SPEECH TO WOMEN AFFIRMING LIFE, WASHINGTON, D.C. CHAPTER, September
24, 1994

Cecelia Royals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to be with you this morning and I am
especially appreciative to Mrs. Bork for extending the invitation to
address this distinguished group whose respect-for-life cause, despite
many press reports to the contrary, was shared by many delegations and
individuals participating at the International Conference on
Population and Development in Cairo, not to mention by many millions
of people throughout the world.

For the purposes of our discussion today, I would like to concentrate
on three aspects of the Cairo Conference and its outcome: the first is
what I would term as "the clarion call:" the Holy See's efforts to
focus the world's attention on the vital issues contained in the
Conference's Programme of Action, the second is a brief comparison of
some of the major language in the first draft vs. that finally
negotiated in the final document; and lastly on the meaning and
importance of consensus within and without the United Nations.

While a significant amount of attention had been addressed over the
course of the past two years to the outcomes of the Cairo Conference,
and in particular to the Draft Plan of Action, one significant reading
of the document was to result in a greatly intensified worldwide focus
on its meaning and relevancy. Pope John Paul II deemed that a document
which dealt so intimately with the human family deserved his personal
attention. AS a result of his own reading of the document, his clarion
call began.

Soon after his analysis of the draft document, the Holy Father
received in private audience Dr. Nafis Sadik, who is the Executive
Director of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and was
the Secretary General of the Cairo Conference. Immediately thereafter
he released the substance of his observations made to her at that
time.

His major concern that he expressed was that "proper attention should
be given to the ethical principles determining actions taken in
response to the demographic, sociological and public policy analyses
of the data on population trends." That is, that far more than about
numbers, issues of population are about people, and as such, attention
should be focused on basic truths: "that each and every person -
regardless of age, sex, religion or national background - has a
dignity and worth that is unconditional and inalienable; that human
life itself from conception to natural death is sacred; that human
rights are innate and transcend any constitutional order; and that the
fundamental unity of the human race demands that everyone be committed
to building a community which is free from injustice and which strives
to promote and protect the common good."

Some of the Pope's major concerns hinged on the draft document's short
shrift of development; its ambiguous references to, and relative
unimportance given the family, as well as to the rights, duties and
responsibilities of parents for their offspring; the danger of even
inadvertent encouraging of sexual activity amongst adolescents; its
relative over-emphasis on the impact of developing countries'
population growth on the environment compared with the impact of
over-consumption and waste in developed countries; the needs of the
elderly over and above their reproductive health needs which were the
singular focus of earlier drafts; and the relative sidelining of the
importance of the responsibilities of states towards migrant families.

What was unparalleled, however, was the continued possibility that
abortion might be explicitly or implicitly be made a method of family
planning--something which had been successfully precluded through the
language of the previous Population Conference in Mexico City in 1984.
In the words of the Holy Father, "What is at stake here is the very
future of humanity. Fundamental questions like the transmission of
life, the family, and the material and moral development of society,
need very serious consideration."

As a further concrete expression of his concern, the Pope gave
instructions that the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See be
summoned in order to have his viewpoint communicated directly to their
governments. At that time, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Holy
See's Secretary for Relations with States, noted that Holy See
Delegations had participated in regional preparatory meetings for the
Cairo Conference which had been held in Bali, (Indonesia), Dakar,
(Senegal), Geneva, (Switzerland), Aman, (Jordan) and Mexico City,
(Mexico). Such interest, he noted, was not "just an interest of the
moment" , but was characteristic of the concern of the Holy See and of
the Holy Father for the human person and since the theme of population
touches the most important issues of life, it thus "touches the
dignity of the human person in a special way." The Diplomatic Corps
was asked to invite their Governments to "reflect on the consequences,
both for your own country and for society on the world level, of what
is involved in many of the recommendations contained in the Draft
Final Document."

Finally, as an unprecedented expression of his personal concern, the
Holy Father himself wrote to each Head of State, including President
Clinton, inviting them to take a special interest in the document. The
Pope stated in his letters that he was appealing to them "who are
concerned for the good of [their] own people and of all humanity...not
to weaken man, his sense of the sacredness of life, his capacity for
love and self-sacrifice" In his words, the issues touched upon in the
document are "sensitive issues, issues upon which our societies stand
or fall."

