[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 147 (Tuesday, November 29, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: November 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              AN EXPLANATION OF THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION

                                 ______


                         HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 29, 1994

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues know Dr. James 
Dobson from his outstanding radio show, ``Focus on the Family.'' 
Recently, I received the following newsletter from Dr. Dobson that 
explains how many of the destructive social experiments that began in 
the 1960's have been discredited. His words also help to explain the 
conservative revolution that took place at the ballot box on November 
8. I commend Dr. Dobson's insights to my colleagues.

                          Focus on the Family

       Dear Friend: Perhaps you heard a recent ``Focus on the 
     Family'' radio broadcast featuring syndicated columnist Cal 
     Thomas. During that interview, Cal stated emphatically that 
     liberalism is doomed as a political force in Western nations. 
     Like Communism in the 1980s, liberal ideology is morally and 
     intellectually bankrupt and is quickly unraveling at the 
     seams. Its revolutionary ideas have poisoned Western cultures 
     since the mid-'60s. But all of its cherished goals, with few 
     exceptions, have failed miserably and lie on a rubbish heap 
     today.
       Where (except for Washington, D.C.) are the noisy radicals 
     of past 30 years? Where are the advocates of ``open 
     marriage,'' drug legalization, death education, values 
     clarification, filthy speech, the ERA, ``children's 
     liberation,'' commune dwelling and the sexual revolution? 
     Where are the bra-burners, the men-haters, the flower 
     children and the radical feminists? Oh, some of them are 
     still out there, but few are taken seriously anymore.
       I asked Mr. Thomas why, if this leftist movement is losing 
     steam, are we still being plagued by its radical proposals? 
     Every day, it seems, we hear disturbing stories about gay and 
     lesbian extremism, nonsense in public education, wars between 
     the sexes, euthanasia, ``safe-sex'' propaganda and the 
     unbelievable pronouncements of Joycelyn Elders. Cal replied 
     that these campaigns are merely the dying gasps of liberals 
     who haven't noticed that the people are no longer with them. 
     Our nation's capital, which feeds on its own propaganda, is 
     often the last to recognize where the nation is headed.
       Is Thomas correct in this perspective? We can certainly 
     hope so. For now, however, the craziness is still in full 
     bloom. Consider, for example, a recent column by Nat Hentoff, 
     renowned authority on the Bill of Rights. This is what he 
     wrote about an abominable medical policy in the United 
     States.
       In 44 states, all infants are tested at birth for the 
     presence of HIV virus. In these 44 states, if the infant does 
     test positive, neither the parents nor the baby's physician 
     is informed. These are blind tests intended only to track the 
     AIDS epidemic geographically * * *.
       Why is the HIV test blinded? Over the years, gay 
     organizations, the National Organization for Women, the 
     National Abortion Rights Action League and the American Civil 
     Liberties Union have made this a political rather than a 
     medical issue. Since identifying the HIV status of the infant 
     also discloses that the mother is infected, the privacy of 
     the mother takes precedence over the life of the infants * * 
     *.
       As a New York mother, at first unaware that her infant was 
     infected, says, ``They are sacrificing infants on the altar 
     of confidentiality.'' Her child is dying of AIDS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       What a classic example of the fuzzy-headed, corrupt 
     thinking that has dominated our public policy in recent 
     decades! Its proponents would rather let sick babies go 
     untreated than to surrender one of their cherished tenets. I 
     could cite hundreds of similar outrages. When I served on the 
     Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, for example, a 
     representative of the ACLU named Barry Lynn testified that 
     his organization opposed any restriction on the marketing, 
     sale and distribution of child pornography. The ACLU appeared 
     to have no interest in the children who would be horribly 
     abused by such a policy. All that mattered was that the 
     rights of pornographers be protected. (Not so coincidentally, 
     the ACLU is heavily funded by the Playboy Corporation.)
       Most of our social woes can be traced to this kind of 
     liberal pap, including the current epidemic of sexually 
     transmitted diseases, the phenomenon of juvenile crime, the 
     ``dumbing-down'' of our educational system, planned 
     barrenhood and the confiscatory tax structure. It is the 
     institution of the family, however, that has been most 
     severely wounded by leftist tampering. And hold onto your 
     hats, friends and neighbors! Here come the social engineers 
     again.
