Eredeti közlés: Magyar Demokrata, 1994

MEG NEM SZÜLETETT MILLIÓK SORSA

A Clinton-adminisztráció érdemeként könyvelhető el, hogy kezdettől fogva tudatában volt a globális népességpolitika és a hozzá kapcsolódó rekonstrukciós program jelentőségének. Az Egyesült Államok egyik fő szerkesztője volt annak az átfogó programtervezetnek, amely a kairói konferencia fókuszpontjaként és vitaalapjaként szolgált. Az amerikai alelnök, Al Gore személyesen képviselte az adminisztráció álláspontját annak ellénere, hogy hónapok óta céltáblája volt a Vatikánból röpködő ellenséges nyilaknak. A pápai állam vádja szerint Gore arra akarta felhasználni a kairói konferenciát, hogy az USA-ban érvényben levő abortuszhoz és mesterséges születésszabályozási módszerekhez való jogosultságot "rákényszerítse a világ összes országára".

(Kép: ÉN AZ ÉDESANYÁM  VÁLASZTÁSA VOLTAM – fél milliós pro-choice tüntetés résztvevője, saját kezűleg festett  táblájával. Washington, 1992. Kuliffay felvétel)

A Clinton–Gore-párosról már a választási küzdelmek idején köztudott volt, hogy a női szabadságjogok és ezen belül a családtervezés, illetve ésszerű népesség kontroll feltétlen hívei. Utólagos felmérésekből az is kiderült, ez az álláspontjuk nagy számú szavazatot hozott számukra az értelmiség, a nők és a fiatalok köréből. Gore azonban a Nemzetközi Sajtó Klubban és a kairói konferencia megnyitóján tartott beszédeiben egyaránt hangoztatta, az Egyesült Államok kormánya sem a jelenben, sem a jövőben nem kívánja nemzetközi síkra terelni az abortuszhoz és a fogamzásgátló szerekhez való jog kérdését.

BIZTOSÍTÉK A NŐKNEK

A kész vitairat egyik kitétele, "a reproduktiv egészségügyi szolgáltatás biztosítása" különösen nagy port kavart, mivel mind a katolikus, mind pedig a muzulmán küldöttek értelmezése szerint burkoltan ugyan, de a művi abortusz propagálására íródott. Bruntland asszony, Norvégia miniszterelnöknője többek nevében azt nyilatkozta, képtelen megérteni, hogy juthatott bárki is erre a következtetésre. A reproduktiv egészségügyi szolgáltatás ugyanis sokoldalú tevékenység: magában foglalja a terhesség megszakítással kapcsolatos előzetes és utólagos orvosi és lelki tanácsadást (a terhességek minimum 4%-a orvosi beavatkozást igénylő spontán abortuszba, illetve életképtelen utód koraszülésében végződik), a szexuális felvilágosítást, a nem kívánt terhesség megelőző módszerek népszerűsítését, terhesgondozást, csecsemőgondozást, szülésre való felkészítést és utókezelést, valamint a szexuális betegségek megelőzését.

Hosszas szócséplés és annál rövidebb érdemi vita után végül is biztosítékot nyert a nők nemzetközileg elfogadott joga a reproduktiv szolgáltatásokhoz. Ebben benne foglaltatik, hogy azokban az országokban, ahol az abortusz legális, a kormánynak biztosítani kell a szakszerű és biztonságos terhesség megszakítást és utókezelést. Ez a döntés különösen fontos volt az amerikai küldöttek számára, mivel Amerikában az utóbbi években az ultrakonzervatív erők fizikai erőszakkal, még gyilkosságok árán is probálkoznak megakadályozni a nőket a családtervezési (ezen belül az abortuszhoz való) joguk gyakorlásában.(*1)

Az eredeti ügyirat szövege végül is lényegében nem, csak megfogalmazásában vagy szóhasználatában változott. Ezzel az ellenzék csak azt érte el, hogy pótolhatatlan időveszteséget okozott más létfontosságú kérdések megvitatásának rovására. A Vatikán, amely minden eszközzel meg akarta akadályozni a dokumentum jováhagyását, csak akkor lazított álláspontján, mikor nyilvánvalóvá vált, a konferencia 180 résztvevőjének túlnyomó többsége támogatja, sőt lényegében elfogadhatónak tartja akár az eredeti javaslatot is. Az álláspont fellazításában az is közrejátszott, befolyásos és közismert (haladó gondolkodású) katolikus személyek nyilvánosan is kifejezésre juttatták elégedetlenségüket a pápai álláspontot illetően.

A VATIKÁN TÚLJÁTSZOTTA A SZEREPÉT?

