Media Reported Trump Administration Opposed U.N. Resolution Against Wartime Rape. Here’s What Actually Happened.

Once again, the mainstream media has completely bungled a story involving the Trump administration in an example of obvious bias.

Over the past two days, nearly every major media outlet reported that the Trump administration either objected to or “diluted” a United Nations resolution condemning rape as a weapon of war.

“US threatens to veto UN resolution on rape as weapon of war, officials say,” a headline from The Guardian read.

“UN waters down rape resolution to appease US’s hardline abortion stance,” read a second article in The Guardian.

“United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution,” read the headline from the BBC.

“Trump administration forces UN to water down resolution opposing rape in war,” was the headline from the Independent.

“The U.N. wanted to end sexual violence in war. Then the Trump administration had objections,” wrote The Washington Post.

“Bowing to U.S. demands, U.N. waters down resolution on sexual violence in conflict,” wrote Reuters.

To read those headlines, one would think the Trump administration was pro-wartime rape, or at the very least, not strongly against it. The headlines obviously worked, because certain “feminist” Democrats immediately jumped on the articles without bothering to read them or even think for a single second about the possibility that there was more to the story. Hillary Clinton called the administration’s move “despicable.”

“This is despicable. The Trump administration is not only ceding America’s role as a leader on the human rights of women, it’s actively working against those rights. We all have to work together to right this wrong and undo this damage,” she tweeted.

In reality, the Trump administration is not for wartime rape.

The New York Post’s Sohrab Ahmari published an article Wednesday evening discrediting all the previous headlines on the subject, writing: “Team Trump didn’t try to stop UN from cracking down on wartime rapists.”

As Ahmari wrote, the U.N. resolution was introduced by German Diplomats without consulting American diplomats first, even though the U.S. has been working on this issue for decades. The draft contained provisions that the U.S. and other member states objected to, including a provision that would go against U.S. law by including language that would promote abortion around the world.

A senior diplomat told Ahmari that European Union countries were using the issue of rape as a weapon of war to “normalize abortion rights as the standard of care.”

“Resolutions at the Security Council gain the force of law. Thus, permitting the Germans to pass their original draft resolution at the council would have codified into international law opinions about abortion, gender and sexuality that run contrary to the sense of right and wrong shared by people across ­Africa, Asia and Latin America. Not to mention many Americans,” Ahmari wrote.

Also, the German resolution proposed creating a new, expensive U.N. “mechanism” to handle the issue, even though there’s already such a mechanism in place.

Ahmari also reported that Russia and China objected to the resolution (Russia, for abortion reasons; China, for reasons related to “non-agreed” language) and planned to veto the entire resolution.

“But thanks to US pressure, the Germans dropped the objectionable language, and in the end, the resolution passed, with only the Russians and Chinese abstaining. Put another way: The Trump administration’s diplomacy helped save a resolution with strong protections for women in wartime that would have otherwise been scuttled altogether,” Ahmari wrote.

All of those headlines above should have said the Trump administration saved a U.N. resolution on wartime rape, but they reported almost the exact opposite.