Throughout the course of the summer months each Sunday Angelus prayer
of the Holy Father addressed various aspects of the Holy See's
teachings regarding the major issues addressed in, or which should
have been addressed in the draft document. Such issues included "The
Authentic Emancipation of Women," human sexuality and marriage as well
as the Catholic Church's understandings of concerns regarding
population growth.

In continuing to keep the Cairo Conference in the public eye, the Holy
Father's remarks did not go unheeded by other religious groups and
leaders. While many joined in expressing views similar to the Pope's,
one of the most significant was certainly that of the Islamic
community. Of particular note was the decision by the Al Azhar
University in Cairo, (one of, if not the most prestigious institutions
of Islamic learning) to condemn the draft's perceived condoning of
extramarital sex and unrestricted access to abortion. One by one,
other Islamic leaders began to publicly examine and question the text
of the document asking the important question as to how such language
could have been allowed to remain in the document through the various
preparatory committees at which most Islamic countries were
represented.

In recognition of such criticism, several Islamic countries stated
their intention to withdraw from participation in the Conference so as
not to be perceived as being supportive of it.  Seeking to preclude a
developing crisis for the Conference, Egypt as the host country, was
quick to prescribe to one and all that the surest way of achieving an
ameliorated text was for all countries critical of the draft
document's wording to participate and seek appropriate revisions. In
keeping with this philosophy, Egypt took upon itself the important
task of ensuring, amongst other changes, that language regarding
societal recognition of "other unions" in addition to marriage was
removed. While unsuccessful in changing the minds of boycotting
countries to attend, nevertheless throughout the Cairo negotiations
the attending Islamic countries held joint consultations to arrive at
a common positions to introduce or revise language so as to highlight
the importance of religious viewpoints, of the family, and of
marriage.

In this way, far from being isolated, the Holy See's position, already
shared by many of the Latin American countries as well as others from
Africa, Europe and Asia, was greatly reinforced by the very plurality
of the viewpoints which stressed a common theme -- respect for
cultural and family values and the dignity of the person. Whether
without the Holy Father's clarion call such support would have been
forthcoming can only be a matter for speculation. What is clear is
that a decided change in the chemistry of viewpoints took place
between the last Preparatory Meeting in New York in May and the actual
Conference in Cairo.  Views which the Holy See had been publicly
ridiculed in a highly irregular and dangerously precedent-setting
fashion by none other than the Conference Secretariat for holding, now
became part and parcel of the final document.

However, it is to be clearly noted that despite significant progress
in the document, from the Holy See's viewpoint despite its best
efforts, much of the language of the document remains flawed.  For
this reason the Holy See was able to join the consensus for some, but
not all of the document. It would thus be useful to spend some moments
comparing the revisions of the document's language in the course of
the Cairo negotiations.

While the Preamble of the previous document notes that there is a
"growing awareness of the interlinkages among population issues,
sustained economic growth and sustainable development," the final
document expands the these issues to include "poverty, patterns of
production and consumption" and notes that they are so closely
interconnected that none of them can be considered in isolation." That
is, in aiming at sustained development and environmental concern, all
aspects must be taken into account in a more balanced approach which
includes not only alarmist figures on world population growth and the
document's perceived urgency of quintupling resource allocation for
contraception, but the developed countries responsibilities to curb
over-consumption and to assist significantly in overall human
development efforts as well.

Similarly, in the Preamble all previous references to abortion and
"unsafe" abortion have been removed. Additionally, language
highlighting the sovereignty of each country and the need to take into
account the economic social, and environmental diversity of conditions
in each country has been greatly improved by the addition of the
phrase "with full respect for the various religious and ethical
values, cultural backgrounds and philosophical convictions of its
people." Similar language is again repeated both in the Preamble and
in a chapeau paragraph to the Principles to the effect that the
Programme of Action "will require the establishment of common ground,
with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and
cultural backgrounds."

Most importantly, the Preamble clearly notes that the Programme of
Action of the Cairo Conference "does not create any new
rights"--clearly a setback for those who sought by means of the
document to create an international right to abortion.  Unfortunately,
this was also a setback for the developing countries who wished to
affirm a right to family reunification for migrants.