       This time, they are taking on what they perceive to be the 
     ``approaching disaster'' of world overpopulation. The 
     problem, as they see it, is human beings--far too many human 
     beings. They think the world is awash in babies. To remedy 
     this problem, Vice President Al Gore and U.S. Undersecretary 
     of State Tim Wirth led an American delegation of 45 members 
     to the United Nations Conference on Population and 
     Development in Cairo, Egypt, September 5-13. It represented 
     the latest effort by the Clinton administration to promote 
     abortion, feminist ideology and condom distribution in less 
     developed nations around the world. It also featured a 
     predictable assault on the traditional family and the values 
     that support it.
       Pope John Paul II, joined by leaders of many Muslim groups, 
     severely criticized the conference organizers, saying they 
     undermined family values and sought to promote an 
     international right to abortion. Five Islamic countries had 
     similar apprehensions and boycotted the event in Cairo.\2\
       Mr. Gore, attempting to deflect the Vatican anger, denied 
     that abortion is the centerpiece of the U.S. policy.\3\ But 
     he was in the unenviable position of contradicting 
     established fact. One commentator said, ``Then they sent poor 
     Al Gore out to shred his credibility [by] denying it.''\4\
       Robert Novak wrote, ``This team has left a paper trail that 
     cannot be obscured by Gore and Wirth minimizing the U.S. 
     position at Cairo. On May 11, Wirth bluntly told the United 
     Nations what he wanted in Cairo: `Our position is to support 
     reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion.' As 
     for undeveloped countries where abortion is prohibited by 
     law, he said, `A government which is violating basic human 
     rights should not hide behind the defense of 
     sovereignty.'''\5\
       Incidentally, Wirth is reported to have provided a large 
     bowl of brightly wrapped condoms for guests visiting his 
     office in the State Department.\6\ Does that give you a hint 
     of what he believes about sexual morality and reproduction?
       Vice President Gore's denial of a pro-abortion policy is 
     also contradicted by the record of the Clinton 
     administration. It has granted more than $13.2 million of 
     taxpayer money (and promised $75 million more in the next 
     five years) to organizations such as International Planned 
     Parenthood for promoting abortion and ``safe-sex'' ideology 
     in other countries.\7\
       Then in March of this year, the State Department sent a 
     cable to all American embassies around the world, urging them 
     to coerce local governments to make abortion a ``fundamental 
     right of all women.''\8\ This directive, mind you, went to 
     our ambassadors in predominantly Catholic nations, Islamic 
     countries and other sovereign nations where abortion is 
     anathema. It also went to African principalities, where 
     inadequate medical care and insufficient antibiotics will 
     result in wholesale deaths for women terminating pregnancies. 
     This kind of interference in the affairs of other nations has 
     led Catholics and Muslims to charge the U.S. with 
     ``cultural imperialism.'' We agree with their assessment.
       Given these vigorous efforts to promote abortion around the 
     world, how could the vice president have stood before the 
     delegates in Cairo and denied that this has been the policy 
     of our government? The answer, of course, is that the Vatican 
     had backed the U.S. Administration into a corner. The matter 
     had profound political implications. I applaud the Catholic 
     leadership for having the courage to defend the unborn--while 
     most Protestant denominations were either uninvolved or 
     unwilling to take the heat.
       Focus on the Family sent a representative to the Cairo 
     conference, who brought back further evidence of the 
     subterfuge that took place. Roughly 98 percent of the 
     attendees from the U.S. turned out to be abortion and Planned 
     Parenthood advocates. They were clearly pulling the strings 
     for our government. For example, Tim Wirth had a Planned 
     Parenthood consultant at his news conferences, to whom he 
     turned when he couldn't answer a question. Furthermore, the 
     few pro-life representatives in attendance were treated 
     shabbily by the U.S. delegation. They were not given 
     translators at their meetings and news conferences and were 
     denied access to facilities and copy machines, etc. In 
     retrospect, this conference reminds us of the National 
     Women's Conference held in Houston in 1977, when feminists, 
     lesbians and pro-abortionists totally dominated that 
     governmental process. Bella Abzug was a principal designer of 
     that lopsided affair. And guess what? Bella Abzug was there 
     in Cairo as a special consultant for the United States and 
     Jane Fonda was a delegate-at-large.\9\ How little has changed 
     with the passage of time.
