include “emergency contraception” (abortiacientMorning-Aer Pill) and abortion –
and all without reerence to marriage, age or gender.
Te most aggressive proponents o these harmulpolicies – with the number o interventions they madeduring the rst our days o negotiations – were:18 European nations led by Sweden (66),
Denmark (59), Netherlands (56), Switzerland(52), Great Britain (50), Norway (49), Finland(43), Hungary (41), and Spain (40), whoormed the “Like-Minded Group”;9 “Latin American Group” nations led by
Brazil (52), Uruguay (49), Argentina (37),Dominican Republic (33), and Mexico (25);Several Arican nations, but primarily South
Arica (25) and Zambia (21);United States (18); and
New Zealand (19).
By the end o the ourth day, there were 10phrases or statements promoting abortion; 64asserting sexual and reproductive “rights” that includecontraception and could include abortion; and 6encouraging ull or comprehensive sex education orboys and girls.
Good Policies Promoted by the HolySee and Noble Nations
“Good” language is here dened as promotingpolicies that would encourage “abstinence anddelity”; improve maternal and child health andreduce their mortality; increase prenatal and postnatalcare; arm parental rights; recognize the problems o declining ertility rates and “demographic transition”with aging populations; oppose emale inanticide,abortion, “abortion … as a method o amily planning,”and human tracking; and declare “ull respect orreligious and ethical values” and national sovereignty Te most diligent delegations promoting goodpolicies – with the number o interventions (5 ormore) during the rst our days – were (some willsurprise you):Holy See delegation (72);
From Europe, Malta (51) and Poland (24);
From the “Arab Group” o nations (47);
From individual Arab nations, Iran (40) and
Pakistan 9;Russian Federation (19);
From Arica, Benin (9) and Swaziland (5);
andSaint Lucia (6).
Aer our days, these pro-amily delegationsregistered opposition to bad language, and hadnumerous statements and paragraphs with the abovegood language.
No Compromises, so Chairman’sText
Normally during such commission meetings atthe United Nations, delegations keep negotiating untilthey reach agreement, and any language not agreed tois eliminated rom the resolution in order to producea “consensus” document. Not too many years ago, i a ew delegations were opposed to certain languageand could not be persuaded to change their position,that language was removed rom the document toreach consensus. However, the division betweenpolicy views o nations has become more striking inrecent years, and this is the third year in a row thata “Chairman’s ext” was the nal outcome o CPDbecause neither side would compromise. When nocompromise can be reached on the policy issues, thechairman o the negotiations may dra an alternative version, incorporating parts o the dra resolution.I approved by the delegations, then it becomes the“Resolution adopted” by the Commission.Te dra Chairman’s ext retained most o the“good” language, but about hal o the “bad” language.Promotion o abortion was reduced to two times;sexual and reproductive “rights” to 30 (instead o 64)