Guttmacher Griping: Liberal Report Complains about the US having an Official UN Delegate from CWA

Print Friendly

Friday, August 8, 2002

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The Beverly LaHaye Institute

Strange, the liberal left’s sense of entitlement. They seem to think they have some inherent right to be the official voice of America. “Who are those upstarts?” they ask about spokespersons from the right. Whenever a representative of a conservative point of view is in the limelight on an issue, the producers or editors insist on having another perspective. It’s a sense of balance, you know. Yet, one rarely hears concerns about balance when the liberals are the focus. Of course, they are not usually labeled, either.

Now, the reliably left leaning, Guttmacher Report is complaining in its August 2002 issue that at the U.N., it’s “out with the old (friends), and in with the new.” Guttmacher specifically complained that at the recent Children’s Summit President Bush asked me to serve as an official delegate for the United States. Guttmacher was not pleased that President Bush appointed “official private-sector advisors drawn from organizations such as Concerned Women for America.” CWA has NGO status (non-governmental organization) and remains highly effective in lobbying official delegates from around the world, but this was the first time that CWA was represented in the official delegation-though we are the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with members from all around the country and an influential body in the nation’s capital and, indeed, on international issues. I have worked on U.N., family, women and children’s issues for over a decade, yet this was the first time I have been asked to serve in an official U.N. capacity. Where is it written that only liberals qualify?

The report’s cover story, “The President’s Overseas Reproductive Health Policy: Think Locally, Act Globally,” is a tirade about how conservatives are ruining the U.N.’s programs and effectiveness. They are especially disturbed that “extremely conservative” people are “overseeing domestic reproductive health and rights policy” and that conservatives have been “given the green light to go global with their perception of the president’s social agenda.” Are they saying that the president should not be able to implement his agenda? Guttmacher’s editors hasten to assure their readers that “so far, the State Department has been able to exert some moderating influence” on the President’s conservative appointees’ actions. Then, they add a caveat, “but many observers fear that its ability to do so may be waning fast.”

The article complains about conservatives reacting “harshly” to Secretary Powell’s “endorsement of condom use by sexually active young people and to the idea that this administration sanctions any message other than abstinence until marriage as the principal, if not only, acceptable approach.”

They believe that the delegation at the Children’s Summit issued its statement “largely for domestic political consumption.” At the same time, they warn that conservatives likely also are laying “the groundwork for more open disavowal of Cairo and Beijing” in the future.

Guttmacher specifically complained, “Finally and notably, the reference to condom use to prevent HIV infection disappeared from the list of U.S.-sanctioned HIV prevention strategies. Instead, the document restates the priority the United States places on the family, the promotion of marriage, the value of abstinence and the importance of parental rights.” And, the problem with that is?

They quote the Belgium youth minister as being “amazed” at the “pressure of extremely conservative lobby groups within the U.S.” That same minister claims that as a result, “the US government has become an ally of all kinds of reactionary regimes.” Where are the black helicopters?

The Guttmacher Report concludes with a warning to liberals that is also an important message for conservatives: “Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems likely to heed these groups [conservatives] on both fronts [locally and globally] –at least as far –and for as long as it can do so without suffering any serious political repercussions.”

This article was published originally as an edition of FemFacts, a new weekly electronic publication from the Beverly LaHaye Institute (BLI). For more information about BLI, see its Web site at To subscribe to FemFacts, or any of the Institute’s e-publications, please visit

Leave a Reply