[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
UNITED NATIONS POPULATION CONFERENCE REJECTED CLINTON PUSH FOR ABORTION

                                 ______


                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 13, 1994

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as an onsite observer from 
September 3 to 10 of the Cairo conference on population, and having 
followed developments during the past year, I can tell you that there 
is a reality gap between the results of the conference and what has 
been reported by many news organizations.
  That is not to say that the news media is necessarily at fault. Many 
of you may be aware that the media was not allowed to observe the 
informal proceedings of the main committee, where most of the 
discussions took place and support and disagreements were expressed. 
Consequently, the press and others have relied on the spin placed on 
the proceedings by the U.S. delegation, the chairman and vice-chairman 
of the main drafting committee--International Planned Parenthood 
Federation [IPPF] President Fred Sai and Ambassador Nicolaas Biegman--
and U.N. Population Fund [UNFPA] head and conference Secretary-General 
Nafis Sadik, as well as statements by the Vatican and pro-life NGO's.
  But all spin aside, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the basic and 
fundamental goal of the pro-life delegations and NGO's was achieved: 
This document cannot be used to pressure or coerce sovereign nations 
that have laws on their books protecting unborn children to promote 
abortion as a method of family planning. This is a clear defeat for the 
Clinton administration which, despite its recent backpeddling, has made 
worldwide access to abortion on demand a primary foreign policy 
objective. The administration's position couldn't have been clearer 
than when Secretary of State Christopher enunciated it in a cable to 
all diplomatic and consular posts last March:

       6. The United States has two main goals for the ICPD: 1) to 
     develop an international consensus on a comprehensive 
     approach to population issues, and 2) to provide an impetus 
     to the global mobilization of resources devoted to population 
     programs.
       7. A comprehensive strategy begins with the need to ensure 
     universal access to family planning and related reproductive 
     health services, including access to safe abortion.
       17. The Untied States believes that access to safe, legal 
     and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women. . 
     . . [T]he United States delegation will also be working for 
     stronger language on the importance of access to abortion 
     services.

  I, as well as many others, would have liked to see the conference 
delete all reference to abortion from the document, since abortion 
should not be a factor in either the regulation of population growth or 
the promotion of development. Nevertheless, even with the pervasive 
influence of IPPF--present in over 60 country delegations--the 
participation of numerous UNFPA-funded delegates, the large, abortion-
promoting U.S. delegation, and the support of 123 U.S. Agency for 
International Development [AID] funded, non-U.S. delegates--in other 
words, despite the whole lopsided makeup of this conference--the 
nations of the world rejected abortion as a method of population 
control and reiterated consensus language adopted at the Mexico City 
conference in 1984 which said that: ``In no case should abortion be 
promoted as a method of family planning.''
  One of Mr. Clinton's first acts after he came into office in January 
1993 was to repeal the United States implementation of the Mexico City 
doctrine which prevented United States foreign assistance from going to 
NGO's which ``perform or actively promote abortion as a method of 
family planning.'' Of the 100 to 200 NGO's which received foreign 
assistance for population programs over the prior 10 years, only IPPF 
and Planned Parenthood Federation of America refused to abide by this 
policy. Last year, after Mr. Clinton signed the executive memorandum 
nullifying the Mexico City policy, AID pledged $75 million over 5 years 
to IPPF.

  The Clinton administration placed itself even farther out of the 
mainstream in 1994 by seeking to repeal the Helms amendment to the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 which states that ``None of the funds * 
* * may be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of 
family planning * * * .''
  The Clinton administration, and a few other pro-abortion countries, 
objected to the Mexico City language and had it bracketed at the 
PrepCom III meeting in New York last April. When those brackets came 
off in Cairo, the nations of the world were repudiating the position of 
Tim Wirth and the Clinton administration.
  But retaining the Mexico City language was not the only pro-life 
victory. The conference also made it clear that abortion should not be 
part of safe motherhood programs. Much was made of the Vatican and 
others requesting brackets around this term at PrepCom III, but the 
reality is that this term is not new and some safe motherhood programs 
do in fact contain abortion as an element. Once this term was clarified 
to mean only health care for mothers and their children before, during, 
and after delivery, all brackets were dropped.
  The modification of the definition of ``reproductive health'' was 
another victory for pro-lifers and defeat for Bill Clinton and Tim 
Wirth.
  In the draft document which came out of New York in April, language 
was bracketed which would have declared a right to abortion as a method 
of fertility regulation. The term fertility regulation has a specific 
meaning given to it by the World Health Organization [WHO]. According 
to WHO, it contains 4 elements: Family planning, abortion, 
breastfeeding, and delayed marriage. The delegates rejected 
the concept of an international right to abortion by changing the term 
fertility regulation to family planning which had already been defined 
in section 8.24 to exclude abortion.
  Section 7.4 enumerates the components of ``reproductive health'' and 
included ``pregnancy termination'' which was bracketed at PrepCom III. 
I understand that this has been changed or redefined to exclude 
elective abortion.
  Finally, at the plenary session today, up to 20 countries expressed 
reservations about some aspect or aspects of the programme of action, 
and most of these reservations have to do with ambiguities in the 
language and the implied recognition given to abortion where it is not 
against the law. With so many countries voicing problems with the 
document, it can hardly be called a consensus document no matter how 
many times that is asserted.
  So the bottom line is that the Clinton administration, with its 
abortion-minded, abortion-promoting agenda, was a clear loser in Cairo.
  But we must not expect this setback to stop Tim Wirth and the Clinton 
administration, As the repeal of the Mexico City policy clearly 
demonstrated, this administration will continue to fund IPPF and other 
organizations which seek to undermine and change the laws in countries 
that provide limitations on abortion. Moreover, we can expect to see 
the State Department and its allies involved in the international 
conference on women to be held in Beijing next year to achieve what it 
failed to get in Cairo.
  It is the business of Congress and the American people to continue to 
be watchdogs to ensure that the U.S. Government does not exert pressure 
on nations--whether directly, through the United Nations, or through 
its influence with international organizations--to accept abortion as a 
right or as a method of family planning.

                          ____________________