New Sheriff in Town

The Christian Right Nears Major Victory at the United Nations

By Jennifer Butler


At the beginning of 2001, Christian Right leader Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) rejoiced, “There’s a New Sheriff in Town,” a victory cry picked up by other Christian Right organizations like Concerned Women for America.[1] A new U.S. Administration that showed clear signals of its willingness to advance Christian Right views at United Nations (UN) meetings has enabled the Christian Right to dominate the U.S. agenda at many UN meetings, in particular the Preparatory Committee Meetings (PrepComs) for the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children. The Right is poised to win major victories at the Special Session scheduled for May 8-10, 2002. It has also managed to influence smaller but significant ways UN meetings on women, population and the AIDS pandemic. At one time “profamily” organizations, having newly arrived at the UN, complained of being excluded from UN meetings and ignored by the U.S. State Department. Now their views are espoused by U.S. delegations, and Christian Right leaders from organizations like the Family Research Council are even invited to join the official government delegation to UN meetings.

Two years and a change of government in the United States have put Christian Right or “profamily” organizing at the UN far ahead of where it was when this author first exposed these efforts in the Public Eye, in Fall 2000.[2] In 2000, while “profamily” organizations had reached a whole new level of organizing at the United Nations and showed surprising strength by slowing negotiations at the UN review of the Fourth World Conference on Women known as Beijing+5, they did not have a significant impact on international agreements made at Beijing+5.

Christian Right groups at the UN also continue to strengthen their interfaith ties and internationalize their message through regional conferences and their newfound political power in the international arena.[3] Their shared commitment to opposing LGBT, women’s and children’s rights, abortion, and international cooperation has enabled them to overcome centuries of divisive sectarianism. In addition, Christian Right groups continue to strengthen their ties to Social Conservatives in other religions, including Muslims, Jews and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Many would consider the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) to be the leader of “profamily” efforts at the UN. However, of equal importance is the World Family Policy Center based at the Brigham Young University Law School, a Mormon institution. The Family Research Council (FRC), one of the flagships of the Christian Right has also thrown its weight behind these efforts. Other groups include Concerned Women for America, United Families International, Real Women of Canada, and American Life League, to name a few.

Appeasing the Christian Right

How did a President who ran on a platform of Compassionate Conservatism and bipartisan cooperation hand over U.S. delegations to the UN to the Christian Right? President George W. Bush is acutely aware of the fact that his father may have lost his bid for re-election because he failed to win support from the Christian Right.[4] The UN Special Session on children provides an opportunity to the Bush Administration to win points with Christian Right voters without losing moderate votes, since news media pay little attention to UN meetings. While many moderate Republicans would actually be appalled to hear that a world meeting on the well being of children had been politicized, the Bush Administration could bank on its constituency not catching wind of this. The U.S. State Department advocated the agenda of the Christian Right at Preparatory Committee meetings for the Special Session.[5] Christian Right leaders were appointed to the U.S. delegation for the Third Preparatory Committee meeting for the Special Session. These included Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council, Bob Flores of the National Law Center for Children and Families, and Paul Bonicelli, executive director of the National Center for Home Education. These individuals oppose children’s and women’s rights and the U.S. ratification of UN treaties.[6]

Why Oppose Children’s Rights?

Conservatives have long viewed the UN as a beachhead for communism and have been fearful of internationalism.[7] Conservative White Evangelical fiction portrays the UN as the world end time world government of the antichrist. These fears intensified as the Cold War ended and the UN organized a series of international conferences during the 1990s to mobilize political will to address the world’s most pressing issues.[8] Christian Right fears about the UN reached a new peak during the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo) and then the 1995 UN Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing) as they witnessed the impact of international agreements on women’s rights and abortion.