Frances Kissling, a Katolikusok a Szabad Választásért elnevezésű, washingtoni székhelyű nemzetközi szervezet elnöke a Washington Postnak adott interjújában kijelentette, a katolikus hívők többsége nem ért egyet a pápa születésszabályozásra vonatkozó állásfoglalásával. (Statisztikák szerint az amerikai katolikusok 82%-a saját lelkiismeretére alapozott értékítélet szerint dönt a házasságot megelőző szexuális kapcsolatait, a fogamzásgátló-szerek használatát, illetve az abortuszkérdését illetően.) Kissling azt is hozzátette: "Úgy érzem, hogy a Vatikán túljátszotta a szerepét a konferencián."

A Maryland állambeli katolikus demokrata szenátor, Barbara Mikulsky szintén a Postnak adott nyilatkozatában azzal vádolta a Vatikánt,  hogy (időhúzó) ellenvetései  révén "megrabolta a világot attól a komoly lehetőségtől, hogy terveket készítsen és konkrétan megvitassa a nők helyzetét szerte a világban.”

MEGELŐZNI A KATASZTRÓFÁT

Ugyanakkor Bruntland asszony szerint "A moralizálás képmutatóvá lesz, mikor elfogadhatóvá válik a kényszerterhességből vagy az illegalitása miatt szakszerűtlenül végzett abortuszból adódó szövődmény, szenvedés vagy halál, és mikor elfogadhatóvá válik a nyomorra született, nem akart gyermekek tragédiája.” 

Az egyébként abortuszellenes nézeteiről ismert pakisztáni elnökasszony, Benazir Bhutto pedig a realitás talaján maradva úgy nyilatkozott: "Álmaimban Pakisztán és egész Ázsia olyan világ, ahol minden gyermek tervezetten jön a világra."  A nőket érintő számtalan megoldásra váró nehézség és gondok ellenére úgy tűnik, hogy megállíthatatlanná vált az a folyamat a világban, amely az ésszerű családtervezésre alapozva az asszonyok, gyermekek és jövő generációk érdekeit szem előtt tartva egyre messzeb távolodik a társadalmi béklyók és vallási dogmák világától.

A milleneumhoz közeledve nemcsak elfogadottá, de általánosan népszerűvé válik a szemlélet, miszerint a gyermekeknek joguk van olyan családba születni, ahol akarják, szeretik, értékelik és gondozzák őket. A társadalom morális felelőssége és humanitárius kötelessége pedig nem más mint ezen jog biztosítása.

*1 Erről részletesen a Fanatikusok című cikkben (utólagos lábjegyzet)

Addenda

If we fail to acknowledge that the decision of whether to parent or not is a real choice that has ethical import, then we are treating childbearing as a mere expression of biological destiny. Instead of seeing having children as something that women do, we will continue to see it as something that simply happens to women, or as something that is merely “natural” and animal-like. (…) My aim, I hasten to add, is not to argue for policing people’s procreative motives. I am simply arguing for the need to think systematically and deeply about a fundamental aspect of human life. (Christine Overall: Think Before You Breed. June 17, 2012)

“There is no room for complacency,” warns UNICEF executive director Ann Veneman. “The loss of 9.7 million young lives each year is unacceptable.” And despite progress, she said, the world is not yet on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of a two-thirds reduction in the rate of child mortality by the year 2015. . . . Maternal mortality “remains unacceptably high” both in Africa and South Asia, with little advances over the past decades. (. . .) On average, UNICEF said, more than 27,000 children under the age of five die each day, most of them from preventable causes. But over 80 percent of all under-five deaths in 2006 were in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. “What is a life worth?” asks UNICEF. “Most of us would sacrifice a great deal to save a single child. Yet somehow on a global scale, our priorities have come blurred. (Thalif Deen: Loss of 9.7 Million Children Unacceptable, Says UNICEF. Inter Press Service. January 23, 2008)

2008. november 6: Pápai kívánság ellenére a katolikusok 54 százaléka a "pro choice", tehát a női döntéshozatal érvényesítési jogát elismerő Barack Obamára szavazott az elnöválasztáson. Az elnökhelyettes Joe Biden, annak ellenére, hogy gyakorló katolikus, szintén az ésszerű és felelősségteljes családtervezés és az anya választási jogának híve.

