Posted on 03/03/2005 11:30:51 AM PST by Destro
U.S. Drops Anti-Abortion Demand at Forum
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: March 3, 2005
UNITED NATIONS, March 2 - The United States on Wednesday dropped its contentious demand for a change in a centerpiece document of a United Nations conference on equality that had plunged the gathering of 6,000 women and government ministers into conflict.
The meeting of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women was called to review progress since its world conference 10 years ago in Beijing. The document was a one-page statement that delegates had prepared to reaffirm the closing declaration of the 1995 meeting.
But the United States proposed an amendment with wording saying it would agree to the principles in the declaration only after "reaffirming that they do not create any new international human rights, and that they do not include the right to abortion."
Adrienne Germain, the president of the International Women's Health Coalition, who was also a member of the United States delegation in Beijing, said the Beijing statement was a nonbinding declaration, not a treaty, and that no part of it could be construed as creating new human rights or the right to abortion.
On Wednesday, the leader of the United States delegation agreed to drop the requirement.
There are some indications that this report in inaccurate (highly unusual for the NY Times, I know): Hat tip to Pyro 7480:
United States Presses Ahead with Anti-Abortion Amendment at UN
Media reports that US is backing down are not correct
UNITED NATIONS, March 3, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Contrary to reports by the New York Times, Reuters and countless other news agencies, the United States is not backing down from its amendment to clarify that the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action do not call for the right to abortion.
At a press briefing this morning, Antonia Kirkland from the pro-abortion NGO Equality Now asked U.S. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey, head of the U.S. delegation, if the US was withdrawing its amendment as reported by the New York Times. Ambassador Sauerbrey responded, “No.” She noted that the US would continue to work to pass the document to reaffirm the Beijing Declaration with its clarifying amendment.
Samantha Singson, a pro-life lobbyist at the United Nations representing Campaign Life Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com that at a US NGO Caucus meeting, angry feminist activists hoped to force the US to withdraw its amendment by presenting a petitions signed by some 320 US organizations. They claimed that the US Ambassador did not represent her constituency and that the proposed US amendment did not represent the views of civil society.
However, in less than twelve hours the NGO pro-life and pro-family coalition was able to present over 800 letters from organizations around the world which support the US delegation’s amendment.
Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Action League (C-Fam) noted that over 500,000 emails from over 50 countries have come into the various UN missions in support of the US amendment.
In her statement to the UN Commission on the Status of Women yesterday, Ambassador Sauerbrey was clear that the US concerns over abortion remained. “As colleagues in this meeting know, the United States has had concerns about efforts to mischaracterize the outcome documents of Beijing and Beijing+5 in creation of new international rights. It is clear that there was no intent on the part of States supporting the Beijing documents to create new rights . . . including the right to abortion,” she said.
She added, “The United States recognizes the International Conference on Population and Development principle that abortion policies are a matter of national sovereignty. And, we are pleased that so many other governments have indicated their agreement with this position.”
To send a letter of support for the US anti-abortion amendment email: usmission@gmail.com
I agree totally. It does seem a bit incongruous.
But the United States proposed an amendment with wording saying it would agree to the principles in the declaration only after "reaffirming that they do not create any new international human rights, and that they do not include the right to abortion."
Sounds like this was drafted up by Hillary Clinton.
Physician heal thy self.
I personally didn't take a position on the issue. I was posting an article that differs in material fact from yours.
As to your point about America's stand--we have allowed judicial despots to lord over us in this and other matters, and so have lost the moral authority on this matter. Not to mention that anything in the UN would be a mere farce anyway.
ditto
ditto
Codifiy the new "right" into international law, forget about even trying to reverse it in the US. Maybe you think it's a good idea to give up a portion of national sovereignty on the issue, since we have it wrong now, but I'm not.
It's not a matter of lecturing anyone. It's a matter of maintaining national sovereignty on the issue.
Like I said - this is the correct moral position but makes us look (and rightly so) like hypocrites.
Leave the issue to the states, rather than giving it to "the world body".
Say we were talking about the "right" to work, which is something contained in the EU Constitution, do you think it would be immoral if any member of the EU wrote an ammendment to exclude that right in the international document?
Yea? When? (see what my point is?)
Focus on what I wrote - not hypotheticals.
What this would do is force countries that forbid abortions--Malta, et al--acquiesce to the rest of us murdermongerers. Its yet another example of the UN seeking to deprive countries of their sovereignty.
Wrong what? Like I said - this is the correct moral position but makes us look (and rightly so) like hypocrites.
Then don't be wrong like this article -this news story is pure fabrication...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.