By Rai Rojas
Editor's note. Rai Rojas is NRLC's
director of Hispanic Outreach. Mr. Rojas
was an NRLC NGO representative at the UN
"Commission on Population and
Development."
Comoros is a small island nation off of
the eastern coast of Africa. It is a
member of the African Union as well as
the Arab League. The population of the
Comoros Islands is less than 800,000,
but it was the head of that delegation
who spoke a truth for all time during
the closing remarks of the forty-second
session of the United Nation's
Commission on Population and Development
held in New York City last week.
In the days leading up to the
conference, members of pro-life Non
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) were
wary and rightly concerned about what
would transpire at this most important
conference. We faced both a hostile
American delegation that is in complete
contrast to the delegations sent to the
UN by pro-life President George W. Bush,
and a pro-abortion lobby emboldened by
the prospects of making unprecedented
gains under this new pro-abortion
American administration.
Pro-life NGOs worst fears became reality
when the draft document was finally
circulated. The language being proposed
was so far-reaching that even the most
experienced pro-life NGOs were shocked
at the unbridled pro-abortion expanse of
the document.
It didn't help that the Chairwoman of
the committee for this session was
Mariana Zuniga, a long-time foe of the
pro-life movement. We faced a challenge
not seen since the height of the Clinton
administration.
NGOs, which fight for the right to life
of those most vulnerable of human
beings, focused on nations and
delegations of nations that have
protective pro-life laws in their
countries. These delegates were
reminded of how important it was to
eliminate the most dangerous new and
undefined language that had been
introduced--language that would most
certainly be defined to include a right
to abortion.
The NRLC NGO delegation, led by Jeanne
Head, R.N., National Right to Life's
Vice President for International
Affairs--working closely with other
pro-life-pro-family NGOs--went to work.
However as each day passed and with each
new revision the dangerous term "sexual
and reproductive health and rights" was
continuously maintained in the
document. Pro-Life NGOs realized these
were code words for abortion.
Negotiations went late into the night
and early morning hours and yet these
terms that had to date never been
accepted or defined at the United
Nations remained. Several delegations
tried to bring the document back to the
previously and carefully negotiated
language of the ICPD (International
Conference on Population and
Development), but to no avail.
As we reached the final hours of the
conference on Friday, April 3, and with
consensus urged by Chairwoman Zuniga,
the meeting was suspended for nearly a
half hour when the delegate from Iran
refused to join consensus unless this
new and undefined language was removed
or altered to comply with the ICPD. The
delegates then returned and Zuniga, who
was faced with no document or a
compromise, announced that the proposal
from Iran would be accepted. The term
"sexual and reproductive health and
rights" would be altered to conform with
previously agreed abortion-neutral
language of the ICPD.
What had started as one of the most
dangerous documents to the unborn
children of the world had lost most of
its perilous provisions. Pro-life
delegations and NGOs, although not
altogether thrilled with some of the
language in the remainder of this new
document, realized that a major loss had
been averted. The pro-life delegations
held their ground, and were able to
remove the most troubling parts of the
document.
During the closing remarks, several
delegations went even further and
expressed their concerns about the
document. Poland stressed that this
document should be read in the context
of the International Conference on
Population and Development--and that no
new language should be construed to mean
abortion. Syria pointed out that the
language that enabled the consensus
should be interpreted into the broader
consensus of the original Cairo
conference which remains abortion
neutral. The Syrian ambassador went on
to reiterate that any new language
should always be studied carefully.
St. Lucia went even further, asking why
a document coming out on the Commission
on Population and Development didn't
include more instruction on how to deal
with poverty without having abortion as
a solution. The delegate from St. Lucia
also stated that there was no such thing
as a safe abortion, because the
procedure is never completely free of
medical and psychological risks to women
being aborted.
She went on further to say that the
conscientious rights of health care
professionals who practice medicine in
countries where abortion is legal should
be respected when they opt to withhold
their involvement in abortion
practices. Most importantly she
underscored that this document created
no new rights.
Only Finland and Norway expressed regret
that the over-reaching pro-abortion
language of the original document could
not have been implemented.
There were pro-life concerns and
reservations to the document also raised
by Malta, the Holy See, Peru, Chile,
Ireland and the small African Island
nation of Comoros. It was the delegate
from Comoros who began his remarks by
saying, "In our nation a child is a
source of wealth and abortion is in
contradiction with our culture and our
morality."
A truth for all the ages.
Please send your thoughts to
daveandrusko@gmail.com.
