Conflict in Cairo
by Cathy Ramey
The Plan Reach a consensus among 180 participating nations that would have as its goal to bring the world to a zero-population growth point.
I recall as a very young Christian, reading most of a short work on eschatology -- an effort to pull Bible prophesy together as it relates to the end-of-the-end-times. I believe I was only half-way through the booklet when the author mentioned America. "America," he said, -- other than being an implied inclusion in the "all nations" citation where the gospel was to be preached as commanded in the "great commission" -- "is not specifically mentioned in Bible prophesy."
The idea that the United States, the most powerful and influential nation on the face of the earth, was not a pinnacle point of messianic prophesy (fulfilled or futuristic) took me back, and I read on with some concern for the writer's motives in saying something so utterly preposterous.
America, he pointed out, could not even be specifically tied to the Armageddon battle. In fact, the only role he perceived her to have was in relationship to a Scripture that spoke of a third of the world that would be suddenly destroyed. The destruction, under his theory, will be visited upon the most wicked of the world as God moves forward to bring this present age to an end.
The very idea that America could ever deserve that kind of wrath was ludicrous! Either the writer was wrong, or God was unjust.
America, as I knew her then, was the most generous nation on the face of the earth. She was a beacon of righteousness, an example to the multitude of dark floundering nations around her. The writer had obviously mistaken his latitudes and longitudes, gotten his geography wrong, and somehow we were confused with that dark and devious continent that was Russia. If anyone deserved to be destroyed by God, it was Russia.
Timothy Wirth, the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, was the United State's number one man at the Cairo conference. He is a liberal democrat from Colorado with an extensive history of advocating for abortion and population control.
Fred Sai, president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, was chairman of the main drafting committee responsible for presenting the 113 page document aimed at discussing population control through "family planning," etc.
Nafis Sadik, an OB/GYN who has been a key planner in Pakistan's "family planning" program, presided over the conference.
Faith Mitchell, a former activist for population control and other liberal causes out of San Francisco, was assigned to the Cairo conference by the State Department as a "detail-person."
Bella Abzug -- the former New York congresswoman, a self-proclaimed militant feminist and lobbyist for every liberal cause from communism to abortion, was appointed by the Clinton administration to act as a private sector advisor."
Jane Fonda, who has lobbied extensively for "abortion rights," was in Cairo as the United States "Goodwill Ambassador" for the conference.
Some 200 women's organizations are said to have been tapped for input into the plan as a conference goal was to focus on meeting the needs of women. Of interest is the fact that America's largest organization for women, Concerned Women of America, and other large but conservative women's groups were conspicuously absent from the pre-conference planning.
In reality, because there is a profusion of credible information which refutes the idea of "limited resources" to feed and maintain a much larger world population, the focus for this third international gathering is now on the "environmental impact" of too many people on planet earth. And who better to act as ex-officio of the U.S. delegation when troubles surface than environmentalist author and abortion advocate, now vice president of the United States, Al Gore.
Warren Hern, a notorious third-trimester abortionist, is not an officially recognized member of the U.S. team, however he is in attendance to watch this most important promotion of the U.S. effort to extend the boundaries of a "fundamental right to abortion" beyond our North American borders. A busy man, Hern immediately flew out of Cairo and on to report to another conference -- the National Abortion Federation -- at the end of the Cairo conference.
A nine day conference aimed at discussing how to help developing nations deal with population growth problems, a conference which might have included extensive discussion on agricultural, architectural, and medical support issues, is suddenly entrenched in a debate over abortion.
The U.S., responsible for presenting a draft agenda for the conference proffered a 113 page document which included among other things; abortion-on-demand as a basic human right; tacit approval of sex outside of marriage and with a partner of either sex; distribution of contraceptive equipment to minors without parental consent or notification; and a redefinition of "family" that could include any nurturing network including homosexuals and bureaucracies.
Delegates to the conference raise concerns over what the United States and abortion-friendly media continually refer to as "one short paragraph" in the 113 page document. In truth, the language problems surrounding abortion spice up several paragraphs and pages throughout the text. However, the United States applies a heavy defensive strategy claiming that any opposition to the document and its "family planning" agenda are only a result of the Vatican City delegate. The Pope, according to those who are abortion-friendly, is simply acting as a spoiler.
The United States, even on the opening day of the conference, is accused of attempting to promote abortion as a "basic human right" -- to institutionalize Roe v. Wade -- on an international scale. Catholic, conservative, and Moslem nations voice strong opposition to draft statement language concerning "safe abortion" as well as language which implies an acceptance of premarital sex and odd "couple" arrangements that would recognize sexual partnerships between members of the same sex.
The Vatican delegate, Juaquin Navarro-Valls, is actually hissed and booed while voicing his objections on the floor. The United States is offended by any accusation that there is an agenda to promote abortion, particularly as a basic human right.
In preparing for the third International Conference on Population and Development, the draft committee and the United States have laid groundwork in hopes that the agenda spelled out in the draft statement will go uncontested. The abortion agenda has been of particular importance to them. The nation which claims to not support abortion for family planning purposes, the nation which denies an agenda to compel other nations to adopt a right to abortion has left a disquieting, unconvincing trail.
April 4, 1993, at a White House news conference, DeeDee Myers, the White House press secretary, proclaims to the media that the Clinton administration considers access to abortion "part of the over-all approach to population control."
May 5, 1993, Tim Wirth, in a formal address before the United Nations, gives a subtle but scathing rebuke to member nations that he considers less progressive. He states, "a government which is violating basic human rights should not hide behind the defense of sovereignty. Difficult as it is, we must also discuss thoroughly the issue of abortion." He goes on to define the Clinton policy by stating, "Our position is to support reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion."
