PRESS CONFERENCE BY NGO COALITION FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND FAMILY SPONSORED BY UNITED STATES

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE BY NGO COALITION FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND FAMILY SPONSORED BY UNITED STATES

Voluntary family planning language, used in recent United States legislation, should be pushed by the United States delegation for inclusion in the report of the preparatory committee for the special session of the General Assembly on the review and appraisal of the implementation of the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo, Robert Maginnis, a director of the Family Research Council, told correspondents at a press conference at Headquarters today.

The Family Research Council -- one of four organizations from the non- governmental organization (NGO) Coalition for Women, Children and the Family represented at the press conference -- describes itself as seeking to defend and promote traditional family values and the Judeo-Christian values upon which the family is built.

The United States had already and rightly denied the use of American taxpayer money for abortion, involuntary sterilization and family planning that was not voluntary, he continued. The proposed language, from the "Tiahrt amendment" to an omnibus spending bill passed by the United States Congress in Autumn, would extend those restrictions to promote genuine national sovereignty on family planning policies.

An effort had been made to insert language from that amendment -- to ensure that participation by States and women in family planning programmes was voluntary -- in the document that would come from the preparatory committee, Austin Ruse, Director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute -- a pro-life lobbying group working full-time at United Nations Headquarters -- explained.

The amendment language made three points, Mr. Ruse continued. By the first, multilateral and bilateral aid to governments could not be contingent on their accepting family planning programmes. It also stated that family planning programmes should carry no quotas, schedules, or promises of food, clothing, shelter, or money from the provider to the individual. Stories had streamed in from around the world about the use of coercion in family planning.

The third aspect of the proposed language would result in the maintenance of conscience clauses on family planning for healthcare professionals, he continued. An attempt was being made at the United Nations and by parliamentarians around the world to outlaw conscience clauses for health care providers, he stated. That was a terrible mistake.

Mr. Ruse explained that the Tiahrt language on multilateral and bilateral aid had been introduced at the preparatory committee on Friday by

the Holy See, as had been one on voluntarism for families and individuals, by Nicaragua. A number of other States supported those introductions.

However, the NGO Coalition was distressed to discover that not one of these matters had appeared in the synthesis of the Chairman's report that had appeared on the Internet on Monday. He did not know why that had happened. They had been introduced by sovereign States and completely ignored by the Chairman of the preparatory committee. They would be reintroduced today, he added.

Jeanne Head, chief United Nations lobbyist for the International Right to Life Federation, said the concepts included in the Tiahrt language were in the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action. However, since the Cairo Conference, she had observed that the implementation of the Programme of Action had been long on control and short on development. It was a scandal, for example, that no real emphasis had been placed on improving maternal health care throughout the world.

It was widely known that the best way to decrease maternal mortality was to provide basic health care -- nutrition, pre-natal care and emergency care to women, she said. In the five years since Cairo, the rates of maternal mortality in the developing world had not decreased significantly. All that was needed to do this was good maternal health care, and she did not see enough emphasis on that in the report.

Her organization had become interested in population control around the world in recent years, simply because of the amount of United States tax dollars that went into family planning programmes, Laurel MacLeod, a director of Concerned Women of America, a Washington-based women's advocacy group, told correspondents.

It had discovered that many of those programmes were very coercive, she continued. The United Nations consistently spoke about human rights and women's rights. Women had the right to be fully informed about every form of family planning programme and every form of contraceptive being offered to them and that was not happening.

For example, women brought to the United States from Peru by her organization had spoken at the United States National Press Club and the United States Congress about sterilization programmes and the tubal ligation festivals in Peru that were not voluntary. Women were not properly informed about procedures and in some cases had been told they were reversible. Those situations must not continue.

Other women had been told they would not receive food from aid organizations unless they undertook family planning programmes that they might not desire, she continued. Any document arising from the preparatory committee should insist that women were not coerced in any way, but rather

Press Conference by NGO Coalition - 3 - 30 March 1999

allowed to voluntarily accept programmes if they so desired. She asked what the United Nations was afraid of, that it would not use the Tiahrt language in the document.

Mr. Maginnis said the proposed Tiahrt language would allow nations receiving aid to decline family planning programmes without fear that the aid might be withdrawn. Sovereign nations should make their own family planning policies based on their own unique cultures, religions and needs, and should not be intimidated by the United Nations or any donor country to embrace anti- life policies in exchange for aid.

Withholding aid to coerce countries to embrace radical policies was unconscionable, he continued. International organizations that promoted human rights and recognized national sovereignty of Member States should not become coercive instruments of radical anti-family advocacy. He called on the United States delegation to push for the inclusion "to prevent exploitation of women".

Asked what they would do if the Tiahrt language was not included in the report of the preparatory committee, Mr. Ruse said they would attempt to have it included at the special session in June. If that failed, it would be presented again. There were many opportunities.

Mr. Maginnis said that the inclusion or non-inclusion would be brought to the attention of friends of the Coalition who were very influential regarding the United States participation in the United Nations. Senator Jesse Helms was a good friend, as were Representative Chris Smith and many others who had been at the forefront of discussions about United States' contributions and obligations to the United Nations. The issues would also be made a concern of politicians seeking to become president of the United States, because they would be making commitments about the type of people they would appoint as Secretary of State, and as United States' representative to the United Nations.

In response to a question about the existence of language they sought in the Cairo Programme of Action, Mr. Ruse said the concept of voluntarism was there, but it was not defined. The Tiahrt language was very specific regarding quotas, and explicitly excluded offers of food and medicine.

Asked to give examples of coercion on population issues by the United States Government aid organization, USAID, Ms. MacLeod said the threats were always made secretly. Many of the delegates threatened were afraid to come forward, and they could not be named because of ramifications in their homelands. Mr. Ruse added that there had been threats made this week by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to delegations for getting "too cosy" with Christian non-governmental organizations. Delegates were muzzled by their government and threatened with recall if they spoke out, Ms. Head said.

Press Conference by NGO Coalition - 4 - 30 March 1999

When a journalist said that she was being asked to take these allegations on trust, given that no documentary evidence was provided, Mr. Ruse suggested the journalist "work the floor" to see if delegations would give her off-the-record information directly.

In response to a suggestion from a correspondent that USAID had complained about the example Ms. MacLeod had given about sterilization in Peru, and that the matter had subsequently been resolved, Mr. Ruse said that, none-the-less, the events had taken place, and in a facility that had the UNFPA's name on it.

All UNFPA speakers spoke against coercion, Mr. Ruse said in response to another question, but it still happened. The language, submitted on Friday by a sovereign State, explicitly forbade coercive measures. If that prohibition would not shackle UNFPA and other agencies, why had the language been removed? he asked. It boggled his mind that a sovereign State could formally request that something be included in a document that was going to be negotiated, and it did not appear in the synthesis.

* *** *