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." (In Eisenstadt v Baird, a landmark case legalizing birth control for unmarried individuals, Republican Justice William Brennan wrote)

Since abortion was made legal in 1973, there have been 2,400 incidents of abortion clinic violence. 7 abortion providers have been killed, and more than 150 clinics have been bombed or set on fire. So when over 150 Planned Parenthood and independent women’s health facilities received envelopes containing anthrax threats last week, the terrorist threat was certainly not new. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been at least 80 anthrax threats against providers since 1998. (A Case in Domestic Terrorism: A Look at the Violence Against Abortion Providers. 2003)

Hillary Clinton politikai pályája során gyakran vállalkozott megalkuvásra, de elismerést érdemlő, hogy végig kitartott az abortuszjog és közvetve a gyermek- és nővédelem ügye mellett: "Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith community that is very strongly pro-life. (...) Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. " (Senator Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential contender. 2007)

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life." (Upholding Roe 21 years ago, Anthony M Kennedy and two other Republican justices wrote, in Planned Parenthood v Casey)

There was, perhaps, a time when the vast majority of Catholics accepted the bishops as having an absolute right to define theological and ethical doctrines.  Those days, if they ever existed, are long gone.  Most Catholics — meaning, to be more precise, people who were raised Catholic or converted as adults and continue to take church teachings and practices seriously — now reserve the right to reject doctrines insisted on by their bishops and to interpret in their own way the doctrines that they do accept.  This is above all true in matters of sexual morality, especially birth control, where the majority of Catholics have concluded that the teachings of the bishops do not apply to them.  Such “reservations” are an essential constraint on the authority of the bishops. (Gary Gutting: Birth Control, Bishops and Religious Authority. February 15, 2012)

There are 7 billion people on the planet. It seems unlikely that all of them would be inherently and necessarily more fulfilled, more mature and better-off if they all made the exact same choice – whether that's to run a business or start an organic garden or practice yoga or do any other particular thing. So, why do we assume that having kids is the universal choice of the unselfish and the personally transformed? Normalization of being child-free is a gain for all of us, whether we choose to have children or not. It reminds us that kids are people, who deserve to be raised and nurtured by adults who proactively want to have them. And it reminds us that women are people, too – that we exist once on this planet, and we have one life in which to seek happiness and pleasure and goodness. Making choices that center on our own needs and desires isn't selfish. It's radical. It's transformational.  (Jill Filipovic: The choice to be child-free is admirable, not selfish - Most of us grow up feeling that we should have children and that our lives will be unfulfilled without. We need new social norms. The Guardian. August 2013)

Three-quarters of all women in the US who underwent abortions in 2014 were either living in poverty or had low incomes of roughly between $11,000 and $22,000. If federal funding is removed, these low-income households would suffer the most, physically and financially. (…) The most obvious move to further this agenda came from the president — who signed a law last spring allowing states to withhold federal money from organizations that offer abortion services. Many of these organizations also provide important contraceptive services to the poorest in society, services which would also be threatened. (…) Trump has appointed prominent anti-contraception advocates to his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in an attempt to keep a promise to his evangelical followers. (Kristy Vitarelly: Why marching for life now means attacking contraception. Who.What.Why. January 19, 2018)

If, as they claim, abortion is murder, then they are accessories to hundreds of thousands of “murder” cases. The maddening thing is that it would be so easy to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We know what works: responsible sex education (i.e., scrapping “abstinence only” programs); easy access to contraceptives; and availability of proper health services. Under President Barack Obama, when these types of policies were promoted, teen pregnancies and abortions declined — although, compared to other countries, they are still very high. Overall, there are an estimated 1 million unwanted pregnancies in the US annually. (Klaus Marre and Donkeyhotey: If abortion is murder, the pro-life movement is an accessory. Who.What.Why. January 21, 2018

In yet another devastating action against women and science - so many atrocities, so little time - this week marks the anniversary of what advocates call "a clear killer": Trump not just reinstating, but expanding, a controversial Global Gag Rule that denies U.S. funding to international health organizations that offer, or even talk about, abortion for women in need. Appallingly, his act to "protect the unborn," which also inevitably curtails women's access to contraception and other basic services, represents one of the few promises Trump hasn't broken. He signed the bill on his first day in office, and expanded it in May; it now blocks $8.8 billion in aid, way up from the initial $60 million at stake, which shortfall alarmed advocates are trying to make up. Critics note none of that money has ever been used to directly fund abortion services, which is forbidden by law, so it largely targets simply speaking about abortion as an option - hence, the "gag" label. (Abby Zimet: Both cruel and stupid, again/still. Common Dreams. January 23, 2018)

