Rep. Chris Smith
presented the following speech to a lunch briefing Focus on
the Family hosted on February 12, 2010.
The Inherent Right to Life: the First and Most
Fundamental Human Right
Held at the United Nations and representatives of more than 30
Reeling from the unprecedented agony—and depravity--of global war,
world leaders came together to chart a new, enlightened way forward
based on the recognition and promotion of fundamental human rights,
respect for the rule of law and appropriate venues where disputes
could be resolved without resorting to armed conflict.
The UN founders were compelled to action by an unspeakable
Hated and unwanted by the Nazis, an estimated 9 to 11 million Jews,
Roma, ethnic Poles, Russians, disabled persons and others were
systematically exterminated immediately prior to and during World
In like manner, the wanton atrocities committed by Imperial Japan
shocked the world. While the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes
tribunals held at least some of the most egregious perpetrators to
account—clearly, more needed to be done.
You and I know that among the most powerful lessons learned from
that dark period of history is this: in each generation, every
government official must take seriously his or her sacred duty to
robustly protect every human life, especially the weakest and most
vulnerable. No one should ever again be allowed to say in defense of
the indefensible—I was just following orders. And just because
something is “legal” in any of our countries doesn't make it morally
As each of you know, on December 10, 1948, without a dissenting
vote, the UN General Assembly recognized the existence of the right
to life, liberty, the right to freedom of religion and expression,
the right to self-government through free elections, the right to be
free from slavery and torture, and other basic rights inherent in
our nature as human beings.
Conversely, the Universal Declaration noted that the “disregard and
contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts…”
It is important to keep in mind that the Universal Declaration was
just that—a declaration, not a law nor an international covenant.
Appropriately, the UN and its member states did not claim to be
creating the rights enumerated in it; they were merely recognizing
and proclaiming them. The Declaration itself made clear that member
states must recognize the “inherent dignity” and the “equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. Such
fundamental rights do not come from the United Nations or from
sovereign governments. If they did, then governments would have the
moral authority to abridge or rescind such rights.
If our fundamental rights are truly rights—and not mere privileges
conveyed by civil authority—then they must be derived from a source
that precedes and transcends any earthly or political power; indeed
they must come from God..
Our job is to recognize these God-given rights and then act
decisively. Our duty is to protect all those at risk, even when it
is profoundly inconvenient. Each generation, it seems, confronts new
and sometimes unique threats to the sanctity of human life although
some types of hate and abuse seem never to abate.
You are the heirs and guarantors of the UN founders’ vision that
there can be no way forward—no progress individually or
collectively—if members of the human family anywhere or in anyway
are deemed expendable, marginal or subhuman.
The most vulnerable among us owe each of you in this room an
extraordinary debt of gratitude for your hard work, sacrifice,
diligence and compassion expended daily on their behalf.
Today, the most persecuted minority in much of the world are unborn
children. Ironic, isn't it. At a time when ultra sound imaging has
given us a window to the womb, when microsurgery and fetal health
interventions are commonplace, some have chosen this time in history
to dehumanize and exclude unborn babies.
Here at the UN, it seems to me, there must be space for all
regardless of age, race, sex, disability or condition of dependency.
The UN must set the quintessential example of inclusion, especially
for the so-called unwanted and unplanned.
The Preamble of both the Declaration and Convention on the Rights of
the Child states that “[T]he child, by reason of his physical and
mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including
appropriate legal protection, before as well as a after birth.”
The Preamble wisely notes that children both before and after birth
need special protection from harm. After all, birth itself is merely
an event in the life of a child, a transition from one place to
another—the child stays the same.
Our challenge, our duty, is to ensure a safe passage.
have been in the pro-life movement for 38 years. It is the greatest
human rights struggle on earth. I say that as a US Congressman for
thirty years who has authored numerous landmark laws to combat human
trafficking, assist torture victims, promote religious freedom,
enhance refugee protections worldwide, fund and expand the child
survival revolution, and help prisoners of conscience. I have also
played a leading role in global HIV/AIDS programs, malaria
mitigation, efforts to cure autism and other health causes.
That said, the Right to Life especially for unborn children and
others at risk remains the greatest human rights struggle in the
truly believe that someday, future generations of Americans will
look back on my government and wonder how and why a government that
prided itself on respecting human rights could have facilitated the
violent death of 52 million baby girls and boys by abortion since
1973—a death toll likely to rise significantly before the right to
life is again protected in America.