       Promotion of abortion wasn't the only problem with the 
     Cairo conference, of course. Let's look at some other 
     comments from the secular press:
       Last August 26, George Weigel, president of the Ethics and 
     Public Policy Center in Washington, wrote an editorial in The 
     Wall Street Journal about the ``Draft Final Document,'' which 
     became the basis for the discussions in Cairo. He called it 
     ``morally and culturally offensive.'' Weigel was particularly 
     critical of its failure to link sexuality and marriage, or 
     marriage and the family. ``Indeed,'' he wrote, ``the word 
     `marriage' appears only once in the draft document's chapter 
     on `the family,' and then only in terms of deploring 
     `coercion and discrimination in policies and practices 
     related to marriage.' Not one word addresses the importance 
     to children--to their physical and mental well-being--of 
     families rooted in stable marriages.''
       Finally, he said, ``* * * the draft document has a nasty 
     coercive edge to it. The responsibilities and rights of 
     parents are brushed aside when it comes to `adolescent sexual 
     and reproductive health issues.' Rather, in a clause that 
     should set off alarm bells in any parent's mind, the document 
     mandates governments to remove `social barriers to sexual and 
     reproductive health information and care for 
     adolescents.'''\10\
       From Mr. Weigel's analysis and from the document itself, it 
     is clear that the United States government is attempting to 
     promote its own liberal agenda for the family throughout the 
     world. We're exporting the radical notions of Joycelyn Elders 
     and her allies to bureaucrats in more than 170 nations. And 
     if they don't like it, we will use the enormous prestige of 
     the United States to coerce them. Our goal is to make other 
     nations adopt the bankrupt and divisive policies that have 
     failed so dramatically in this country.
       The greater concern is that governments seeking favor and/
     or funding from the United States will impose ``birth 
     quotas'' on its women in order to reach mutually agreed-upon 
     population targets. Linda Chavez expressed this danger in an 
     article in USA Today. She explained how the Cairo conference 
     will actually restrict individual liberty and repress women, 
     rather than ``empowering'' them as the organizers claim. She 
     wrote:
       What they [population control advocates] don't often say is 
     that such policies will mean more government coercion and 
     less individual liberty for people in other countries than 
     Americans would ever tolerate for themselves. When Americans 
     speak of unplanned pregnancies, they mean those unplanned 
     by the parents. But radical population control advocates 
     have another definition in mind. They mean pregnancies 
     that exceed government targets.
       Intrauterine devices, which were withdrawn from the U.S. 
     market in the 1980s because of safety concerns, are the 
     Chinese government's method of choice for controlling 
     pregnancies. Government doctors in cities are ill-trained 
     `barefoot doctors' in rural areas forcibly insert IUDs in 
     millions of Chinese women each year. Fearful that couples 
     will remove the devices, the government has removed the 
     strings from IUDs, making removal, even by a doctor, more 
     dangerous and painful. Women must undergo X-rays every three 
     months to ensure that the IUDs are in place.\11\
       China's incredibly repressive policies about reproduction, 
     to which Chavez referred, have created a social nightmare. By 
     demanding that families have only one child, millions of 
     female babies have been aborted, murdered or deserted after 
     birth. The consequence has been catastrophic, according to an 
     article in the New York Times:
       Ultrasound machines and ready access to abortion have made 
     it relatively simple for parents to guarantee that their one 
     child is a boy. But after generations of tampering with 
     nature, nature has begun to exact its revenge. And this time, 
     the victims are Chinese men. The numbers suggest that tens of 
     millions of men alive at the turn of the century will be 
     lifelong bachelors because there will simply not be enough 
     women available as wives. * * * [Single] men [in their 30s 
     and older] outnumber the [single] women by nearly 10 to 
     1.\12\
       We haven't heard the end of this story, where untold 
     suffering and frustration have been inflicted on the Chinese 
     people in the name of ``population control.'' It should have 
     been anticipated. Atheistic ideology always leads to chaos. 
     It will be our undoing, too, if we persist in promoting 
     policies that disregard the wisdom of the ages and the God of 
     the universe. Nevertheless, there in Cairo sat the vice 
     president of the United States in dialog with the Chinese 
     tyrants who have trampled human rights and offended every 
     understanding of moral decency. According to Congressman 
     Chris Smith, R-N.J., China's representative was the man 
     specifically responsible for the administration of their 
     country's forced abortion program!\13\ It was disgraceful!
       Nevertheless, a member of the House of Representatives has 
     promised to introduce legislation ``to ensure that a 20-year 
     voluntary action plan expected to be adopted at the U.N. 
     population conference is carried out in U.S. policy.''\14\ 
     She also intends in this legislation to require that 
     international family planning organizations, ``stress the 
     empowerment of women before they can be eligible for U.S. 
     financial support.''\15\ I wonder how many billions of tax 
     dollars that will consume, and how many babies will die as a 
     result?