October, 1993, the U. S. State Department sends a cable to all of the diplomatic posts around the world in order to affirm the stance articulated by Wirth in May. The cable states, "This [Clinton] administration will pursue" in the Cairo conference an agenda that "stresses...family planning and related family health services, including safe abortion."
March 16, 1994, the State Department sends an "action cable" to all overseas embassies again. The purpose of the cable is to urge diplomats to support U.S. priorities for the Cairo conference.
The cable reads, "The priority issues for the U.S. include assuring...access to safe abortion...The United States believes that access to safe, legal and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women. The current text [of the proposed Cairo draft statement]...is inadequate as it only addresses access to abortion in cases of rape or incest...The United States delegation will also be working for stronger language on the importance of access to abortion services."
The "safe abortion" buzz phrase has by this time become rhetoric to suggest that the U.S. has the welfare of all women at heart, and that those in opposition would leave women in an unsafe position. It can only then be construed that nations who fail to embrace abortion are violating basic human rights.
Even before the conference begins, there are delegates who counter the Clinton agenda with protest.
August 25, 1994, Clinton, feeling a threat to hopes for a win in his 1996 re-election bid, sends ex-officio Al Gore to calm the storm of accusation and protest. In a craftily worded speech before the American Press Club Gore states, "the Unites States has not sought, does not seek, and will not seek an international right to abortion." His oft-repeated claim is that the U.S. does not support "abortion as a method of family planning." However, with a trail of public statements and embassy cables, Gore's credibility is at an all-time low.
August 31, 1994, the Vatican responds to the U.S. by as much as calling Gore a liar. Juaquin Navarro-Valls declares that Gore is "misrepresenting" the draft document, and that Clinton/U.S. intentions are far more radical than the public is being led to believe.
Meanwhile, the media all but ignores allegations of misrepresentation. Mention of any disagreement over the document always includes reference to the Vatican and never to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations or the Southern Baptist Convention. By the time the conference begins in September a strong cadre of dissenters are organized and ready to take America to task over the supreme arrogance implied by attempting to force an issue as morally divisive as destroying the lives of unborn children upon other nations.
September 1, 1994, Catholic and Moslem leaders join in a statement which condemns abortion as "evil.
The Practical Outcome
Dr. Daniel R. Heimbach, a theologian from Clinton's own denomination, watches the events unfold as the American agenda causes ripples in the conference during the first two days and a sudden explosion after compromise language -- which is no compromise -- is proffered by abortion-friendly European Union delegates.
The new language would read that "abortion will not be used as a method of family planning...but where it is legal, it should be safe."
Thinking members of the conference begin asking key questions; "If apartheid is legal, should we also recommend it be safe?" If rape is made legal, ought governments to assure that it is done in the safest manner possible? "Legal abortion" is tantamount to "legal robbery" and very much equal to "legal murder."
The conference comes complete with a scheduled panel discussion, sponsored by International Planned Parenthood, on the difficult issue of selling abortion as a fundamental right to the world. However, the panelists can only be described as pseudo-religious leaders on display in order to give a hint of legitimacy to the U.S. agenda. Aside from this spectacle there is a concerted effort to keep the discussion steered clear of moral concerns. The debate centers on what to do about "unsafe abortion" and encourages what draft committee members consider a medical rather than criminal response.
Hidden under the surface of the debate over language and the slick, sick, smooth rhetoric about "empowering women," for the many small nations who depend on U.S. aid, there is an implied threat.
In fact, abortion as a right is a cudgel with long-lasting possibilities. Since it would be a "fundamental right," those nations failing to show aggressive support and promotion would be pressured to either accommodate by changing their own domestic policies to uphold "a woman's right" to destroy her child or risk losing moneys until they do comply.
Some delegates fear that the threat goes beyond forcing a nation to accept abortion as an alternative. They fear that laws which might favor the unborn child could be seen as coercive to the mother, another reason to withhold aid. The subtle bullying effort on the part of the U.S. is cause for anger among some of the delegates.
Almost the entire conference is monopolized for the sake of those who seek to institutionalize fetacide around the world, and after nine days of wrestling against them, there is compromise language that is a partial rejection of the U.S. program to force abortion as a fundamental right for the world's women.
The final document reads, "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All governments and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are urged to strengthen their commitment to women's health, to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion (see footnote) as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family-planning services. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority, and all attempts should be made to eliminate the need for abortion. Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have ready access to reliable information and compassionate counseling. Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process. In circumstances in which abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe. In all cases women should have access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion. Post-abortion counseling, education and family planning services should be offered promptly, which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.
Footnote" "Unsafe abortion is defined as a procedure for terminating an unwanted pregnancy either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards or both." (World Health Organization)
In the end, though abortion is not embraced as a "fundamental right," the U.S. agenda to promote abortion on an unprecedented scale around the world is hugely successful. The compromise reached -- but still not approved by many nations -- avoids dealing with abortion as a criminal issue, mother against child, and advances the idea that someday all women everywhere will have legal access to abortion.
Almost 25 years have passed since I put away the booklet on eschatology. Like abortion, the subject of how God intends to wrap things up is contentious. There are those who argue pre-trib, we won't be around when God's wrath is extended; those who hold to a mid-trib view, that we'll be lifted out in the middle of a time of intense trial; and many who espouse the post-trib position that we're in the mess we've helped to make right up to the bloody end. In general, until I've searched it out to my own satisfaction, I hold to a pan-trib view -- it will all pan out in the end.
The book left me with little or nothing to help me frame out a viewpoint on the end-of-the-end-times, but it helped me to recognize a position of error. America is not infallible. In fact, America truly might be identifiable as some great evil and greedy beast fit only for destruction.