By Deborah Zabarenko

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Jeers and catcalls greeted the top U.S. delegate to a global women's conference on Friday as she stressed Washington's opposition to abortion and support for sexual abstinence and fidelity.

After withdrawing an unpopular anti-abortion amendment from a key U.N. document, the United States joined in approving the declaration that reaffirmed a 150-page platform agreed 10 years ago at a landmark U.N. women's conference in Beijing.

The final approval prompted cheers, applause and a standing ovation by some participants.


However, top U.S. delegate Ellen Sauerbrey drew boos from the audience, which included some of the 6,000 activists who came from around the world, when she commented on Washington's interpretation of the document.

"We have stated clearly and on many occasions ... that we do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance," Sauerbrey said.

The loudest catcalls, unusual at the world body, came when she articulated U.S. policy on AIDS prevention for adolescents: "We emphasize the value of the ABC -- abstinence, be faithful, and correct and consistent condom use where appropriate -- approach in comprehensive strategies to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS and the promotion of abstinence as the healthiest and most responsible choice for adolescents."

Earlier Friday, Sauerbrey said the United States was dropping its demand that the document be amended to say that abortion is a matter of national sovereignty and not a human right delineated by the 1995 conference in Beijing.

After a week of closed-door negotiations at the United Nations during a two-week conference on women's equality, Sauerbrey said the U.S. point had been made and therefore Washington's amendment was no longer needed.

U.S. GOALS ACCOMPLISHED

The first version of the abandoned amendment said the Beijing meeting's final document did not recognize abortion as a fundamental right; a later version said the document did not create any new international human rights, code for abortion.

"We think we have really accomplished what we set out to do," Sauerbrey said. "We have heard from countries ... that our interpretation is their interpretation. So the amendment we recognize is really redundant, but it has accomplished its goals. We will be withdrawing the amendment."

Despite U.S. lobbying, support for Washington's abortion stance was limited to the Vatican, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama.

Mary Ann Dantuono, the Vatican delegate, was interrupted by shouts when she said the Catholic Church "would have preferred a clearer statement emphasizing that the Beijing documents cannot be interpreted as creating new human rights including the right to abortion."

Delegates from the European Union, Asia and Africa forcefully opposed the U.S. position.

"The text of Beijing is unequivocally clear. We should not spend hours splitting hairs over phrases that mean the same thing," said New Zealand's U.N. Ambassador Don Mackay, speaking for his country, Canada and Australia. He said the Beijing document included a woman's right to control her sexuality.

Nigeria echoed Mackay's sentiments on women's sexuality, but thanked Washington for withdrawing its amendment.

The current U.N. session is meant to assess how far women have come toward equality since the 1995 Beijing conference and a follow-up meeting five years ago. Organizers seeking consensus drafted a streamlined document they hoped would be easily approved without controversy.

What can I say? We are as clueless as ever.

Correction, our government is as clueless as ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/05/opinion/05sat2.html

EDITORIAL

The Bush Team's Abortion Misstep

Published: March 5, 2005

At a moment when the United States should be leading the world on advancing women's equality, the Bush administration chose instead to alienate government ministers and 6,000 other delegates at an important United Nations conference on that issue with a burst of anti-abortion zealotry this week.

The two-week session is being held to reinvigorate efforts to improve women's lives a decade after a landmark U.N. conference in Beijing. The organizers had hoped to keep a tight focus on urgent challenges like sexual trafficking, educational inequities and the spread of AIDS.

The first order of business was to be quick approval of a simple statement reaffirming the Beijing meeting's closing declaration. But on Monday, the Americans created turmoil by announcing that the United States would not join the otherwise universal consensus unless the document was amended to say that it did not create "any new international human rights" or "include the right to abortion."

This was shabby and mischievous. For one thing, the Beijing statement was nonbinding. For another, the Beijing negotiators had tried to anticipate controversy by recognizing unsafe abortions as a serious public health issue while leaving the question of legality up to each nation.

Specifically, the Beijing platform says that abortion should be safe where it is legal, and that criminal action should not be taken against any woman who has an abortion. All of this seemed clear enough, but the Bush team apparently could not resist an opportunity to press its anti-abortion agenda.

By Thursday evening, the American delegation had agreed to drop the explicit anti-abortion clause from its proposed amendment, and yesterday it finally withdrew the amendment entirely. But the damage had been done. An apology is due from the United States delegation for the weeklong disruption it caused. So is a fresh spirit of cooperation and a less rigid insistence on dictating global strategy.

I agree with this and of course, support a woman's right to choose.

I really don't understand what the problem is. How is abortion not relevant to this conference? It seems the NYT apparently could not resist an opportunity to press its anti-Bush agenda.

We are clueless as to what our government is up to

If an African nation said this shit it would have brought on a standing-o. I hate this fucking planet.

How can the NYT help it if pro-woman means anti-Bush?

How can the NYT help it if thousands of delegates start booing the American representative? Face it, the Bush administration is out of touch with the women of the world on this issue.

--PunkDavid

W stands for Women. I saw it myself on a sign back in October.

W stands for weally, weally white.

I would have stopped there, but what do I know, I'm a silly woman who's ruled by her uterus.

I'm kinda surprised Bush hasn't tried to repeal laws against men beating the crap out of their spouses.

Someone remind me- did the 70s social movements actually happen?

I think we need to put someone in a position of power who feels the same way.

Hill in 2008? Possibly.

Jesus H. Christ you people. How can anyone not agree with this?
Can somebody explain to me what is wrong with this statement?

Americans choose to be completely clueless to the issue.