       Let's return to Cal Thomas' thesis that Americans no longer 
     support the liberal policies of their government, especially 
     with regard to abortion. Ever since the election of Bill 
     Clinton, the media has contended that the abortion debate is 
     over. Admittedly, pro-life forces have been thrown back on 
     their heels in recent years. Both the Supreme Court and the 
     Congress are firmly in the hands of pro-abortionists, and a 
     new law virtually strangles the protest movement. These are 
     not the best of times in the defense of unborn babies. But 
     what do the people think?
       Vice President Gore said during an appearance on 
     ``Nightline With Ted Koppel,'' ``Regardless of what your 
     individual view is about abortion, the overwhelming majority 
     of Americans agree that the choice ought to be made by a 
     woman.''\16\ Is Mr. Gore correct in that assessment? 
     Inquiring minds want to know. Therefore, Focus on the Family 
     and the Family Research Council have joined hands to answer 
     that question. We commissioned the nationally respected Roper 
     organization to conduct a scientific poll of Americans' 
     opinions on abortion. This was not just an analysis of 
     Christians' views or those of our supporters. A 
     representative sample of American citizens were asked to 
     indicate their perspective on a 10-point continuum, beginning 
     with the most conservative position and ranging to the most 
     liberal. Following are the 10 choices and the findings shown 
     in percentages:

                                                                                                                
                                                  [In percent]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Sex             Political Affil.          Political Ideology   
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Male    Female    Dem.     Rep.     Ind.    Cons.     Mod.    Libl. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................      100      100      100      100      100      100      100      100      100
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-Life Categories: (One could                                                                                 
 argue with categories 3 and 4                                                                                  
 being pro-life, although some                                                                                  
 people with that view consider                                                                                 
 themselves to be pro-life):                                                                                    
    1. Abortion is wrong under                                                                                  
     any circumstances.........       19       19       20       17       20       20       25       14       12
    2. Abortion is wrong,                                                                                       
     except to save the life of                                                                                 
     the mother................        7        6        9        6        8        9       10        6        4
    3. Abortion is wrong,                                                                                       
     except to save the life of                                                                                 
     the mother, and in the                                                                                     
     cases of rape or incest...       18       18       18       18       21       16       20       18       16
    4. Abortion is wrong,                                                                                       
     except to save the life                                                                                    
     the mother, in the                                                                                         
     instances of rape or                                                                                       
     incest; and in the cases                                                                                   
     of infant deformity,                                                                                       
     disease or retardation....       11        9       13       10       12       11       11       12       10
    5. Abortion is wrong,                                                                                       
     except to save the life of                                                                                 
     the mother, in the                                                                                         
     instances of rape or                                                                                       
     incest; in the cases of                                                                                    
     infant deformity, disease                                                                                  
     or retardation; and where                                                                                  
     the child is unwanted and                                                                                  
     will not have a good                                                                                       
     quality of life...........       11       10       11       11       12       10       11       12       10
Pro-Abortion Categories:                                                                                        
    6. Abortion is permissible                                                                                  
     for any reason the woman                                                                                   
     chooses, until the fetus                                                                                   
     can survive outside the                                                                                    
     womb......................        9       10        8        9        8       10        6        9       16
    7. Abortion is permissible                                                                                  
     for any reason except as a                                                                                 
     way to select the sex of                                                                                   
     the child.................        4        3        5        4        4        4        3        5        5
    8. Abortion is permissible                                                                                  
     for any reason the woman                                                                                   
     chooses, at any time                                                                                       
     during the pregnancy, and                                                                                  
     no legal restrictions                                                                                      
     should be imposed,                                                                                         
     including no parental                                                                                      
     notification or no delay                                                                                   
     for informed consent......        7        7        8        7        7        8        6        7       11
    9. Abortion is permissible                                                                                  
     for any reason the woman                                                                                   
     chooses, at any time                                                                                       
     during the pregnancy;                                                                                      
     there should be no legal                                                                                   
     restrictions of any kind,                                                                                  
     and the government should                                                                                  
     pay for the procedure if                                                                                   
     the woman cannot afford                                                                                    
     the expense...............        6        6        5        7        3        5        3        7        8
    10. Don't know.............        8       12        5        9        6        6        5       10        7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       These findings were incredibly gratifying to us, and should 
     be encouraging to every friend of unborn children. Note these 
     conclusions from the data:
       The first four categories, all of which began with the 
     statement ``Abortion is wrong,'' might be said to represent 
     variations within the pro-life movement. People selecting one 
     of those options included 55 percent of the sample. The 
     notion that only a tiny minority of Americans are pro-life, 
     and most of them are religious fanatics, is patently 
     debunked.
