BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHANGES AT U.N. UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH

In March 1994, US President Clinton sent a cable to every American embassy around the world, requesting his ambassadors to use diplomatic pressure on host countries to support a policy at the then forthcoming September 1994 UN Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, that abortion be accepted as an internationally recognized human right.

Thus began a bitter struggle at the UN between pro-life and pro-abortion nations and non-government organizations (NGOs) over the abortion issue. "REAL Women attended that UN Conference in Cairo (see Reality, "REAL Women and the UN Population Conference in Cairo,"
Sept./Oct. 1994, p. 1), and we saw with our own eyes, as well as at many other subsequent UN conferences, the manipulation, duplicity and raw exercise of power used by the US, the European Union and the Canadian delegations (the latter being truly the worst of all delegations), which relentlessly and continuously pushed abortion. Population control in the third world by abortion was the real, though unspoken, objective behind this thrust for abortion or "reproductive rights," which is the UN code word for unrestricted abortion.

Canada, in fact, has often served as a front or "mouthpiece" for the US delegations at UN conferences. This is due to the fact that even though the US delegations were appointed by the President, all US treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority in the Senate - unlike the Canadian Parliament which rarelyparticipates in Canada's UN policy decisions and has no say in the ratification process. This close monitoring of UN conferences by the US Congress has led to more caution on the part of the US delegations, which is not the case with the Canadian delegations.

UN Conference on Population and Development 1994

Although most of the agenda of the pro-abortion population controllers at that conference was rejected, they did, nonetheless, for the first time, manage to have included in the final document, the fateful word "abortion." That is, although the Cairo document stated that abortion must not be used as a method of family planning, it also stated that where abortion is legal, it must be "safe" (certainly not for the child!). The document stated, however, that abortion must be in accordance with a nation's cultural and religious values. UN officials and western delegations frequently have "forgotten" to include this reservation when referring to abortion, whenever the Cairo document was referred to at subsequent UN conferences. The expressions "sexual reproductive health" and "fertility regulations and safe abortions" were also included in the Cairo document, which, of course, are merely UN code words for abortion and contraception on demand, especially for adolescents without their parents' knowledge or consent.

Pro-Life Initiatives of President Bush at the UN

The hard-line pro-abortion position at the UN by the US delegations, fortunately, has now been completely reversed under George W. Bush's presidency. Mr. Bush, pro-life and a devout Christian, has appointed pro-life individuals to his delegations. As a result, time and time again these delegations have taken a non-negotiable position on family and life issues. Recently, Mr. Bush's administration both intensified its battle against abortion, announcing it can no longer support the 1994 Cairo document and began to push for a new international campaign promoting sexual abstinence, particularly among adolescents. Last summer, Mr. Bush cut off America's $34 million (US) 2002 contribution to the UN's family planning agency. Previously, in May and June, he led a bitter fight to remove references to "reproductive services," which is interpreted to include abortions, from the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child at the Children's Summit held in New York.

These changes in the US delegation's position has enormously helped pro-life NGOs at the UN. The change in climate has been remarkable and has resulted time and time again in the anti-life policies of the European Union and Canada being rejected. The result of these defeats is that UN officials are hesitating now about putting forward their anti-life, population control agenda knowing it will be defeated by the US and Muslim delegations. They are planning instead to wait until the time they hope Mr. Bush will be defeated in the 2004 US elections.

Meanwhile, the Canadian delegation is still promoting abortion, homosexuality, population control, radical feminism and recently, cloning, at the UN Conference on the International Convention Against the Repro-ductive Cloning of Human Beings.

At the UN Conference on Reproductive Cloning in September, the Canadian delegation, in its opening statement on September 24, 2002, agreed that reproductive cloning should be banned, but stated that "due to remarkable advances being made in genetics, reproduction sciences, and biotechnology," it was in full support of "research," on cloning, for therapeutic purposes (including embryo cell research). The US delegation, of course, firmly rejected all forms of cloning at the conference, which has resulted in this UN Conference being effectively stalled and placed on hold for a year.

US Pro-Life Advances

Mr. Bush has also made other advances for the pro-life cause. For example, he has ordered the US Government Health Care Benefits be extended to cover for the first time, unborn children, including the unborn children of illegal immigrants - all of whom he declared must be born as "healthy" US citizens, and, therefore, require health benefits. Also, for the first time under the regulations, a "child" has been officially defined in the US as from conception onward. A further change in climate under the current US President occurred in October when the Michigan Court of Appeal held that a pregnant woman who was physically attacked by the father, and whom the woman had stabbed to death, was not guilty of murder since she was defending the life of her unborn children (triplets) in doing so.

Further, with the November 2002 election giving control of Congress to the Republicans, it is expected that Mr. Bush will be able to obtain the appointment of pro-life judges which had been effectively stalled by the former Democratically-controlled Senate.

The good thing is that frequently what occurs in the US, gradually filters into Canada. In regard to Mr. Bush's pro- life policies - we fervently hope so!

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS