[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             CLINTON GLOBAL ABORTION PUSH SET BACK IN CAIRO

                                 ______


                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the real yet untold story of 
the recent U.N. population control conference held in Cairo was how, 
after months of scheming, plotting and arm-twisting--and packing the 
conference with a legion of Planned Parenthood operatives--the Clinton 
administration and its allies suffered a stunning defeat in their 
ignoble attempt to impose abortion on demand on the rest of the world.
  While the final document--the so-called Programme of Action--was far 
from perfect, when all things are considered it was a remarkable 
victory for global pro-life forces and the approximately 100 countries 
throughout the world that legally protect the lives of their unborn 
children. While we were aware of the fact the that chairman of the main 
drafting committee was Fred Sai of Ghana, president of International 
Planned Parenthood Federation, it has now come to light that Planned 
Parenthood people were quietly salted away in dozens of delegations.
  Nevertheless, led and inspired by a courageous, highly-skilled and 
tenacious Vatican delegation, dozens of countries from Central and 
South America and Africa, and Muslim states resisted both the bullying 
and the ever-present pressure of the abortion lobby. In the end, the 
document affirmed their sovereignty to protect and cherish the precious 
lives of unborn babies.
  Significantly, despite opposition from the Clinton delegation at the 
preparatory meetings in New York and in Cairo, the delegates from 
around the world emphatically insisted in the document that ``in no 
case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.'' This 
consensus language, which even the U.S. reluctantly swallowed in the 
end, is identical to the wording won in Mexico City in 1984 (at the 
last United Nations Population Conference) under former President 
Ronald Reagan.
  But let there be no mistake about it. Mr. Speaker, this anti-abortion 
policy wasn't in the Clinton script for Cairo.
  In March, the Clinton State Department underscored the extreme 
proabortion position the United States was promoting in an action 
cable--marching orders, if you will--sent to every U.S. Ambassador and 
envoy abroad. The cable confirms in stark, unmistakable terms what I 
observed both at the New York PrepCom III--preparatory committee 
meeting--in April and my onsite observations in Cairo from September 3-
10.
  Incredibly, the cable directed U.S. officials to lobby foreign 
governments for legal abortion, noting that:

       A comprehensive strategy begins with the need to ensure 
     universal access to family planning and related reproductive 
     health services, including access to safe abortion. The 
     United States believes that access to safe, legal and 
     voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women * * * 
     the United States delegation will also be working for 
     stronger language on the importance of access to abortion 
     services.

  Abortion President Bill Clinton's full-court press not only failed to 
establish a fundamental global right to abortion, but has actively 
triggered a serious backlash against the Government of the United 
States. The hardball tactics employed by the Clintonites, it turns out, 
were deeply resented in the developing world where the family is deeply 
revered and children are seen as blessings to be cherished and 
nurtured, not burdens to be eradicated. As a result of Cairo--America's 
moral leadership, prestige, and basic ethics are now being called into 
serious question.
  From over a hundred conversations I had a the conference, I heard 
that while many delegates from the developing world admire America's 
prosperity, they want no part of our family breakups, explosion in 
crime, promiscuity, disrespect for authority, homosexual rights, or 
violence against helpless unborn children.
  One person asked me why President Clinton was against children. More 
than a few remarked to me how arrogant and pushy these Americans seemed 
to be.
  When I reminded delegates--and scores of foreign journalists who 
interviewed me as the lone prolifer in a U.S. delegation which included 
noted feminist Bella Abzug and the U.S. President of Planned 
Parenthood--that tens of millions of Americans are actively pro-life, 
and many in Congress are struggling to protect America's unborn 
children from abortion, I was met with smiles, handshakes, 
encouragement, and relief. One delegate even said, ``Then there still 
is hope for your country.''
  While from the outside some of the debate in Cairo on the document's 
text might have been viewed as esoteric and tedious--the press was 
barred from the real work of the conference in the main committee--the 
Vatican and its allies refused to be deceived, intimidated--yes, they 
were jeered, or buffaloed by those who knew full well what were the 
hidden, actual definitions of terms such as ``reproductive health'' or 
fertility regulation.''
  The important modification, made by delegates, of the definition of 
``fertility regulation'' is an example of this.
  In the draft document which came out of New York in April, language 
was bracketed--which means it was in dispute--which would have declared 
a right to abortion as a method of fertility regulation. The term 
``fertility regulation,'' according to the World Health Organization, 
contains four elements: Family planning, abortion, breastfeeding, and 
delayed marriage. The delegates in Cairo, however, were not fooled by 
this code word for abortion and explicitly rejected the concept of an 
international ``right'' to abortion by changing the term ``fertility 
regulation'' to ``family planning'' which had already been defined in 
another section to exclude abortion.

  However, despite these victories, the pro-abortion movement did make 
some inroads. For the first time, the Conference gave some legitimacy 
to abortion, when it is not against the law, and accepted the 
disturbing notion that unsafe abortion be regarded as a health issue to 
be tackled, as if to imply that abortion is ever safe. It should be 
obvious that newer and more effective means of destroying an unborn 
baby are never safe for the child who is killed, nor do they heal the 
psychological and spiritual wounds suffered by women who procure 
abortions. Urging governments to consider unsafe abortion in their 
countries also raises the risk that some may promote legalization as 
the answer.
  Of course, all of this contradicts numerous U.N. and regional human 
rights covenants that regard protections for the unborn child as a 
basic human right. Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights 
states.

       Every person has the right to have his life respected. This 
     right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the 
     moment of conception.
       Even the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child 
     acknowledges that.
       The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, 
     needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate 
     legal protection, before as well as after birth.

  Moreover Mr. Speaker it has now become abundantly clear that, even 
during the debate on the text, some delegates may not have fully 
understood the nuances of this document because of translation 
problems. The Programme of Action was filled with ``Americanisms'' 
which were not readily understood by the French-speaking African 
nations, many Spanish-speaking Latin American nations, and others whose 
laws and constitutions protect the unborn and their mothers from 
abortion. When the drafting committee worked on the so-called 
compromises, translations from the English were often inadequate or 
simply unavailable.
  Had men and women of conscience not vigorously and effectively 
objected, Cairo would have been a watershed event for the abortion 
rights movement. It was not. Still, no one seriously doubts that 
President Clinton's well-oiled population control machine will continue 
to ``push the envelope'' in follow up meetings, and at future U.N. 
conferences in Copenhagen and Beijing.
  Nor is there any doubt that United States taxpayers will be forced by 
the Clinton team to subsidize a portion of the enormous new population 
control funding goals established in Cairo.
  Nor will the friends of the family and vulnerable unborn children be 
lax, uninformed or unprepared to meet the challenge that lies ahead.

                          ____________________