       The last four categories, which begin with the phrase 
     ``Abortion is permissible,'' appear to represent the pro-
     abortion position. People selecting one of those options 
     included only 26 percent of the sample. (Category 5 probably 
     does not please either the pro-life or pro-abortion 
     factions.) Note that more than twice as many Americans lean 
     toward an anti-abortion perspective as those who think 
     abortion is permissible and right.
       The media has told us that abortion is a ``woman's issue,'' 
     supported overwhelmingly by the gender that suffers most from 
     unwanted pregnancies. Well, that supposition was not 
     validated by this poll. Women selected one of the pro-life 
     positions 60 percent of the time, whereas only 50 percent of 
     the men did so. Conversely, only 26 percent of both men and 
     women included themselves in categories 6-9. Obviously, women 
     are slightly more pro-life than men.
       These findings have major significance for politicians. The 
     National Organization for Women and other feminist groups 
     have warned congressmen repeatedly that they risk defeat if 
     they dare to be pro-life. Not true! The majority of Americans 
     are in that category. And remember. This poll was taken 
     according to scientific sampling procedures used by Roper, 
     Gallup, Yankelovitch and all other reputable polling 
     organizations. The maximum sampling error was only plus or 
     minus two percentage points.
       Wasn't it interesting that so little difference showed up 
     between the three political groups? Democrats choosing the 
     pro-life categories (1 to 4) represented 51 percent; 
     Republicans 61 percent, and Independents in these categories 
     represented 56 percent. We were surprised by the commonality 
     among voters in parties with radically different platforms.
       Even more surprising were the political views of this 
     random sample of Americans. When asked to identify their 
     ideology, 50 percent considered themselves to be 
     ``conservative''; 37 percent said they were ``moderate''; and 
     only 12 percent claimed to be ``liberal.'' Behold, Cal Thomas 
     is right. Liberals are a dying breed. A very small percentage 
     of Americans is willing to identify themselves with that 
     label. The political landscape has shifted, although some of 
     our representatives in Washington don't know it yet!
       The most important finding from this investigation deals 
     with the tiny number of Americans who agree with the 
     president's views on abortion. His position is best described 
     by statement #9 at the far end of the continuum. It reads, 
     again, ``Abortion is permissible for any reason the woman 
     chooses at any time during pregnancy; there should be no 
     legal restrictions of any kind, and the government should pay 
     for the procedure if a woman cannot afford the expense.'' For 
     those among my readers who disagree that this extreme 
     statement represents the views of the current administration, 
     may I ask you to identify which portions of it are wrong? 
     Have there been any restrictions proposed by the president in 
     the past two years? He has even supported the Freedom of 
     Choice Act, which removes all restrictions on abortion 
     including those for sex selection. And doesn't his health 
     care plan include payment for abortions--not just for the 
     poor, but for all American women? He says abortions should be 
     ``rare,'' then does everything possible to expand them around 
     the world. Clearly, position 9 on the continuum is the one 
     supported by the White House. But notice how far out of step 
     the president is with the beliefs of the American people! 
     Only 6 percent of the public identified with that final 
     statement. Only 5 percent of women could support it.
       You may recall that President Clinton granted an interview 
     aboard Air Force One with radio station KMOX in St. Louis on 
     June 26, 1994, during which he railed against the ``Christian 
     right'' for their extremist views.\17\ But who, may we ask, 
     is out of the mainstream? On the issue of abortion, it is 
     clear from this poll that Mr. Clinton is standing in left 
     field with very few friends. What we have is a president and 
     vice president who are held captive by the most radical 
     social activists in the nation, and they are driving the 
     policy of the government. Indeed, last month they drove it 
     all the way to Cairo, and will take it around the world if 
     given a chance.
       We believe the data I have shared in this letter must be 
     read and considered by great numbers of American people. 
     That's why we are preparing an advertising campaign to be 
     placed in publication across the country. It will be featured 
     soon in one of the nation's major newspapers, perhaps USA 
     Today, to be followed by others in individual cities. If you 
     agree that this message must get out, I invite you to help us 
     pay for this campaign. We also need your support for our 
     ongoing endeavors in this struggle to defend traditional 
     family values.
       We're on the side of morality and decency in this matter. 