When women are educated about and have access to effective contraception, as well as legal and medically safe abortions, they initially use both strategies to control family size, after which contraception alone is often all that is needed and abortion rates decline. Admittedly, deeply divisive moral issues are involved. Abortion does end a human life, so it should not be done without grave consideration for what is at stake, as we do with capital punishment and war. Likewise, the recognition of equal rights, especially reproductive rights, should be acknowledged by all liberty-loving people. But perhaps progress for all human life could be more readily realized if we were to treat abortion as a problem to be solved rather than a moral issue over which to condemn others. As gratifying as the emotion of moral outrage is, it does little to bend the moral arc toward justice. (Michael Shermer: Abortion Is a Problem to Be Solved, Not a Moral Issue. Education and birth control are slowly making the politics less relevant. September 1, 2018)

The Ohio House of Representatives for the second time has passed a bill outlawing abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Because of the legislation’s extremely short period for a legal abortion, the measure would bar abortions for women who don’t realize they are pregnant until it’s too late. “It’s often the case that a woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant until after six weeks,” said Democratic state Rep. Nickie Antonio. “This is especially true for women who are emotionally traumatized by rape.” There are no exceptions in the bill for rape or incest. Doctors violating the measure could face felony charges and up to a year in prison. (Mary Papenfuss: Ohio House Passes Controversial ‘Fetal Heartbeat’ Anti-Abortion Bill. HuffPost. November 16, 2018)

“Advancing people’s rights, in particular, women’s rights, their choices and their well-being, is the path to prosperous and resilient societies.” Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta addressed the International Conference on Population and Development. November 2019)

In the letter sent to the countries ahead of a meeting on universal health coverage in September, the U.S. called on officials to sign on to a document that would be presented at the summit. The statement expressed opposition to "a new international right to abortion" and "international policies that weaken the family" including those promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights. In addition to possibly breaking federal law, the senators wrote Wednesday, the Trump administration had advocated "to deny resources and education that could help millions of women and girls around the world." The administration was only able to convince 18 countries to sign the agreement in September, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Bahrain, while longtime U.S. allies including the U.K. and France supported an opposing statement affirming that "sexual reproductive health and rights is an integral part of universal health coverage." Julia Conley: Senators Say Trump May Have Violated Federal Law by Pressuring Countries Into Opposing Abortion Rights The administration, charged Democratic senators, pressured 70 countries to support an effort "to deny resources and education that could help millions of women and girls around the world." (Julia Conley: Senators Say Trump May Have Violated Federal Law by Pressuring Countries Into Opposing Abortion Rights The administration, charged Democratic senators, pressured 70 countries to support an effort "to deny resources and education that could help millions of women and girls around the world." Commondreams. October 30, 2019)

Conservative protests against global development conference in Kenya fail to draw crowds, or derail commitments. (…) Brazilian and Polish politicians were also there. Their countries were among the few that signed a US-led statement against the summit, along with Belarus, Egypt, Haiti, Hungary, Libya, Senegal, St Lucia and Uganda. Meanwhile, ICPD25 organisers said their large global summit had “mobilised more than 1,200 commitments from around the world”, along with billions of dollars in financial pledges, to tackle issues including maternal deaths and unmet needs for family planning. (Nandini Archer: US Isolated at 'Failed' Anti-Abortion Summit in Nairobi. November 18, 2019)

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would become the first U.S. leader to attend the March for Life, one of the nation’s largest anti-abortion protests, in person later this week. (…) and their support for the March for Life has been unwavering.” The move is likely to be seen as an attempt by the president to appeal to his evangelical base at a time of fierce political turmoil. Trump’s overtures to his anti-abortion supporters have already paid dividends to his reelection campaign. The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political action group, said this month it would spend up to $52 million supporting Trump and like-minded Republicans this year. The New York Times noted that no other president has attended the March for Life, despite his political beliefs. Trump has championed himself as “very pro-choice” yet addressed the protest via a video message in 2018 and hosted some of the marchers at the White House. (Nick Visser: Trump to attend anti-abortion March for Life in person, group says. January 23, 2020)  [The announcement came the same day the Senate began hearing opening arguments in the president’s impeachment trial. Visser]

“He will be the first president in history to attend and we are so excited for him to experience in person how passionate our marchers are about life and protecting the unborn.  From the appointment of pro-life judges and federal workers, to cutting taxpayer funding for abortions here and abroad, to calling for an end to late-term abortions, President Trump and his Administration have been consistent champions for life and their support for the March for Life has been unwavering.” (Jeanne Mancini, the president of March for Life. January 22, 20202)  MICSODA VÁLTOZÁS: [January 21, 2020 marked the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which established the right to abortion across the U.S.]