In the Principles chapter, perhaps the most significant change
consistently advocated by the Holy See and other like- minded
delegations was to replace the phrase "everyone has the right to
liberty and the security of person..." to "Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and the security of person." Following a careful review
of the text it became clear that the desire by the document's drafters
to emphasize "security of person" was based on a desire to establish
"code word" language connected with abortion rights both which would
create a synonym for pro-choice language regarding "woman's control
over her own body" and simultaneously preclude reference to the right
to life. Various efforts were made by the developed nations to form a
connecting sentence to the effect that "All human being are born free
and equal in dignity and rights and have the right to life, liberty
and security of person." In this formulation, the right to life would
be implied as belonging only to those who are born. Thus, maintaining
the separation of these ideas in two sentences was one of the
significant achievements of the overall negotiation.

The Holy See was pleased to see in Principle 2 the maintenance of the
phrase "Human being are at the center of concerns for sustainable
development" which it had initiated in previous negotiations for the
Agenda 21 document from the 1992 World Summit in Rio. It has long been
the Holy See's view that rather than center the documents on the
rights of states to make life decisions for their people, the primary
focus should always be on human beings as the center of God's creation
whose rights it is the responsibility of states to protect.

Similarly, a long-term concern of the Holy See and of the Holy Father
has been the right to development which is clearly enshrined in
Principle 3: "The right to development is a universal and inalienable
right and an integral part of fundamental human rights, and the human
person is the central subject of development."

Far less satisfactory is the reference in Principle 4 to "ensuring
women's ability to control their own fertility" as a cornerstone of
population and development-related programmes."  This phrase, which is
ambiguous at best is closely linked with one of the major battles
within the Conference of the suggested replacement of "fertility
regulation" with the term "family planning."

Already during Preparatory Committee negotiations in New York the Holy
See indicated that it would take the brackets off of the text of
"family planning" and take appropriate written reservations on the
term as soon as language was inserted in any part of the document to
the effect of that which was agreed to in the 1984 Mexico City
Population Conference: that "abortion is in no way to be promoted as a
means of family planning." This offer was categorically refused at the
time by the European Union with support from the United States and
continued to serve as a major bone of contention up to the last days
of the Cairo Conference.

When at last in Cairo the Mexico City language was reinstated in the
text, thereby closing the door on the issue of abortion as a means of
family planning, a side door remained open through the term "fertility
regulation" which, according to the World Health Organization includes
abortion and was thus to be another "code word" for abortion. The Holy
See and several other delegations insisted that the term "fertility
regulation" be replaced by "family planning" which the developed
countries determined to be unacceptable. This issue, which was one of
the most contentious issues of the conference was finally rather
unsatisfactorily resolved through changing the terminology from
"fertility regulation" to "the regulation of fertility", thereby
bypassing or skirting the abortion-inclusive definition provided by
WHO.

As I previously mentioned, other problem areas in relation to
abortion-related language remain. These include rather ambiguous
terminology used throughout the text including: "sexual health",
"sexual rights," "reproductive health", "reproductive rights" and
"women's ability to control their own fertility."  Most problematic of
all are the references in Chapters 7 and 8 to abortion which, while
stressing that abortion should not be promoted as a means of family
planning and urging nations to find alternatives to abortion, unlike
the language of the previous Population Conferences in Bucharest and
Mexico City, recognizes abortion as a dimension of population policy
and indeed, of primary health care. For this reason, the Holy See in
the end could not join consensus on these chapters due to its grave
concerns about references in the chapters which could be seen as
accepting extra marital sexual activity, especially among adolescents
and the seeming assertion in these chapters that abortion services
belong within primary health care as a method of choice.

To end the comparison on a more positive note, in regard to the Holy
Father's particular concerns regarding the family, one finds the text
much improved. While in previous texts the principle on the family
read: "While various concepts of the family exist in different social,
cultural and political systems, the family is the basic unit of
society and as such is entitled to receive comprehensive protection
and support," Principle 9 now begins "The family is the basic unit of
society and as such should be strengthened. It is entitled to receive
comprehensive protection and support." While it goes on to state that
"In different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of
the family exist," it is much clearer that the family is the center of
society and precedes other concepts rather than vice-versa.

Further, while the remaining language made reference to the fact that
"marriage should be entered into with the free consent of the
intending spouses," the new Principle 9 makes specific reference to
"husband and wife" as "equal partners" effectively sidelining the
desire on the part of certain parties to make the language as
ambiguous as possible so as to allow for same-sex marriages.