     And now, more than any time in the past decade, I'm convinced 
     that we are on the winning side. If you listen carefully, you 
     might hear the foundation of liberalism cracking and 
     splintering. One of these days, the entire superstructure 
     will come crashing down, just like the collapse of the Berlin 
     Wall in 1989. I'm not contending that secular humanism will 
     disappear from the face of the Earth. But the stranglehold 
     that the ``cultural elite'' have held on American culture is 
     coming to an end.
       Furthermore, I believe the radicals are increasingly aware 
     that their power base is eroding, which leads to a certain 
     desperation. That's why they have begun attacking 
     conservative Christians and assaulting anyone who dares to 
     disagree. But their day in the sun is passing. Not even their 
     darlings in the media can save them. The American people are 
     a tolerant, loving tribe that is slow to anger and reluctant 
     to react. But heaven help those who push them too far! Peal 
     Harbor provide that.
       This is a time to be praying for our nation. Dramatic 
     political change can be exciting, but it can be dangerous, 
     too. Those who have run things of 40 years will not surrender 
     quietly and walk away. There is plenty of mischief lying in 
     our path. We must ask the Lord to bless this great land--to 
     give us the quality of leadership that inspired our 
     Constitution and established our liberties--and to bring a 
     spiritual revival that will restore us to our moral 
     underpinnings. I believe He will answer those prayers if we 
     are faithful to ask Him.
       Until then, Focus on the Family will be there for your 
     family. Thank you for standing with us month after month, and 
     for helping us with the ad campaign if you can. Come see us 
     when you're near Colorado Springs.
           Sincerely,
                                           James C. Dobson, Ph.D.,
                                                        President.

       P.S. After writing this letter, I was given a late report 
     regarding the stunning rebuke the United States government 
     has received to its efforts to promote abortion and ``safe 
     sex'' ideology worldwide. More than 30 countries have added 
     their reservations to the document, denying the conference 
     organizers the global consensus they were so desperately 
     seeking. According to Cecilia Royals of the pro-life National 
     Institute for Womanhood, the large number of objections 
     hinders the document and the plans of the pro-abortion 
     forces. ``Essentially, a runaway train has been stopped,'' 
     Royals says.\18\ You won't read this in the news media, but 
     it's a fact. Unfortunately, additional conferences devoted to 
     ``population control'' are planned for 1995 in Beijing, so we 
     will have to fight this battle again.

                               footnotes

     \1\Nat Hentoff, ``HIV Ideologues Taking Precedence Over Dying 
     Babies,'' Rocky Mountain News, July 18, 1994, p. 30A
     \2\``Compromise Close in Fight Over Abortion, U.S. Says,'' 
     Associated Press, Sept. 5, 1994
     \3\John H. Cushman, ``Gore Wants U.N. to Leave Abortion Up to 
     Each Nation,'' New York Times, Aug. 26, 1994, P. A2
     \4\Pat Buchanan, ``John Paul II--No Friend of Bill,'' Denver 
     Post, Sept. 8, 1994, p. 7B
     \5\Robert Novak, ``Clinton Pays Politically for Abortion 
     Stand in Cairo,'' Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, Sept. 
     7, 1994, p. B7
     \6\``Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too,'' World, July 30, 1994, 
     p. 9
     \7\``Family Planning for All Families,'' New York Times, 
     November 29, 1993, p. A16
     \8\United States State Department Outgoing Telegram, March 
     16, 1994
     \9\Novak, September 7, 1994, p. B7
     \10\George Weigel, ``Where Marriage Is a Dirty Word,'' Wall 
     Street Journal, Aug. 26, 1994, p. A14
     \11\Linda Chavez, ``Don't Let Government Dictate Size of 
     Families,'' USA Today, Aug. 31, 1994
     \12\Phillip Shenon, ``Chinese Bias Against Girls Creates 
     Surplus of Bachelors,'' New York Times, Aug. 26, 1994, p. A1
     \13\Report from Bob Ditmer, ``Family News in Focus,'' Sept. 
     7, 1994
     \14\``Schroeder Vows to Push U.N. Plan,'' Associated Press, 
     Sept. 6, 1994
     \15\John Brinkley, ``Schroeder Reaction to Cairo Mixed,'' 
     Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 8, 1994, p. 46A
     \16\ABC News, ``Nightline,'' Sept. 6, 1994, Transcript #3467
     \17\Martha Shirk and Jo Mannies, ``Rightists: Clinton Attack 
     Will Backfire; Democratic Leaders Welcome His Remarks,'' St. 
     Louis Post Dispatch, June 26, 1994, p. 1A
     \18\``Family News in Focus,'' Sept. 13, 1994

                          ____________________