Why do some people consider the U.N. an increasingly irrelevant, obsolete organization? Maybe this Reuters article gives us an answer.
I know some folks who attended the conference in Beijing ten years ago. Their stories of the lobbying in the halls by abortion advocates were unreal.
How far out there are the attendees of the conference? When U.S. delegate Ellen Sauerbrey stated "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" she was booed. Re-read the statement. What about it is so objectionable? Is it that we (the U.S.), will not support abortion as birth control? Even setting aside the morality of abortion, this opposition could be based on strong medical grounds. Is it that we do not use U.S. tax monies to support abortion abroad (either through lobbying or actual payment)? I daresay if you were to give an option to Americans they would, in overwhelming numbers, refuse to send their money to abortion advocates and performers abroad. Democracy may be a problem for the U.N., but it is the best form of government humanity has devised.
Maybe I'm biased because I've held a sign in the streets of Baltimore supporting one of Mrs. Sauerbrey's gubernatorial campaigns. But I don't think that is the reason I find this whole story problematic.
We (in the U.S.) are accused of being cultural imperialists. We are blamed for our arrogance in trying to spread our culture and democracy through the world (especially after the invasion of Iraq).
But then we (the U.S.) are booed at a U.N. conference because we refuse to pay for lobbyists in Ireland, South America, and Muslim countries to change the law in those countries to more closely reflect current U.S. law.
It is sad that an organization with the potential for great good (the U.N.) is held so ideologically captive by abortion advocates that it cannot bear to hear common sense from a representative of the largest contributor to the U.N.