previous point, maybe the most notable mark in this General Assembly from the U.S. was that they threatened the Organization of American States to withdraw funding. That was a big statement. It indirectly favors us because the OAS will have to take this threat seriously and at least neutralize their ideological agenda for now. So, in short, the U.S. played a notably complex but pro-life role in this General Assembly.

Colleen (Host): Cool. So they threatened to pull funding if the Organization of American States continues being super ideological?

Luis Martinez: Yeah, they said that. So maybe their stance isn’t always strong, but this threat was strong.

Colleen (Host): Well, it seems like even a neutral position from the U.S. would be better than having the anti-life influence it had under Biden. So even if it’s not as pro-life as it used to be, it’s still better than before.

Luis Martinez: Yeah, totally. And even when they try to accommodate their complex situation with other democracy or security issues, we know we can count on the U.S. for our strategy. They approached us; they were very kind. We count on the U.S. So that is very good.

Colleen (Host): Nice. Well, Luis, this has been a great conversation. Do you have any last thoughts on this topic you’d like to share with our audience before we wrap up?

Luis Martinez: Only to say thank you for this time, and a little homework suggestion—don’t hate me!

It’s very good to search the internet and news about the Organization of American States because many things are happening there that we can’t imagine, and these things are very interesting and can affect our families, our countries, our schools—all of us. Secondly, please keep us in your prayers and daily Masses. Our mission is to promote the Gospel of Life and give testimony of the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of our Lord.

So, the main battle is not a political or diplomatic one. The main battle is spiritual. We depend not on our own capabilities but on your prayers. So don’t leave us alone. Don’t leave us behind. We need you.

Colleen (Host): Well, thank you, Luis. That’s a great way to end this. Thank you for what you do at the Organization of American States and for HLI.

Luis Martinez: No, thank you, Colleen. It’s a pleasure.

Colleen (Host): And to all of our audience, please like and subscribe. If you’d like to support HLI’s mission at the Organization of American States and the United Nations, I’ll drop a link in the description where you can donate. And as always, keep on living the culture of life. God bless.