Adopted before the Cairo and Beijing Conferences, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Plan of Action of the UN Summit for Children held in 1990 were drafted primarily under the Reagan Administration and signed under his successor President George Bush without Conservative protest.[9] Ironically many of the articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Children’s Convention) now opposed by “profamily” groups were heavily influenced by these two administrations and represented U.S. Cold War victories.[10] For instance, Article Fourteen on freedom of religion was aimed at addressing the Soviet Union’s violations of religious freedom. Still, aroused by the Cairo and Beijing conferences, the Christian Right began to direct its wrath at the Children’s Convention, convinced that the concept of children’s rights was a conspiracy by Liberals to undermine the traditional family by destroying parental authority and unleashing the powers of government to intervene in the family. Although nearly every article of the Children’s Convention calls on state parties to respect or protect the rights of parents as part of strengthening children’s rights, many Conservative White Evangelicals are convinced of rumors propagated by Christian Right groups. They have been led to believe, for instance, that the Convention would give the UN itself the power to take away their children or encourage children to sue their parents.[11]

In fact, a significant percentage of the U.S. population learns about UN conferences primarily or only through a far-reaching Christian Right media network, a situation intensified by the fact that U.S. mainstream media seldom covers UN conferences. The Christian Right has developed an impressive media network of radio programs, websites, and list serves that reaches not just millions of Conservative Evangelicals and mainstream Americans, but a growing global network as well.[12] Christian Right opposition to the UN social agenda complicates the tendency of U.S. Conservatives that already mistrust international cooperation and the UN.

Sadly, Conservative opposition to U.S. ratification of the Children’s Convention and the concept of children’s rights, and now their disruption of progress at the UN Special Session on Children actually undermine international progress on issues many Conservatives care deeply about. The “rights-based approach,” as it is often called, moves governments from viewing children as property, to treating them as human beings with rights protected by a legal system. Human rights activists around the world use the Children’s Convention to push reluctant governments to improve the situation of children. The strength of the Convention lies partially in the fact that its nearly universal ratification makes it a norm. When the world’s superpower claims to base its foreign policy on human rights and the rule of the law, yet undermines the treaty and very concept of children’s rights, it both weakens the resolve of the international community and diminishes itself as a world leader.

The goal of the UN Special Session on Children is to review progress made on the Plan of Action of the World Summit for Children and to strengthen international attention to emerging issues, including the sexual exploitation and sale of children, use of child soldiers, and the devastating impact of the AIDS pandemic on youth and children. Many of these issues can be solved only through international cooperation, and Conservative opposition to international agreements can slow progress on the mobilization of resources for resolution. Under the influence of “profamily” nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), U.S. negotiators during the meetings of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the Special Session have bogged down negotiations of the Session Outcome Document by opposing concepts that lie at the very core of the world movement for children and by introducing U.S.-based political issues such as home schooling. They oppose references to the centrality of the Children’s Convention, the foundational document for the international movement for children and the most ratified human rights treaty.[13] The United States seeks to water down the rights-based approach, which may result in a weakening of prior international commitments to provide legal protections for children. The Administration opposes references in the Special Session Outcome Document affirming commitments made by governments at the Cairo and Beijing Conferences—both of which were signed by the United States. Language regarding reproductive health and adolescents remains undecided and may be removed from the Outcome Document.

A Shift in Christian Right Strategy: Trojan Horses and Strange Bedfellows

The Christian Right’s realization that UN meetings had a tremendous impact on social issues led to a surprising change in their organizing strategies. Prior to 2000, the Christian Right primarily opposed the United Nations by calling on Congress to decrease funding, engaging in campaigns to “get the US out of the UN,” and using their extensive media network to convince its constituency that the UN and its treaties, especially on women and children, sought to undermine the family and the nation. The failure of the Children’s and Women’s Conventions to reach the Senate floor for a vote on ratification were due in large part to the Christian Right and Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who served as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Republicans controlled the Senate.[14] Today, rather than critique the system from the outside, a number of Christian Right and conservative organizations have decided to use a Trojan horse strategy. By infiltrating the system of an organization they oppose, they hope to stall, influence, and even undermine its work from within. In March 2000, Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) addressed the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation in Anaheim, CA: “Should the US get out of the UN? That’s a question I always steer clear of, principally because to participate in the UN in the way that I do, you must at least have a veneer of supporting the UN.”[15] Clearly what has changed is not how the Christian Right views the UN, but its strategy for undermining the UN’s work. Many of these organizations that do not support the UN or its principles have managed to slide through the UN committee of member nations that reviews NGO applications for consultative status. Many smaller, less known Christian Right and anti-abortion organizations have already been granted consultative status, including United Families International, the International Right to Life Federation and American Life League. Other “profamily” organizations applying for consultative status are Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation and Concerned Women for America.