They will wonder—as many of us do now--why seemingly smart, highly
educated, rich and powerful people failed to see that abortion is
violence against children, a pernicious form of child abuse, falsely
marketed as choice, women’s empowerment, a human right or health
Many UN documents carelessly toss around the phrase “safe
abortion”—an Orwellian contrivance created by pro-abortion NGOs—as
if by repeating it enough times will make it true. All
abortion—legal or illegal—is unsafe for children and hurts women
physically and psychologically, and the medical data strongly
suggests that abortion significantly raises the risk of premature
and low birth weight children born to women who have earlier
“Safe abortion” is the ultimate oxymoron. Child dismemberment,
forced premature expulsion from the safety of the womb, chemical
poisoning or deliberate starvation—one of the chemicals in RU 486
actually denies nourishment to an unborn child-- can never, ever be
construed to be benign, compassionate or safe.
Goal #4 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) calls on each
country to reduce child mortality while at the same time
pro-abortion activists lobby for an increase in access to abortion.
It is bewildering to me how anyone can fail to understand that
abortion is, by definition, infant mortality. Abortion destroys
few years ago, a friend of mine wrote in a book how her young child
unexpectedly walked into a room when she was preparing a lecture on
abortion. Her 3 year old took one gasping look at the badly bruised
and battered body of the aborted baby on the screen and shouted:
mommy who broke the baby?
That child saw the brutality of abortion, unaffected by the
deceptively clever and preposterously misleading propaganda dished
by the multi-billion dollar abortion industry.
That child saw and knew immediately that babies are smashed and
broken to bits by abortion and wanted to know who did it.
Last fall, like that young child, a woman named Abby Johnson, a
Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director in Texas, with 8 years
at the facility, watched an ultrasound image of an abortion in
progress on a 3 month old baby. Self described as “extremely
pro-choice” but now “pro-life” she said she watched an unborn child
“crumple” before her very eyes as the infant was vacuumed to death
by a suction device 20-30 times more powerful than a household
vacuum cleaner. She said: I could see the baby try to move away, I
just thought, what am I doing? She quit her job that day and said
Is legal abortion safe for women?
At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major
depression and elevated suicide risk in women who abort.
Last year the Times of London reported that “senior psychiatrists
say new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and
mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological
problems.” They found “that women who have had abortions have twice
the level of psychological problems and three times the level of
depression as women who have given birth or who have never been
How can that be considered safe?
In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that 78.6% of the
15-18 year olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major
depression as compared to 31% of their peers. The study also found
that 27% of the 21-25 year old women who had abortions had suicidal
idealizations compared to 8% of those who did not have an abortion.
Is legal abortion safe for women? At least 28 studies—including
three in 2009—show that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer
by some 30-40% or more yet the abortion industry has largely
succeeded in suppressing these facts
So-called safe abortion inflicts other deleterious consequences on
women as well including hemorrhage, infection, perforation of the
uterus, sterility and death. Just last month, a woman from my home
state of New Jersey died from a legal abortion, leaving behind four
Safe abortion? Not for subsequent children born to women who have
had an abortion. At least 113 studies show a significant association
between abortion and subsequent premature births. For example a
study by researchers Shah and Zoe showed a 36% increased risk for
preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93% increased risk
Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth
weight increases by 35 percent after one and 72 percent after two or
more abortions. Another study shows the risk increases 5 times after
a woman has had three abortions.
What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the leading
cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after
congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of
suffering from chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral
palsy, cognitive impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight
is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity—and
accounts for two-thirds of all perinatal and infant deaths.
So-called safe and legal abortion is not only infant mortality in
and of itself, but unnecessarily puts future children at
significantly higher risk of losing their lives as well or being
Today, some governments including my own, UN treaty implementation
bodies including and especially CEDAW, some UN organizations
including and especially UNFPA, and many non-government
organizations (NGOs) are pushing—pressuring-- your country to
legalize, facilitate, and expand access to abortion.
For the record, the first serious sign of all-out aggressive
pro-abortion lobbying took place in Cairo and the Prepcoms that
preceded the 1994 ICPD. We had our fights in Mexico City in 1984.
But not like Cairo. I know I was there.
After a rough year and an even rougher week, the Cairo outcome
document and plan of action absolutely precluded any international
right to abortion and dozens of countries filed an explanation of
position (EOP) to ensure that their strong opposition to abortion
was fully understood by all—all facts the pro-abortion NGOs want you
to forget today.
Despite repeated attempts by the pro-abortion side to manipulate
plainly worded text, the pro-life side emerged from Cairo with this
clear admonition: “Governments should take appropriate steps to help
women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a
method of family planning.” Cairo also reiterated the primacy of
national sovereignty on this issue, stating: “Any measures or
changes related to abortion within the health system can only be
determined at the national or local level according to the national
year later, I was in Beijing as co-chair of the congressional
delegation for the UN women’s conference. Again, attempts were made
to push abortion and again a diverse consensus from the four corners
of the globe rejected it.
