International human rights lawyer Amal Clooney slammed the Trump administration for its commitment to a pro-life policy.

Clooney condemned the Trump administration for pressuring the U.N. Security Council to expunge its euphemistic pro-abortion language from a resolution that was supposed to condemn the use of rape as a weapon of war but also demanded support for abortion.

While the Trump administration made known it was clearly committed to the prevention of sexual violence in high-conflict zones, it desired also to be true to its commitment to its pro-life policies that seek to protect human life from the moment of conception.

“This is your Nuremberg moment. Your chance to stand on the right side of history,” Clooney said, denouncing the U.S. “You owe it to the thousands of women and girls who must watch ISIS members shave off their beards and go back to their normal lives while they, the victims, never can.”

The U.N. ultimately removed the references to “comprehensive sexual and reproductive health” – euphemisms for abortion commonly used by the global abortion industry – under threat of a veto of the resolution by the United States.

LifeSiteNews reported on an internal State Department cable sent by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s office to the U.S. Embassy in Berlin and U.S. Mission to the U.N. The cable instructed U.S. diplomats to inform the German government – which initiated the resolution – of the U.S.’s intention to veto the resolution if the references to abortion were not removed:

America remains “strongly committed to preventing conflict-related sexual violence and holding responsible persons accountable” and agrees “more needs to be done to deter the recurrence of such crimes and assist survivors,” the cable said, but “cannot accept unamended explicit, or implicit, references to ‘sexual and reproductive health’” because “we do not support or promote abortion.”

Pramila Patten, U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, also complained about the Trump administration’s insistence on the removal of language that promoted abortion.

“They are threatening to use their veto over this agreed language on comprehensive healthcare services including sexual and reproductive health,” she told the Guardian, prior to the decision to remove the abortion language.

So ingrained is the global acceptance of abortion as a necessity to women, numerous diplomats from European nations, led by Germany, the U.K., and France, complained about the U.S.’s commitment to its pro-life policies.

“If we let the Americans do this and take out this language, it will be watered down for a long time,” a European diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Guardian. “It is, at its heart, an attack on the progressive normative framework established over the past 25 years.”

“Until the Trump administration, we could always count on the Americans to help us defend it,” the diplomat complained. “Now the Americans have switched camp. Now it’s an unholy alliance of the US, the Russians, the Holy See, the Saudis and the Bahrainis, chipping away at the progress that has been made.”

In a column at the New York Post, op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari observed the left-wing media’s use of the incident as another means to smear the Trump administration:

To readers so inclined, the story was one more reminder of the Trump administration’s bottomless perfidy: Of course it would object to ending sexual violence in armed conflict! Of course President Trump would try to “dilute” protections for women raped in war! Except that’s not what happened. The administration does not, in fact, wish to see more women raped in armed conflict. You can breathe a sigh of relief if you figured otherwise.

“The draft raised several red flags for the Americans,” Ahmari wrote, noting specifically its call upon the U.N. to provide “comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health,” aka abortion, to victims of rape.

“Resolutions at the Security Council gain the force of law,” Ahmari continued, adding:

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.

Meanwhile, Ahmari also observed the lack of media attention to the most vehement objections to the resolution draft on rape – from Russia and China.

Russia objects to the entire abortion agenda, while China generally prefers “international consensus” at the U.N. Security Council. Both countries ultimately abstained from the vote on the amended resolution that removed the abortion language at the insistence of the United States.

“The Trump administration’s diplomacy helped save a resolution with strong protections for women in wartime that would have otherwise been scuttled altogether,” Ahmari concluded.