The average U.S. citizen is unfamiliar with the impact of NGOS on the United Nations, especially on issues like human rights, racism, the environment, and disarmament. NGOs can register to have consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Over 3,000 NGOs have consultative status with the UN, enabling them to attend most UN meetings to monitor the negotiations, share information, and advocate their positions with ambassadors and government delegations. NGOs have been very influential at the UN, and have often been at the forefront of encouraging the UN to initiate or move forward on efforts to address the world’s problems. NGOs were instrumental in getting the UN to establish the office of the UN High Commission on Human Rights in 1994, in advancing the concept of the International Criminal Court to try war crimes, and in getting the UN to address women’s advancement and global racism through world conferences.[16] UN conferences and human rights treaties bring international pressure to bear on governments and are used by human rights activists worldwide to affect change. Another sign of the growing influence of NGOs is the fact that they are often invited to serve in an advisory capacity on government delegations at UN meetings to share their expertise and help facilitate communication between governments and NGOs.

“Profamily” NGOs lobby conservative religious governments, including majority Catholic and Muslim nations such as Nicaragua, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, and Egypt. They also work through the Holy See/Vatican, which has observer state status at the UN and participates fully in UN conferences. Thanks to the lobbying of “profamily” groups, the United States is now included in this conservative block that opposes women’s and children’s rights. Governments and NGOs normally at odds with one another have become strange bedfellows in their opposition to women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, and children’s rights. The United States finds itself cozy with Iran, Sudan, and Libya. Once accused by Christian Evangelicals of being a dangerous cult, Mormons have not only been included in Conservative Evangelical advocacy efforts but actually lead the initiative.

Commandeering Caucuses

During the Third PrepCom, Christian Right leaders felt a great deal of ownership of the U.S. delegation. At a U.S. delegation briefing of the NGO community, “profamily” leader Susan Roylance of the Mormon-based United Families International jumped in to answer a question posed by NGOs that State Department officials had difficulty answering. According to one journalist, Roylance “admitted that she did not think it was notable that she spoke for the delegation during public briefings because she works closely with them and ‘worked hard to get Bush elected because he supports the family. I have frequently attended briefings in Washington, D.C. where my experience from attending twenty-three international conferences was used.’”[17]

Not only have “profamily” groups dictated the agenda of the U.S. delegation, they have also managed to take over NGO caucuses. NGO’s often organize themselves into caucuses that can address more specific issues being raised at UN meetings, in this case armed conflict, sexual exploitation, youth, and reproductive health. At the second PrepCom for the Special Session on Children, youth trained at the Alberta, Canada regional Conference organized by the World Family Policy Center and World Youth Alliance (a group also established through Mormon leadership) actually took over the leadership of the Youth Caucus. The NGO Organizing Committee for the Special Session organized the Youth Caucus to provide a safe space for youth and young adults to share ideas and organize to express their views at government meetings. Seeing this as a strategic opportunity, “profamily” NGOs allocated most of their NGO slots to register youth for the PrepCom. The right-wing youth, many of whom had trained together prior to the conference, attended the caucus but sat in different seats around the room. Unbeknownst to the other youth participants, who came from different NGOs, they were outnumbered by a well-trained voting block. Adult right-wing leaders sat around the periphery of the room, monitoring their protégées and occasionally coaching them.

The Christian Right lobby won a victory when they managed to help get a “profamily” NGO member chosen to deliver a Youth Caucus statement on the floor of the UN meeting. Caucus leaders naively trusted her to write and deliver a statement based on Caucus discussions and a rough outline. The elected speaker however chose instead to state “profamily” views, not the views of the Caucus.

The action shattered what little trust may have existed in the Caucus, and embarrassed its leadership. On the third day of meeting, Caucus members and leadership raised the issue of whether or not people over eighteen years of age should remain in the Caucus raising the issue of undue adult influence. Conservative youth opposed the removal of over-eighteen participants (which would have removed many of their members) and easily outvoted the other participants. In frustration, feeling they were being manipulated, the chair of the Caucus and many others abandoned the Caucus in a walkout demonstration. The Conservative youth quickly engineered the election of a new leader and took over the Caucus. Once they assumed control, they walked through a well-rehearsed procedure and outlined their agenda. Interestingly, the leader of this effort is a product of Model UN, and expertly used parliamentary procedures which were well understood by well-trained “profamily” youth, but baffling to the few who had remained to try to stop the takeover.

