Eroding equality
The Bush administration declines to ratify an international treaty on
women, saying the U.N. must first renounce abortion rights.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Suzanne Goldenberg



March 1, 2005 | The Bush administration was accused Monday of trying
to roll back efforts to improve the status of the world's women by
demanding that the United Nations publicly renounce abortion rights.
America's demand overshadowed the opening Monday of a conference
intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the Beijing Commission on the
Status of Women, an event seen as a landmark in efforts to promote
global cooperation on women's equality.

The U.S. stand was also widely seen as further evidence of the sweeping
policy change in Washington under the Bush presidency. The last four
years have seen a steady erosion of government support for international
population projects as a result of the administration's opposition to
abortion.

The U.N.'s Commission on the Status of Women had drafted a brief
declaration reaffirming support for the Beijing declaration and calling
for further effort to implement its recommendations. Organizers had
hoped that informal discussions last week would reach a consensus on the
draft, leaving the next fortnight clear for government officials and
women's activists to hold more substantive talks on advancing economic
equality and political participation, and fighting violence against
women. But those hopes were crushed in a closed-door session late last
week when Washington demanded that the declaration reaffirm its support
for the declarations made in Beijing 10 years ago only if "they do not
include the right to abortion," says a copy of the U.S. text obtained by
the Guardian.

"We were not able to conclude informal consultations as we had
originally hoped and planned for," said Beatrice Maille, the vice chair
of the U.N. commission.

The chief of the U.S. delegation, Sichan Siv, went on to tell his
counterparts that Washington opposed the ratification of the
international treaty on women's equality, as well as resolutions that
would "place emphasis on 'rights' that not all member states accept,
such as so-called 'sexual rights.'" Siv also told diplomats that
Washington opposed any move to seek funds from industrialized countries
to implement the reforms called for under the Beijing declaration.

The stand left America almost entirely isolated at the pre-conference
sessions. According to officials who were at the meetings, only the
Vatican observer supported Washington's hard line. There was harsh
criticism of the Bush administration Monday from diplomats and women's
activists.

"This sort of statement is a clear signal to everybody present that the
U.S. does not support the Beijing agreement perspective on the human
rights of women," said Adrienne German, president of the International
Women's Health Coalition. "It clearly demonstrates that this government
has taken a 180-degree reversal from the U.S. government in 1995 and 2000."

Private talks were underway Monday to persuade Washington to reverse its
stand. Although there are expectations that the United States will
eventually relent, several officials accused the U.S. of igniting the
controversy -- and sabotaging the conference -- to try to score points
with Bush supporters on the Christian right.

The Clinton administration was a strong supporter of the Beijing
declaration in 1995, and until President Bush took power in 2001,
Washington was viewed as a leader in international family-planning
efforts. The U.S. government began providing aid to developing countries
in 1965, and its organizations were seen as leaders in population
control. But President Bush has steadily reversed Washington's support
for such initiatives, blocking U.S. funds to the U.N. Population Fund
and diverting cash toward programs promoting abstinence.

A spokesman for the U.S. delegation described the controversy over
Washington's stand on abortion as "motivated." "We just wanted to make
clear what the assumptions were about the Beijing document," said Rick
Grenell, the U.S. spokesman. "We don't believe that it recognizes
abortion as an international human right."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:33:40 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Eroding equality
The Bush administration declines to ratify an international treaty on
women, saying the U.N. must first renounce abortion rights.


Family planning and the killing of babies are not the same thing. Being against
the latter does not mean one is against the former. To accuse otherwise is
ridiculous.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:33:40 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Eroding equality
The Bush administration declines to ratify an international treaty on
women, saying the U.N. must first renounce abortion rights.



Family planning and the killing of babies are not the same thing. Being against
the latter does not mean one is against the former. To accuse otherwise is
ridiculous.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
Didja read this part John?

"The stand left America almost entirely isolated at the pre-conference
sessions. According to officials who were at the meetings, only the
Vatican observer supported Washington's hard line. There was harsh
criticism of the Bush administration Monday from diplomats and women's
activists."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:45:25 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:33:40 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Eroding equality
The Bush administration declines to ratify an international treaty on
women, saying the U.N. must first renounce abortion rights.



Family planning and the killing of babies are not the same thing. Being against
the latter does not mean one is against the former. To accuse otherwise is
ridiculous.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
Didja read this part John?

"The stand left America almost entirely isolated at the pre-conference
sessions. According to officials who were at the meetings, only the
Vatican observer supported Washington's hard line. There was harsh
criticism of the Bush administration Monday from diplomats and women's
activists."

almost...officials (what officials?)...

So what? The fact is, family planning and the killing of babies are not the same
thing. Being against the latter does not mean one is against the former. To
accuse otherwise is ridiculous.



John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:05:45 -0500, "Gene Kearns" wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:41:18 -0500, John H
wrote:


Family planning and the killing of babies are not the same thing.
It is an equal sin, to some people:

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the
design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural
law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that
sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God,
intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the
bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The
loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for
nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even
harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately
excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of
the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused
by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great
that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all
key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul
deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin.
It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it
unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he
lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of
insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at
such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation
should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . .
Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil
deed. Therefore, God punished him."

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church
considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to
decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could
be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the
historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are
always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done
with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching
cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.


reference:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Contraception is not the sole alternative to abortion for family planning.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:05:45 -0500, "Gene Kearns" wrote:


On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:41:18 -0500, John H
wrote:



Family planning and the killing of babies are not the same thing.

It is an equal sin, to some people:

snippage
with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching
cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.


reference:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp


Contraception is not the sole alternative to abortion for family planning.



Well, I guess there's abstinence, that always does wonders for a marriage.

Reminds me of the old joke:
Q. What do you call a couple who use the rhythm method?
A. Parents


Stella

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:33:20 -0500, Black Dog wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:05:45 -0500, "Gene Kearns" wrote:


On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:41:18 -0500, John H
wrote:



Family planning and the killing of babies are not the same thing.

It is an equal sin, to some people:

snippage
with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching
cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.


reference:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp


Contraception is not the sole alternative to abortion for family planning.



Well, I guess there's abstinence, that always does wonders for a marriage.

Reminds me of the old joke:
Q. What do you call a couple who use the rhythm method?
A. Parents


Stella

That's true. And the joke was good!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:24:08 -0500, "Gene Kearns" wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:39:52 -0500, John H
wrote:



Contraception is not the sole alternative to abortion for family planning.


John H


I never thought *you,* of all people, would be championing the ZPG
benefits of homosexuality.... Oh, well, you *are* right.. it *is*
100% effective....

Hee, hee big... :-) ...!!!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."