ICPD Coverage in major newspapers

Click on the name to read coverage by: Knight Ridder, New York Times and Associated Press

Knight Ridder

(Ran in: Miami Herald (FL), Lexington Herald Leader (KY) Myrtle Beach Sun-News (SC) Philadelphia Inquirer (PA), San Jose Mercury (CA) Wichita Eagle (KS))

November 1, 2002; Washington
HEADLINE: Bush Administration Backs Away from Reproductive Health Pact
BYLINE: Jodi Enda, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has intensified its battle against abortion rights worldwide by stating that it no longer can support a landmark international agreement that established reproductive health care as a means to curb population growth.

During a United Nations meeting in Bangkok, a State Department official said the United States would not reaffirm its support for the 1994 "program of action" adopted in Cairo by 179 nations. Louise Oliver, a special assistant in the State Department's population office, also said the Bush administration objected to such terms as "reproductive services" and "reproductive health care" because they imply a right to abortion, according to a senior U.N. official who attended the session.

The administration also is pushing for a new international campaign promoting sexual abstinence, particularly among adolescents, the U.N. official said.

Supporters of the Cairo plan said Friday withdrawal of U.S. support could undermine the entire international community's approach to population control and women's health care in developing nations. The 8-year-old agreement has dramatically changed how countries around the world work to control population growth from a system driven by targets and quotas - which led to involuntary birth control measures - to one that focuses on access to health care and education.

"This hit like a bombshell," said the senior U.N. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "People were stunned."

The Bangkok statement is the Bush administration's most recent attempt to infuse its anti-abortion stance into international policy. This summer, the administration cut off America's $34 million 2002 contribution to the United Nations' family planning program. In May, the administration led a bitter fight to remove references to "reproductive services," which it interpreted to include abortions, from a U.N. document on the well-being of children.

Officials from the State Department and the Health and Human Services Department, both of which were represented at the Bangkok meeting, did not respond to repeated inquiries Thursday and Friday. The U.N. official who attended the meeting - a three-day session to prepare for a December conference of the U.N.'s Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific - said that Oliver stated unequivocally that the Bush administration position was non-negotiable.

"I think it is disappointing and incredible at the same time when one of the larger partners in the international community does not feel committed anymore to the Cairo Action Plan and to the internationally agreed agenda," said Agnes Van Ardenne, the Dutch minister for Development Cooperation, who was represented at the meeting by an embassy official based in Thailand. "Poverty reduction will not be successful without reproductive health and without women being able to make their own choices."

Tim Wirth, undersecretary of state for global affairs in the Clinton administration, said he had trouble believing Bush really would back off the Cairo agreement. But he said that one of the U.S. delegates to the Bangkok meeting, John M. Klink, who formerly represented the Vatican at the United Nations, has argued "that anything that related to women and women's health is a euphemism for abortion, which it is not."

"Cairo was about empowering women and focusing on the special needs and new circumstances surrounding reproductive health issues," said Wirth, a former Democratic senator who headed the U.S. delegation to the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development in 1994.

"This document was agreed to by everybody in the world, including the Vatican, except the Vatican took exception to language on reproductive rights, saying they didn't want that interpreted to mean abortion. The document affirms that where abortion is legal, it ought to be safe."

In a letter to the U.N.'s chief of population and development before the meeting, Julia Bate-Poxon, the economic officer in the U.S. Embassy in Thailand, said without explanation that the administration would prefer to avoid such terms as "reproductive rights," "sex education" and "reproductive health services."

Francoise Girard of the International Women's Health Coalition, a nonprofit organization that promotes women's reproductive health worldwide, said the Cairo agreement was critical to fighting AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, allowing women to control their fertility and preventing unintended pregnancies that lead to abortions.

"This is a very profound shift for the United States," Girard said. "It contradicts their stated support for women's rights around the world."

To view this article, go to: <http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/4424142.htm>

Back to top
********************************

The New York Times; November 2, 2002; Pg. A5
HEADLINE: U.S. May Abandon Support Of U.N. Population Accord
BYLINE: By JAMES DAO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Nov. 1

The Bush administration, embroiling itself in a new fight at the United Nations, has threatened to withdraw its support for a landmark family planning agreement that the United States helped write eight years ago.

The reason for the threat is contained in two terms that the administration contends can be construed as promoting abortion. The terms -- reproductive health services and reproductive rights -- figure in the final declaration of the United Nations population conference in 1994 in Cairo, which embraced a new concept of population policy based on improving the legal rights and economic status of women. The declaration has since been endorsed by 179 nations.

But during a population and development conference in Bangkok this week, the American delegation announced that Washington would not reaffirm its support for the Cairo "program of action" unless the disputed words were changed or removed, United States and United Nations officials said.