The Caucus takeover demonstrates aspects of successful organizing by the Right—discipline, focus, and a commitment to youth leadership. It also illustrates how Christian Right groups are not present at UN meetings to simply share their perspectives as one among many. They are engaged in what they see as a battle between good and evil. They fight to win and to dominate, not to find consensus. For progressive NGOs accustomed to seeking and being able to achieve consensus, this represents a departure in organizing with which they are often unprepared to deal.

Attacks on UN Agencies

While Christian Right NGOs claim they support UN principles and should have consultative status, they continue to misinform their networks about the UN’s work and spread rumors about UN agencies. Throughout the winter as UNICEF (the UN Children’s Fund) mobilized to assist children in Afghanistan, they found also found themselves fighting a wearying public relations campaign against rumors circulated by Christian Right groups.[18] In March 2002, based on an unsubstantiated, fantastic rumor propagated by Population Research International that UNFPA supports forced abortions in China, Congressman Chris Smith prevailed on President Bush to withhold $34 million allocated by the Senate for the UN Population Fund. The United States contribution represents approximately 14 percent of UNFPA’s budget. Despite the fact that the U.S. State Department has closely monitored UNFPA programs in China and annually given them good reviews, and the fact that UNFPA’s programs have lowered the incidence of coercive family planning in China, and despite the lack of any evidence, these funds continue to be withheld. Congressional and White House faxes and phone lines were inundated with messages from Conservatives. Progressives and Moderate Christians could not compete. Ironically, the withholding of these funds will only increase maternal and infant deaths, abortion, and the spread of STDs, especially in countries, like China, where multilateral funding is the only form of aid acceptable to national governments.

Proposing a Progressive Response

The working together of a global Religious Right presents new challenges for national and international progressive activists. Several areas of progressive organizing should be strengthened. First, Progressives need to understand religious diversity and be willing to partner with religious organizations in reaching out to faith-based constituencies. In most societies, culture and values are largely shaped by religious views. Most sociologists now reject the theory of secularization that posited that societies would become less religious because of modernization. Robert Wuthnow, a scholar of American religion, speculates that Evangelicals could very easily have become a liberal political force rather than a conservative one had Progressives chosen to mobilize them.[19] Progressive organizing will remain weak unless it finds better ways of reaching out to religious groups and communicating through religious values while maintaining their firm stance on separating Church and State.

Progressive religious organizations will need to take leadership in helping other NGOs understand how religion can be both a positive and negative influence on society. The UN is just learning how to have conversations about the impact of religion on international issues.[20] September 11th, the AIDS pandemic, and debates over reproductive rights are examples of issues that require cooperation with religious communities to be resolved. Ecumenical Women 2000+, Catholics for Free Choice, and Religion Counts are groups that are leading the way on such debates. Religious organizations, in particular coalitions of liberal, moderate, and conservative religious groups, are well situated to hold Christian Right NGOs accountable for the misinformation they are spreading.

Often Progressives fail to recognize that religious organizations, even conservative ones, hold diverse political perspectives. They either lump religious organizations together as being humane as symbolized by the Dalai Lama, or they see all of them as oppressive and intolerant as epitomized by Jerry Falwell. All Evangelicals, for instance, do not subscribe to the views of the Christian Right, as many mistakenly believe. Many support the UN’s work and much of its social agenda. There are progressive groups such as Jim Wallis’ Sojourners and moderate ones such as the National Association of Evangelicals. World Vision is an example of an NGO with a large Conservative Evangelical constituency that supports the work of the UN and that does excellent work on human rights. Such groups can bridge the gap between Conservatives and Progressives and can be strategic partners in advocacy work, especially when there is a conservative U.S. Administration.

The Republican Party is not monolithic either. Party moderates would probably be outraged to discover that UN conferences were being placed in the hands of hardliners. During his election campaign, Bush had to satisfy the Christian Right without losing moderates. Bush can only afford to turn the Special Session over to hardliners when these actions are done in the dark. Exposing them to the media might result in a political cost to Bush, undermining his self-portrayal as a Compassionate Conservative that fosters bipartisan efforts.