Again, in Principle 10 language was negotiated which refers to the
responsibility for education and guidance for children as lying "in
the first place with parents," an acknowledgement which was sorely
missing in original drafts.

As can well be imagined, the stories of the negotiations could
continue for nearly as long as the duration of the Conference itself.
In my final comments I would like to concentrate on the attempts of
certain delegations or groups to subvert the consensus process and
tradition of the United Nations. In the case of the Holy See
extraordinary efforts were taken to portray the Holy See as a
singular, lonely hold-out obstreperously blocking the unstoppable
waves of "progress" and "modern" thought. Thus, those individual
delegates who had participated in the various preparatory processes
and found themselves at variance with the forced agenda of the
Conference would find themselves having to explain in their capitals
that efforts really were afoot to seek for example unacceptable new
"rights" to abortion and/or its synonyms.

Thus, almost refreshingly, the previously almost unspoken great divide
of opinion was heard on the first day of the Plenary in Cairo long
prior to the Holy See's first formal intervention.  Prime Minister
Brundtland of Norway, who has long been publicly vocal in her desire
to preclude the Holy See's influence in such international fora used
the opportunity as one of the keynote speakers, to urge the
international legalization of abortion. The candor of her public
remarks were extraordinarily effective in convincing many skeptics and
mobilizing opposition to her desires.  The moment's drama was further
increased a few moment's later when Mrs. Brundtland was followed by
Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan who spoke vehemently against any
legalization of abortion not allowed in the Koran. In a riveting
speech in which she warned that what she was about to say would not be
appreciated by many of the NGO community present, she quoted the
Koran's admonishment for mother's not to kill their children since God
is the giver of sustenance. Somehow, when least expected and by the
most unexpected vehicles, truth will out.

While all of those who are united in a belief in the affirmation of
life over what Pope John Paul II has aptly termed "the culture of
death" cannot often help but feel themselves to be voices crying in
the desert, one cannot help but be encouraged by even small victories.
In the last analysis it is difficult to determine whether Cairo was a
victory in the true sense of the term. What is clear is that it
certainly was not defeat. The challenge, as always, lies ahead.

Even as we speak, delegations are gathering in Mar de Plata, Argentina
for the Latin America/Caribbean Regional Conference on the Integration
of Women in to the Economic and Social Development of Latin America
and the Caribbean. The major focus of this Conference, as will be that
of numerous other regional conferences throughout the world over the
course of the next several months will be to prepare for the Fourth
World Conference on Women and its Platform for Action to be finally
negotiated and approved in Beijing in September 1995. Among the
"strategic actions" proposed in the Draft Regional Programme of Action
is, and I quote, "encouraging the adoption of measures to protect
women's reproductive rights" and "abortion and its relationship to
maternal mortality."

In the Cairo Conference as was predictable, the vast majority of
delegations accepted the concept that abortion "should be safe in
places where it is not illegal" since in most countries abortion is in
fact legal in at least some restricted form. However, this ploy relies
on a self assurance that the Trojan Horse of "safe abortion" will have
to obey the local rules of procedure once inside the Sparta gates.
However, the further game plan is already prepared. What is aimed at
is nothing less than what Mrs.  Brundtland had the candor to admit: an
international "human right" to abortion. Unless extremely vigilant,
unsuspecting countries will find the trap door of the Trojan Horse
easily popped open with the magic word of human rights. As John Leo in
a recent article in U.S. News and World Reports recently noted
concerning this very prospect, "once international organizations
accept abortion as a fundamental right, it can be cited to trump the
laws, constitutions and sovereignty of any nation."

     What can we do?  Only what we can.  Being forewarned helps.
Forewarning various delegates was the role performed by many at the
Cairo Conference including many effective life-affirming NGO's.  Each
person must seek to build awareness, and build consensus in the
context of his or her daily lives.  The reality is stark, but it is
certainly not without hope.

     On a personal level, I must acknowledge that one of the greatest
gifts in my life is the knowledge that the birth mothers of my two
adopted children had no great international role to play, and know
little about the United Nations, but they made their own statement and
bore their own witness more effectively than most international
leaders can or do.  Thinking of what the alternatives were for those
two women and the bravery of their decisions gives me a particular
strength as I witness in my children's eyes the magnificence of the
power of day to day choices in favor of life.



     Thank you.