And so the struggle has continued ever since. Each and every UN
special meeting—including the summit for children—has become a
battleground and the upcoming CSW and the discussions on Beijing 15
and implementation of the Beijing Platform will be no exception.
Additionally, many of your government officials have been or will
soon be scolded by pro-abortion “experts” at periodic CEDAW reviews
in an attempt to “persuade” you to abandon your protections for
women and children from the violence of abortion.
encourage you to resist and push back. The voiceless desperately
need friends and advocates in high places. They need you.
The anti-life challenge we face isn't new but will require more
work, attention to detail and sacrifice, especially since the
election of a very pro-abortion US president. One of the first acts
by President Obama was to reverse the international pro-life policy
known as Mexico City Policy which ensured that US funding only went
to foreign NGOs which agreed to not perform abortion or promote
abortion as a method of family planning in countries around the
For the past year, a coalition of pro-life Democrats and Republicans
in Washington insisted that any health care reform not fund
abortion. After winning decisively in the House of Representatives,
it became absolutely clear that the White House preferred no bill at
all than having to sign legislation that proscribed public funding
for abortion. It was an ominous revelation of priorities.
Distinguished ambassadors, I am deeply concerned that some very
powerful people here at the UN are attempting to hijack the
important and noble goal of reducing maternal mortality—MDG #5—by
integrating legalization of abortion and expanding access to it.
Often cloaked in the language of reproductive health, I respectfully
ask that you do all in your power to continue to expose and clarify
in clear, unambiguous terms that killing children and harming
mothers by abortion is not reproductive health—it is a human rights
Today, as never before, the largely preventable tragedy of maternal
mortality is being exploited to promote unfettered access to
abortion on demand.
would respectfully submit that if we are truly serious about
reducing maternal mortality, women, especially in the developing
world, need access to proper maternal health care, skilled birth
attendants, safe blood and clinics where obstructed deliveries can
be turned into safe passages. Abortion, on the other hand solves
nothing, kills children, harms women and should in no way be
integrated into any global action plan or country specific strategy
otherwise designed to mitigate maternal mortality.
In Africa, 34% of maternal deaths are reportedly due to hemorrhage.
Almost 17% were the result of other indirect causes including sepsis
9.7%, hypertensive disorders 9.1% and a combination of miscarriage
and induced abortion near the bottom at 3.9%. (As chairman of the
Africa committee I chaired a hearing a few years ago on the
availability safe blood for transfusions and a doctor from WHO
testified that a sufficient and sustainable supply of safe blood in
Africa could reduce maternal mortality by 44 %.)
The breakdown for Asia is almost the same, with miscarriage and
induced abortion making up 5.9% of maternal deaths.
Data from Latin America and the Caribbean suggests that almost 26%
of maternal deaths were due to hypertensive disorders, hemorrhage
21%, obstructed labor 13%, and miscarriage and induced abortion at
You should be fully aware that the strategy of exploiting the
tragedy of maternal mortality to promote abortion isn't new—it’s
ripped right out of the playbook used by US pro-abortion NGOs—nor is
it honest. In the late sixties and early seventies pro-abortion NGOs
in the United States deliberately distorted and exaggerated the
number of maternal deaths from illegal abortion to sell legal
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a vociferous pro-abortion activist back then
and co-founder of a UN accredited NGO called NARAL said:
“I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions…I was one of the
founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion
Laws in the U.S. in the 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would
have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet
within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue
the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and
produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this?
… The first key tactic was to capture the media. We aroused enough
sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating
the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual
figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media
repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough
convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal
abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed
to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the
consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack
the [anti] abortion law.”
Getting highly reliable maternal mortality data is still a serious
In 2006, a comprehensive study was funded by the World Health
Organization to more accurately determine the disparate causes of
maternal mortality. Based on 35,197 maternal deaths around the world
over 15 years, the findings raised more questions than it answered.
For example it found:
That the limited data that WHO has on abortion in developing
countries is generally not disaggregated by whether the child died
in a miscarriage or from induced abortion…the data lumps the two
together creating the potential for a huge distortion in percentages
as various assumptions are used to disentangle the data.
“Abortion rates seemed to be affected by methodological quality,
because good-quality studies showed reduced rates, suggesting
possible reporting bias in studies of low quality.” In other
words, there is evidence that the very limited data that we have
available is at least partially corrupted.