The fact that the Christian Right feels a need to be present at an institution it does not like reveals just how successful international progressive organizing has been. Those progressive organizations that have not yet considered the value of global involvement might reconsider. In the 1970s the Women’s Movement recognized the power of organizing through the United Nations and building global women’s networks. By organizing globally, they have put gender analysis and feminist issues on the agenda of international organizations, governments, multilateral organizations, and foundations. Other movements are also capitalizing on this, from the LGBT movement to antiracist organizations.[21] The presence of large numbers of progressive organizations will be needed even more so now that the Christian Right presence is growing. Progressive organizations, especially those in the United States where the UN is little understood, can also help by educating their constituencies about the importance of international cooperation and the UN’s impact on issues such as women’s rights, racism, development, economic justice, and the environment.

Just as the Christian Right learned its organizing strategies from the Left, now Progressives need to learn from some of the successes of the Right. The Right has capitalized on technology from radio to the web and uses it to reach a broad grassroots constituency. They can mobilize their networks for a call in or letter writing campaign to Congress far better than groups on the Left. The Right has also cultivated a new generation of leaders for its movement. They invest heavily in college and youth organizing. Right-wing groups at the UN have trained young adults to do advocacy and involved them in their efforts in a way that few if any other NGOs have done.

Progressive NGOs, ever wary of attempts to regulate NGO participation at the UN, will need to find ways to ensure that U.S. political agendas do not dominate UN meetings and work against democratic participation and fair play in the process. NGOs will need to take the lead in designing guidelines for NGO participation that guarantee fair, balanced participation and access. At UN meetings, many NGOs have often focused on networking and educational exchanges and less on lobbying governments. Progressive NGOs now will need to spend more time on lobbying and on training one another in influencing UN meetings.

If the United States continues to provide a platform for the Christian Right at international meetings, then in the next three to eight years we may see the advances made by human rights activists over the past two decades undermined or at least stalled. As it gains strength, the Christian Right coalition at the UN is influencing other UN meetings as well. Individuals associated with the Heritage Foundation and the Independent Women’s Forum were placed on this year’s U.S. delegation to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which meets every March.[22] Conservative groups influenced the Special Session on AIDS held during the summer of 2001.[23] A strong “profamily” lobby has been present at the preparatory meetings for the UN’s review of the Sustainable Development Conference, to culminate this summer.[24] As the world’s lone superpower, with both financial and veto power, in a still evolving institution such as the UN, the United States carries significant weight in UN negotiations. When it becomes the voice of Christian Right groups at the UN, it further enables the Christian Right to export its brand of Christianity to the world.

Jennifer Butler is Associate for Global Issues with the Presbyterian Church (USA) UN Office, in New York City.

[1] Concerned Women for America, “A New Sheriff in Town: U.S. Delegation delivers a definitive speech to U.N. General Assembly,” Highlights, February 1, 2001. See

[2] Jennifer Butler, “For Faith and Family: Christian Right Advocacy at the United Nations,” The Public Eye, vol. 14, nos. 2-3 (Summer/Fall 2000), pp. 1-17.

[3] The World Family Policy Center (WFPC) has sponsored two international World Congress of Families (WCF) meetings, one in 1997, the second in 1999 just before Beijing +5. In 2003 they will have a third. The planning team boasts a wide range of leaders, including Munawar Saeed Bhatti who serves in the Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the UN, Archpriest Nikolay Balashof, representative of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department of External Affairs, Rabbi David Lapin of Toward Tradition, and Alan Osmond, eldest performer of the original Osmond Brothers. The Vice President of FRC, William Mattox and Austin Ruse of C-Fam, both of who were on the planning team of the second WCF remain on the team. Between 1999 and 2003 they will have hosted regional conferences in Washington, D.C. Arizona, California, and Alberta, Canada. “Profamily” leaders claim the Arizona meeting drew 1,000 participants.

[4] Richard L. Berke, “Political Memo: Bush Shapes His Presidency with Sharp Eye on Father’s,” New York Times (online version), March 28, 2001.

[5] See the Press Release #82, US Mission to the United Nations, June 12, 2001, Statement by Ambassador E. Michael Southwick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Preparatory Committee for the General Assembly Special Session on Children, June 12, 2001. The release states, “Concrete targets . . . should form the basis for our future actions for children. We respect that for many countries; the CROC [sic. CRC] serves as this basis. However, we have chosen a different approach . . . this body should go forward and acknowledge that there is more than one way to frame our future actions for children. And action is needed here, not ‘words, words, words’ [to quote Hamlet].”

