Huge Pro-Life Win at Children's Summit

By Dave Andrusko

Judging by the bitter tenor of the press coverage and the multitude of complaints from pro-abortion groups, there can be only one conclusion about the May 8-10 UN Special Session for Children, otherwise known as the Children's Summit: it was a huge pro-life victory due in large measure to a pro-life, pro-family coalition led by the United States delegation.

"Many nations played an important role, but clearly the pro-life, pro-family success at the Children's Summit was the result of the Bush Administration's determination to keep language that could be construed to condone abortion out of the final document," said Jeanne Head, R.N., who is National Right to Life's representative at the UN and also serves as a United Nations representative for the International Right to Life Federation (IRTLF).

According to Head, the exceptional and dedicated work in defense of life, children, and the family by the U.S. delegation reflects a sea change in U.S. policy at these UN meetings and conferences under the Bush Administration.

Head said the contrast with the Clinton Administration could not have been clearer. Under Clinton, the U.S. delegation played a key pro abortion leadership role. The Clinton Administration, working hand in glove with the European Union (EU), Canada, and other like-minded nations, was dedicated to inserting language into UN documents that has been used to pressure countries to change their laws against abortion and that could ultimately be used to establish abortion as a fundamental human "right" worldwide.

In contrast, the Bush-appointed pro-life delegation worked unceasingly not only to stave off anti-life initiatives, but also to make positive changes that not so long ago would have seemed almost impossible.

Head told NRL News that the document is titled "A World Fit for Children." She said, "It was the position of the United States and its allies in this fight that it is the height of hypocrisy to believe that a document that embraces language that includes the destruction of unborn children could possibly help create 'a world fit for children.'"

The summit brought together some 3,000 delegates from more than 180 countries. There were also some 3,000 representatives from NGOs (nongovernmental organizations). Many of these are the most vociferous, hard-line advocates of abortion, but they also included a dedicated group of pro-life, pro-family NGOs from throughout the world, including NRLC and IRTLF.

To anyone who has not followed the word-by-word battles at prior UN meetings, conferences, and special sessions of the General Assembly, the whole process might seem to be much ado about nothing. But "nothing could be further from the truth," said Head, who also is a member of the NRLC Executive Committee and represents New York State Right to Life on the NRLC Board of Directors.

For instance, everyone agreed that there was consensus on much of the document, which was to be a follow-up to the 1990 Children's Summit. The summit had been aimed at setting guidelines for governments, advocacy groups, and UN agencies dealing with children's education and health and the protection of children from harm and exploitation.

However, there was tremendous controversy since June of last year over language relating to adolescents and abortion which caused a stalemate in negotiations. Unfortunately, this impasse diverted attention and resources from the real needs of children. The most contentious language dealt with reproductive health "services."

Until a Canadian delegate (for the first time at any of these UN conferences) in a moment of unexpected candor last June conceded that "services" relating to reproductive health does indeed include abortion, pro-abortionists adamantly insisted it did not. At the same time, they just as adamantly refused to accept language that would clearly state that reproductive health "services" does not include abortion.

With the Canadian's admission out in the open, the Bush Administration's ability to win the battle to delete the abortion-related language was very much strengthened. And when the conference ended late Friday night, May 10, the abortion-related reproductive health "services" and other language that could be construed to include abortion or a right to abortion was gone.

Some background. Since last June there have been some countries with laws against abortion, such as most Latin American countries (the RIO Group), which by working together as a block had contributed to the deadlock. They insisted on keeping the term "services" relating to reproductive health, while maintaining that the term did not mean abortion for them.

However, the references to reproductive health "services" were finally removed when the United States threatened a floor vote over insertion of language that clearly stated that reproductive health "services" does not include abortion. Groups such as the RIO Group dropped their support of "services" rather than face tough questions at home for supporting pro-abortion language.

The text now reflects the goal of the Bush Administration to promote healthy lives for children and makes it clear that all of the actions taken with respect to their healthy lives, including reproductive and sexual health, must be consistent with national laws, religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms..."

Just to make sure the Bush Administration's position was crystal clear, the United States submitted an "Explanation of Position" which contains many explicitly pro-life provisions. Two of the statements are especially worth quoting.

Right off the top, the document states unequivocally, "Concerning references in the document to UN conferences and summits and their five year reviews, the United States does not understand any endorsement of these conferences to be interpreted as promoting abortion."

Later, the document states, "The United States understands that 'children's rights' are seen at all times in relation to the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents, who have the primary responsibility for their children's education and well-being. In this regard, the United States emphasizes the importance it attaches to the involvement of parents in decisions affecting children and adolescents in all aspects of sexual and reproductive health and in all aspects of their lives and education for which they have the primary responsibility."

There is no doubt that this was a clear defeat for those who insist that adolescents have a "right" to abortion. Their own words made it unmistakably clear how seriously they took the loss.

According to the Associated Press, the spokesman for the EU regretted that the Children's Summit final document didn't reflect past agreements that strongly supported sexual and reproductive health services.

And, Head reports, the Canadian delegation, in a statement issued after final adoption of the outcome document, expressed dissatisfaction concerning the wording on sexual and reproductive health. The Canadians complained that the document fell significantly short of what they wanted and expressed concern about "retrenching on long-standing language from Cairo, Beijing and their five-year reviews."

"They are right," Head commented. "There has been a sea change, indeed. The tide has turned. The Bush Administration, with the majority of the countries of the world, is seeking to place the focus where it belongs - - on the basic health needs of children and adolescents which continue to go unmet."