What I Saw (and What I Didn’t) at the OAS 2025
From June 24 to 26, the Organization of American States held its 55th General Assembly in St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda. On the surface, the event seemed like a promising forum to address the most pressing issues facing the continent. But for those of us who attended with the hope of seeing core values such as life, family, and freedom of conscience represented, the overall outcome was sobering: plenty of form, but little substance.
Very few topics were genuinely open for discussion during this edition. The only issues that received real debate were the situation in Haiti and the procedures regarding credentials. Most of the resolutions had already been negotiated in advance in Washington, D.C., leaving little room for meaningful interventions. This centralized and opaque decision-making structure effectively empties the General Assembly of its purpose as a space for continental deliberation.
This dynamic was particularly evident in how topics related to the defense of life, the family, and freedom were addressed—or more accurately, sidelined. While these issues were not entirely excluded, their treatment was superficial and symbolic at best, with no meaningful engagement or representation in the official outcomes of the Assembly.
One of the few spaces where these concerns found a voice was the Civil Society Dialogue held on June 25. We participated alongside representatives from more than a dozen coalitions across the Americas. From our perspective, we emphasized that “there can be no sustainable development if the right to life is denied; no genuine inclusion if the natural family is excluded; and no resilience if freedom of conscience is persecuted.”
Our intervention included three specific proposals:
To incorporate the protection of human life from conception to natural death into public policy;
To strengthen the role of the family as a key economic and social actor, and
To guarantee full freedom of conscience and expression, including conscientious objection in medical, educational, and workplace contexts.
In contrast, other coalitions delivered interventions that reflect an increasingly dominant ideological vision. The Coalition for Women's Human Rights in the Americas, represented by María José Corvalán (ADEM), asserted that “sexual and reproductive rights are under attack by fundamentalist sectors” and called for progress toward “legal and safe abortion” as a foundation for inclusion. Similarly, the Coalition on Sexual and Reproductive Rights, through Rocío Pilar García Garro (Catholics for the Right to Decide), urged states to adopt the World Health Organization’s recommendations for the full decriminalization of abortion.
It is evident that certain ideological frameworks—such as gender ideology, the legalization of abortion or sex work, or so-called “transformative approaches”—are treated as if they were consensus within the forum, when in fact they deeply divide our societies. A clear example was the denunciation of the Pan American Health Organization’s mental health strategy. As explained in the intervention by the Global Center for Human Rights (GCHR), this strategy promotes abandoning traditional approaches in favor of a “non-binary” perspective and calls to “guarantee sexual and reproductive rights,” which, in practical terms, translates into pressure to legalize abortion and introduce ideological content into children's mental health programs.
In this context, the silence of many states was deafening. Countries that were elected by pro-life majorities and have presented themselves internationally as defenders of the family—including Argentina and the United States—did not make any clear statements on these issues during the dialogues. In fact, the only country that firmly took a clear stance was Paraguay. In the words of its delegation:
“The protection of human rights begins with the most fundamental of all: the right to life from the moment of conception”; (…) “those who attempt to undermine freedom of expression under the pretext of hate speech are attacking the very essence of our rights.”
Víctor Verdún, -in the middle-, in his capacity as Deputy Foreign Minister of Paraguay, was the one who addressed the civil society dialogues.
Paraguay also took a clear stance in rejecting the ideological manipulation of human rights language: “When the concept of human rights is used to justify censorship, to deny the development of a human life in the womb, or to distort essential principles of a free society, that concept becomes entirely hollow.”
Another significant development was the election of Rosa María Payá as Commissioner of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. A Cuban-American activist, Payá received over 20 votes—the highest number among all candidates. Her election represents an opportunity: finally, a coherent, young voice with proven experience in the defense of fundamental rights will be able to influence the system from within.
Marion Bethel was also elected as a commissioner. However, two seats on the Commission remained unfilled after four rounds of voting failed to produce the required majority.
Rosa María Payá, from right to left, and Marion Bethel, from left to right.
Not everything was negative, but the overall balance was that of an Assembly marked by a deep imbalance. The word “inclusion” was repeated time and again, yet applied selectively. Resilience was invoked as a slogan, but without any real connection to the structures that truly sustain it: human life, the family, and freedom. The removal of CitizenGO’s legally placed billboards in Antigua prior to the start of the Assembly may be symbolic, but it is a telling sign. Not all messages are welcome.
What is most concerning, however, is not direct censorship. It is the consolidation of an environment in which certain ideological frameworks are no longer presented as debatable positions, but as official truths. The diversity of ideas is in decline. And when that happens, decisions lose their legitimacy.
The OAS needs to listen more—not only to NGOs with vast networks and funding, but also to the thousands of local organizations, families, and citizens who do not feel represented by this dominant narrative. Pluralism is more than allowing someone to speak. It means incorporating that voice into decision-making.
It’s inspiring to see more and more young people standing up for the cause of life and family.
Here I am with Rocío D’Angelo from CitizenGO, and Teddy Hwre and Darion Cupid from the World Youth Alliance.
In the face of all this, civil society cannot back down. Even if our influence is limited, even if the space is constrained, presence matters. Because speaking the truth out loud remains a form of resistance — and also of responsibility.