A good number of social justice policies work to reduce the number of abortions. There’s quite a bit of that going on — everything from, you know, paid family leave to helping the poor and health care for all. These are all positions that the church has advocated, and I think continuing to advocate for those is exactly where we’re going to have the greatest success in reducing numbers. (…) And I have to say frankly that my approach, and this is based on practicality ― and I’m applying my prudential wisdom here as effectively as I can ― it seems to me clearly that the rate of abortion in the United States goes down when women have access to health care both for themselves and their children, when there’s adequate nutrition, [when] — I think this is very important — when housing is available to at-risk women, when education and jobs are available, and on and on and on. In other words, we’re talking about social justice policies for the most part, and those kind of policies are associated, I think, clearly with decline in the number of abortions. So, at the end of the Obama administration, the abortion numbers in the United States dropped to before what they were in 1973, what they were when Roe v. Wade became law of the land. (By Ryan J. Reilly: Catholics For Biden Co-Chair Says Progressives Should Avoid Amy Coney Barrett’s Faith. Former Catholic University professor Stephen Schneck talked to HuffPost about Catholic social teaching, anti-Catholicism in U.S. politics and Pope Francis’ papacy. Huff Post. 2020)

Pope Francis met May 13 with Argentine President Alberto Fernandez, months after Argentina legalized abortion despite a personal appeal from the pontiff and opposition from the Catholic Church..(…) It's the second time Francis and Fernandez have met and added yet another wrinkle in the Argentine pope's sometimes strained relationship with the governments of his native country. He has declined to return home since his 2013 election, friends say, because he wants to avoid being used for political ends by the reigning government. Argentina's abortion law, which Fernandez firmly supported, went into effect in January. It guarantees the procedure up to the 14th week of pregnancy and beyond that in cases of rape or when a woman's   health is at risk. Fernandez, a Peronist, had campaigned on pledges to make abortion legal and free. Argentina thus is the largest nation in Latin America to legalize elective abortion, a development that feminist movements have hailed and that could pave the way for similar legislation across the socially conservative, heavily Roman Catholic region.  (Nicole Winfield: Pope meets Argentine president months after abortion law. AP. May 13, 2021) [Francis, who has repeatedly denounced abortion as evidence of today's "throwaway culture," issued a last-minute appeal before the December vote, noting in a tweet that Christ was born as an outcast, and "came into the world as each child comes into the world, weak and vulnerable." Winfield]

“In my mind, there should be no question where Vermont stands with regard to its core values and fundamental rights, and for those rights and responsibilities and values to be protected more definitively, they need to be enshrined in our state constitution." Democratic state Rep. Ann Pugh, chair of the committee that will hold hearings on the proposal as early as January. (Wilson Ring: State legislatures in U.S. poised to act on abortion rights. AP. December 28, 2021 (A far different approach is being considered in Kansas. Republican state lawmakers have placed on the state's August 2022 primary ballot a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn a 2019 state Supreme Court decision. That ruling declared abortion access a “fundamental right” and part of a woman’s inherent right to bodily autonomy. Ring)

“Having decided that the first breath is when the soul enters the body, I believe in Federally funded abortion. Why should the rich be allowed to afford abortions and the poor not? Abortion is personal, between mothers, fathers and Dr.” (From Barbara Bush, the former first lady’s diary)

The criminalization of abortion only accelerates the inequities faced by marginalized communities. Nearly half of women who get abortions live below the poverty line, but in much of the country—especially the South and Midwest—they're losing access to it. Nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose overturning Roe—roughly twice as many who support overturning it. Most of us are firmly against these radical restrictions that undermine women's access to safe reproductive care, which will force women to seek illegal and unsafe care instead. (…) In Texas, a new law prohibits abortions starting at six weeks of pregnancy. That's well before a detectable heartbeat—and well before many women even know they're pregnant. Shockingly, the law also offers $10,000 incentives to private citizens to sue any women, medical professionals, or friends and family members who "aid and abet" an abortion. In Mississippi, meanwhile, a new law bans abortions entirely after 15 weeks. As the case goes to the Supreme Court, the state is arguing that it has a "legitimate government interest" in banning the procedure, so the Constitution can't restrict the state's ability to it. Meanwhile, at least 21 states have laws in place to restrict or ban abortion if Roe is overturned. (Ennedith Lopez: It’s time to get loud on abortion rights. Americans oppose overturning Roe by 2 to 1. CommonDreams. February 17, 2022)

 Ebben a témában lásd még:  Egy veszélyes asszony; Lapszemlék 2008. II. félév 3. írás; Elveszett évtized; A szép, okos és veszélyes Hillary;

VISSZA az EMPIRIA Magazin nyitólapjára

VISSZA a 90-es évek rovat címlistájára