Nevertheless the good but underreported news suggests that many of
the countries that have some of the strongest laws and
constitutional protections for unborn children also have some of the
lowest maternal mortality rates on earth.
Chile, a country which has one of the most restrictive abortion laws
in Latin America, has the lowest maternal mortality rates in South
America while Guyana, a country which has permitted abortion since
1995 has a maternal mortality rate six time higher than Chile.
In Asia, Nepal permits unrestricted abortion and has one of the
world’s highest rates of maternal mortality. Pro-life Sri Lanka on
the other hand is fourteen times lower than Nepal.
In Africa, pro-life Mauritius remains among the lowest and in
Europe, pro-life Ireland has an extraordinary record as well.
Honduras was able to lower its maternal mortality by 40% over just
seven years while still protecting the lives of unborn babies.
The Honduran Government made maternal mortality reduction a public
health priority. Increased resources enabled the Ministry of Health
to make emergency obstetric care available in more rural and urban
health centres and district hospitals. Health personnel were
increased in remote areas, and birthing centres were established in
areas of difficult access. Utilization of prenatal care in health
centres increased. Traditional birth attendants were trained and
integrated into the health system, resulting in greater community
acceptance and more emergency referrals to hospitals.
Transportation, roads and communication were also improved. 
Abortion unleashes grave collateral damage on any society that
choices that path. Excluding right to life protections for some
cheapens life for all and the culture of death it spawns imposes
huge social costs. Euthanasia and assisted suicide follows the same
utilitarian path as abortion. In the Netherlands, the pool of
eligibles continues to expand. Many European countries with
permissive abortion laws are far below replacement and are slowly
imploding, some would even say disappearing. The UN estimates that
by 2050, Russia will have lost one-third of its population.
Apparently, the Kremlin understands this and has already started to
address their demographic nightmare. Eastern Europe is also in rapid
decline, with the number of abortions outpacing the number of births
in several countries in the region.
Abortion adversely affects many fathers who regret their
powerlessness to protect and save their child. I personally know
several young adults who lost siblings to abortion including a
“middle child” and are left to wonder why they were spared.
As the U.S. based NGO Silent No More Awareness Campaign has learned,
post abortive women often suffer deep emotional pain that lasts a
life time. That’s why Dr Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther
King, and a spokesperson for this NGO speaks out passionately to
women who have had abortions and shows them a faith based path to
reconciliation and healing. Dr. King had two abortions—deeply
regrets the loss of her two children—and today bravely speaks out in
defense of life.
Finally, if you want to know where all of this might be heading,
just look at abortion in the Peoples Republic of China. With the
full backing of the UNFPA and assistance from pro-abortion NGOs in
good standing at the UN, China continues to impose a cruel,
draconian one child per couple policy on its citizens.
Since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in much of China.
If a woman is caught pregnant without explicit government
authorization to give birth, she is forced to abort. Unwed mothers
are all compelled to abort. Handicapped unborn children, if
discovered, are killed by the state. Ruinous fines—up to ten times
the combined salary of both parents—jail, torture, property
confiscation, loss of employment, education opportunities, housing
and health care are all weapons aggressively used by the family
planning cadres to ensure compliance.
No wonder 500 Chinese women commit suicide each day in China.
And making matters even worse, the ever worsening gender disparity
is frightening. Where are China’s missing girls? By the tens of
millions, they are gone victims of the earliest form of
discrimination against the girl child—sex selective abortion.
Surely China’s forced abortion policy and as a direct
consequence—missing girls —constitutes a massive crime against women
and the girl child. Why has the UNFPA supported, funded and defended
China’s forced abortion policy for thirty years? Where is a strong
clear voice from CEDAW protesting sex selective abortion as
discrimination against the youngest of women? Where are the voices
of the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly against this
gendercide of baby girls— targeted for destruction in the womb
simply because they are female?
Last November I convened an official congressional human rights
hearing on China’s one child policy—the 27th hearing on human rights
violations in the PRC that I have chaired.. The principal witness
Wuijan is a Chinese student attending a US university who testified
about how her child was forcibly murdered by the government. She
said: …the room was full of moms who had just gone through a forced
abortion. Some moms were crying. Some moms were mourning. Some moms
were screaming. And one mom was rolling on the floor with unbearable
pain.” Then Wuijan said it was her turn, and through her tears she
described what she called her “journey in hell.”
Silence in the face of massive crimes against women in China—women
like Wuijan-- shouldn't be an option.
Thank you for your presence today and I look forward to meeting and
working with each of you.