UN Committee Presses Chile, Nepal to Loosen Abortion Restrictions
The United Nations Women’s Anti-Discrimination Committee has called for the nations of Chile and Nepal to change their laws concerning abortion. Chile is one of the few countries in which abortion remains illegal in all cases. In its review of Chile’s compliance with the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Womens Anti-Discrimination Committee reported that they had “serious concerns” about “the prohibition on abortion — for any reason.” “At the very least,” they wrote, “the termination of pregnancy should be allowed for health reasons.” Also upsetting to the Committee was that a husband’s consent is required in Chile before a woman can undergo sterilization.
They criticized divorce laws as well in Chile, calling for a bill to allow the “true dissolution of marriage. It must be formulated to allow the couple to remarry, especially the woman. Also, the bill’s provisions must not render it difficult to obtain a divorce, particularly when initiated by the woman.”
At present in Nepal, abortion is only legal to save the life of the mother. A bill being considered in Parliament would make it legal for married women. This, however, is not lax enough to satisfy the demands of the UN Women’s Anti-Discrimination Committee, who would like to see abortion on demand available in every country in the world, even where it is rejected by the people on religious and moral grounds. The Committee determined that it was “discriminatory for a State party to refuse to legally provide for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women.”
These two recent reports are just the latest evidence that the UN is more interested in advancing its own agenda than in respecting the laws and morals of sovereign nations. (UN Women’s Anti-Discrimination Committee press releases, “Women’s anti-discrimination committee concludes consideration of Chile’s Report,” 22 June 1999; “Nepalese women suffer from ill health, poverty, legal discrimination women’s anti-discrimination committee told,” 15 June 1999.)
Controversial CAIRO+5 Conference Ends in Now York
The long and arduous Cairo+5 process, which began over a year ago with small, technical meetings in various parts of the world, ended on 2 July in the enormous UN General Assembly Hall in New York City.
In the waning hours of the conference, Cairo+5 produced a 25 page document that hundreds of people sweated over for at least six months. Delegates and lobbyists argued over paragraphs, sentences, words, even semi-colons.
The new document tramples on parental rights, promotes the notion of sexual rights for adolescents, and no longer contains a previous conscience clause for health care providers who do not want to perform abortions. The new document also contains provisions for abortion as a human “right” and centers largely around “emergency contraception” and the false notion that such contraception does not end an “established pregnancy” but only stops implantation.
Delegations from the United States, the European Union and Canada led the charge to release adolescents throughout the world from parental restraint when it comes to sex and reproduction.
In one of the more dramatic moments during this final negotiating session, 34 US Congressmen delivered a letter to the UN condemning the Clinton Administration’s position on parental rights. The letter, from House leaders Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, J .C. Watts and others, said “we are increasingly concerned to discover that many delegations negotiating the document under consideration at Cairo+5 are attempting to remove parental rights, especially in reference to adolescent sexuality. We are particularly dismayed that this effort seems to be supported by some employees of the US Department of State.”
Addressed to the Ambassador of each UN Mission, pro-life lobbyists delivered the letter to each delegation on the floor of the conference in a dramatic show of force just prior to the afternoon session on Wednesday. Some delegates say the US negotiating team appeared stunned by the letter.
In a last minute surprise, Brazil, working from language drafted by the US delegation, proposed that governments should train and equip abortion providers. Moreover, the rights of conscience among health care providers who do not want to perform abortions was dropped altogether. Despite fierce opposition, (especially from the Holy See), the removal of the conscience clause was quickly gaveled to approval by the chairman. (Friday Fax — Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, 2 July 1999.)