[6] See Family Research Council, “UN Committee Takes Aim at Family Structure and Morality,” Culture Facts, February 21, 2001. See also the National Center for Home Education, “UN News Update,” HSLDA News, June 14, 2001. The update states, “Among the United Nations international treaties and activities monitored by Home School Legal Defense Association is one of the most dangerous attacks on parental rights ever—the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Because the UN is holding a Child Summit this September, the CRC is taking center stage worldwide this year.”

[7] Timothy LaHaye, Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, March 1996). LaHaye’s book was on the New York Times bestseller list. LaHaye is the husband of Beverly LaHaye, the founder of Concerned Women for America, now seeking consultative status at the UN.

[8] Major conferences include the status of children (1990), environment and development (1992), human rights (1993), population (1994), social development (1995) the status of women (1995), and racism (2001).

[9] Cynthia Price Cohen, “The Drafting and Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” ICCB News (Winter 1996-1997), pp. 10-11. ICCB News is the newsletter of the International Catholic Child Bureau’s North American Regional Office.

[10] See Cynthia Price Cohen, “Role of the United States in Drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Creating a New World for Children,” Loyola Poverty Law Journal, vol. 4 (Spring 1998), pp 26-38.

[11] For more on “profamily” myths about the Children’s and Women’s Conventions, see

[12] Cynthia Rothschild, Written Out: How Sexuality is Used to Attack Women’s Organizing (New York: International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and Center for Global Women’s Leadership, 2000), pp. 34-35.

[13] United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release, June 12, 2001.

[14] Susan Kilbourne, “Political Opposition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child” ICCB News (Winter 1996-1997), pp. 12-13.

[15] Catholics for a Free Choice, Bad Faith at the UN: Drawing Back the Curtain on the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (Washington, D.C.: Catholics for a Free Choice, 2001), p. 18.

[16] For more information on the numerous successes of NGOs, read William Korey, NGOS and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001).

[17] Gabrielle Engh, “Dispute over Reproductive Health Services Revives Cairo and Beijing Abortion Controversy,” On the Record for Children vol. 2, no. 7. See On the Record for Children is the publication of the NGO Committee on UNICEF.

[18] The following reflect “profamily” efforts to put the U.S. contribution to UNICEF’s funding in jeopardy: C-Fam, “UNICEF ‘Major Funder’ of Group Promoting abortion/Pornography for Children,” Friday Fax, vol. 5, no. 3 (January 11, 2002 Also C-Fam, “UNICEF Work Imperiled by Associations with Pro-Abortion Groups,” Friday Fax, vol. 4, no. 9 (February 16, 2001). Articles also appeared in the Washington Times.

[19] Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 185.

[20] See Geoffrey Knox, ed., Religion and Public Policy at the UN (Washington, D.C.: Religion Counts, 2002).

[21] Rothschild, Written Out, op cit.

[22] Ellen Sauerbrey, 1998 Republican nominee for Governor of Maryland, was appointed to head the delegation. Sauerbrey is known for a strong antichoice stance, advocating limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise. The NGO members were Kate O'Beirne of National Review, Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum, and Winsome A. Packer, formerly of the Heritage Foundation. O’Beirne’s experience is recorded in the National Review. See

[23] Conservative groups focused mainly on the Special Session on Children meetings, which took place close to the Special Session on AIDS, but managed to have a significant presence at the AIDS meeting. “Profamily” analysis of their victories can be found in the article C-Fam, “Pro-Family Delegations Claim Victory on UNAIDS Declaration, Friday Fax, vol. 4, no. 28 (June 29, 2001).

[24] The sign-in list for the U.S. delegation briefing revealed that at least half of those present were from “profamily” groups. See also, Janice Shaw Crouse, “Stumbling Blocks on the Road to Johannesburg: Day 5-Thursday High Jinks,” Daily Highlights, April 5, 2002, (Beverly LaHaye Institute)

Online Articles:

Spotlight On

Browse Topics | Site Guide | Multimedia Bookstore | Magazine | Publications | Activists Resources

Political Research Associates

Copyright Information, Terms, and Conditions

Please read our Terms and Conditions for copyright information regarding downloading, copying, printing, and linking material on this site; our disclaimer about links present on this website; and our privacy policy.

Updates and Corrections