The threat startled members of other delegations attending the Asian and Pacific Population Conference and drew immediate criticism from Chinese, Indian and Indonesian officials, who argued that the American position would undermine a global consensus on population policy, according to United Nations officials.

The threat has also elicited a sharp response from some Europeans.

"I think it is disappointing and incredible," said Agnes van Ardenne, the Dutch minister for development cooperation. "Poverty reduction will not be successful without reproductive health and without women being able to make their own choices."

Congressional Democrats and United Nations officials underscored these concerns today, saying that a decision by the administration to withdraw support for the Cairo program would undermine the efforts of family planning officials in countries that have looked to the United States to take the lead in checking population growth.

"The impact of these public statements is devastating and could undermine 10 years of work," Representative Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of New York, said in a draft letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that she began circulating on Capitol Hill today. "It is likely that repressive countries will follow the U.S. in its decision and the progress that has been made will cease."

The State Department declined to comment on the dispute today. But administration officials acknowledged that the United States might not reaffirm its support for the Cairo program unless the disputed phrases were withdrawn or modified.

The 1994 conference was widely considered a watershed event because it moved away from traditional ideas of family planning and embraced the idea that giving women more control over their lives would provide a check against explosive population growth.

The program of action called for stabilizing the world's population at no more than 9.8 billion by 2050 and it urged countries to make health care widely accessible, reduce maternal mortality, provide universal access to primary education and stem the spread of H.I.V. and AIDS. The program also suggested that where abortion is legal, it should be made safe.

The program's acknowledgment that legal abortion could be part of health care has drawn objections from the Vatican and several Muslim and Latin American countries. But over the years, the United States has consistently reaffirmed the Cairo principles.

One of the Vatican's chief negotiators in Cairo, John Klink, was an adviser to the United States delegation in Bangkok, United Nations officials said.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, praised the Bush administration's stand.

"We certainly approve of any effort by the administration to make it clear that abortion is not an acceptable method of family planning," Mr. Johnson said. "There is a sort of code used in some of these U.N. documents, and groups that advocate expanded access to abortion do construe these phrases to include abortion."

The dispute over the Cairo program is only the most recent example of administration efforts to withdraw American support from United Nations programs that it contends promote abortion.

In July, the administration decided to withhold $34 million in previously approved aid to the United Nations Population Fund, contending that the agency helps Chinese government agencies that force women to have abortions.

In May, during the United Nations General Assembly's special session on children, the Bush administration, the Vatican and some Muslim countries unsuccessfully pushed for a policy to prevent teenagers from getting abortions. The group also sought to make abstinence the centerpiece of sex education for unmarried teenagers.

Timothy E. Wirth, the under secretary of state for global affairs in 1994, said he expected the Bush administration to reaffirm the Cairo program eventually. If it does not, he said, the United States might alienate important allies just as it is trying to build international support for its Iraq policies.

"The reaction would be very negative," Mr. Wirth added, "at a time when the administration is trying to put together international coalitions on various efforts."

To view this article, go to: <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/02/international/asia/02ABOR.html>

Back to top
********************************

Associated Press; November 2, 2002; INTERNATIONAL NEWS
HEADLINE: Bush Administration Seeks to Sway UN Conference from Support for Abortion
BYLINE: BARRY SCHWEID; AP Diplomatic Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON

The Bush Administration, in what looms as a tough fight with other nations, is trying to revise a worldwide family planning agreement to eliminate language that could promote abortion.

With White House approval, American negotiators intend to change or remove the support for reproductive health services and reproductive rights that were contained in the final declaration of a UN population conference in 1994.

A State Department official, who spoke on condition of not being identified by name, said Saturday the administration was negotiating for the approval of new language by the Asian and Pacific Population Conference. The U.S. campaign, at talks in Bangkok, Thailand, parallels a decision in July to withhold $34 million in assistance to the UN Population Fund on grounds its programs promote abortion.

In September, President George W. Bush formally shifted the funds to an American-run program to boost children's health overseas.

Secretary of State Colin Powell had supported the UN program saying it did "invaluable work," providing "critical population assistance to developing countries."

Critics said the administration's decision was politically driven.

The official declined to say what steps the administration might take if it looses out in the current dispute. She said the administration hopes a consensus on language supported by everyone could be found so that there was no possible interpretation that support was being given to the legalization or promotion of abortion.

According to accounts in The New York Times on Saturday the U.S position has drawn criticism from Chinese, Indian and Indonesian officials, who argued it would undermine a global consensus on population policy.

Some European nations and Congressional Democrats also were said to be dismayed.

The 1994 conference was hailed by supporters of women's rights and advocates of checking explosive population growth, by giving women more control of their lives.

But the U.S. official said the declaration eight years ago could be read as support for abortions as an instrument for family planning.

To view this article, go to: <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021102/ap_wo_en_po/us_population_accord_1>

Back to top

[show print version] [back]