Abortion, Population Control and Transnational

Home , Clarence Gamble, Faith Whittlesey, Feminists for Life, Human Life Amendment, Judie Brown

______

Building a “World Coalition for Life”: abortion, population control and transnational

pro-life networks, 1960-1990

Kathryn Slattery

School of History and Philosophy University of New South Wales

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2010

i PLEASE TYPE

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: Slattery

First name: Kathryn Other name/s: Rose

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: Arts and Social Sciences Faculty: History

Title: Building a "World Coalition for Life": abortion, population control, and transnational pro-life networks, 1960s-1994

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

This thesis traces the emergence and evolution of transnational pro-life Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) between the late

1960s and early 1990s. The U.S. pro-life movement is generally understood almost exclusively in terms of changes to domestic laws, but such depictions fail to acknowledge the long-standing and at times politically powerful transnational alliances that pro-life activists forged from the 1970s onwards. Within the constellation of the U.S. Christian Right, it was these groups that have provoked a paradigm shift in the politics of family life, particularly with respect to U.S. foreign policy.

U.S.-based pro-life activists found it difficult to secure tangible legislative gains even after Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inauguration.

While some groups vented their frustrations by turning to direct action protests, others sought out a third way, building on transnational networks forged by an international coalition of pro-life activists since the 1970s. U.S. pro-life activists were not simply exporting their domestic cultural conflicts, however; instead, local conservatives in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa were not only receptive to overtures from U.S. pro-life activists, but often requested their assistance. The reasons for this openness to transnational collaboration can be found in globalization’s impact on local communities worldwide from the 1970s onward. I therefore contend that globalization provided the catalysts for the emergence of the global pro-life, pro-family movement as a surprisingly powerful player in national and global political arenas by the 1990s.

This thesis therefore complicates prevailing depictions of the growth of transnational civil society by demonstrating that globalization not only gave rise to progressive NGOs, but also spawned a “dark side” of global organizations that participated equally actively and adamantly in local, national, and global political arenas. To comprehend the persistence of moral conservatism as a driving force in both transnational civil society and U.S. society and politics, historians must therefore endeavour to situate these cultural and political phenomena within their broader global context—if the U.S. pro-life movement was, as Ronald Reagan suggested, the

“conscience of the nation,” then global pro-family NGOs certainly aspired to be the “conscience of the world.”

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

Kathryn Slattery September, 2010

Signature Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

iii

DECLARATIONS

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

K. Slattery

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT ‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

K. Slattery

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

K. Slattery

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are so many people I am indebted to at the end of this project. To begin with, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Ian Tyrrell. From the outset Ian has inspired me, provided invaluable comments and criticisms, and demonstrated remarkable patience as he guided me through the process of researching and writing this thesis.

Research for this thesis took me to the United States on several occasions over the past few

years. I am especially grateful, therefore, for the funding from the Faculty of Arts and Social

Sciences at the University of New South Wales that facilitated my primary research trip.

Thanks, too, to the Society for Historians for American Foreign Relations, for the Travel

Fellowship that allowed me to attend their 2009 Conference in Falls Church, Virginia, where

I was inspired both by formal presentations and informal conversations with my colleagues.

Numerous librarians and archivists offered assistance while I was researching this thesis, but

special thanks must go to Diane Barrie, at the Reagan Presidential Library, who went above

and beyond, offering invaluable advice and help. Special thanks, too, to Sharon Sumpter and

Kevin Cawley at the University of Notre Dame Archives.

Thank you to all of my colleagues who have been kind enough to offer comments on my

work, particularly my co-panellists and fellow participants at Australian and New Zealand

American Studies and SHAFR conferences in Sydney and Virginia. I am most grateful to

Vanessa Johnston and especially Nadine Zimmerli, who generously agreed to put her

professional expertise to work and read and critiqued the entire manuscript.

I owe a further debt to a seemingly endless roll call of friends and family who kindly opened their homes to me, and reinfused me with life and laughter after long days in various archives and libraries: special mentions to my L.A. girls - Michelle, Jana, and Jaime. Also to Malka for being my home away from home in Chicago, and to Amber, Em and Brett, Sara and Joe,

Travis, Carla, and Christine, for making the rest of the country, from the Mid-West to the

East Coast, seem like home.

To my friends, in Australia, the U.S., and wherever else you’ve all wound up, thank you so much. For support, time out and distractions, I am so grateful. My sanity and sense of humour

(not necessarily in order) would not have survived intact without you all. Special mention to

Tash, for putting up with me at my worst and somehow always being there for the best.

Thanks to the Tempus Two crew, for being the best second time around a girl could hope for.

I especially want to thank Jennifer, Hannah, and Maria, as well as the rest of the UW contingent, for years of empathy and support, particularly as the finish line drew closer. I’m looking forward to cheering you all on in the very near future too!

For their unflagging support and encouragement, thanks to my extended family, especially

Travis, who’s been my (unpaid) assistant since I wrote the proposal for this thesis, and Carol, for reminding me that there will indeed be life after graduate school. Forgive me for not naming all of you, but if I did these acknowledgements would be as long as the thesis itself!

To my mother, Mary, and my father, Larry, thanks for everything, but most especially for your unwavering faith in me. I could not have completed this thesis without my family – biological and otherwise – and so I dedicate this to all of you.

CONTENTS ABSTRACT i-ii ______DECLARATION iii ______ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv-v ______TABLE OF CONTENTS vi-vii ______ABBREVIATIONS viii-x ______INTRODUCTION Building a World Coalition for Life: Transnational Pro-life Networking, 1960s-1990s 1 ______CHAPTER ONE Catalysts for Global Pro-life Networking: Population Control, Humanae Vitae, and the birth of a “Pro-Life Missionary” 31

______CHAPTER TWO “The Ovaries are not Catholic”: Negotiating local and global “culture wars” in the 1970s 55

______CHAPTER THREE Pioneering pro-life politics in the Capitol: From political lobbying to local gradualism and global activism, 1980-1983 87 ______CHAPTER FOUR ‘New’ international norms, transnational pro-life networks, feminists, economists and the Reagan administration 125 ______CHAPTER FIVE Principle and Pragmatism: USAID, HLI and Enforcing the Mexico City policy 163 ______CHAPTER SIX Countering “contraceptive imperialism”: The expansion and consolidation of transnational pro-life networks, 1986-1991 192 ______CHAPTER SEVEN Glasnost & Perestroika: the Pope, HLI, and Eastern European Pro-Life Politics 228 ______

vii

CONCLUSION 260 ______

BIBLIOGRAPHY 281 ______

viii

ABBREVIATIONS

AAC Anti-Amendment Campaign

ACCL American Concerned Citizens for Life

AFLA Alliance for the Family in Latin America

AIDS Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome

ALL American Life Lobby/American Life League

ASHONPLAFA Associacion Hondurena de Planificacion de Familia

AUL Americans United for Life

BEMFAM Brazilian Family Welfare Society

C-FAM Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

CFFC Catholics for a Free Choice

CLADEM Comite de America Latina y el Caribe para la Defense de los Derechos de la Mujer

CMAC Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

CODENDA Comision Defensor de Derecho a Nacer

COSC Council for Social Concern

CWA Concerned Women for America

Doctors Who Respect Life World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life

ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council

ERA Equal Rights Amendment

FACE Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

FDA Foods and Drug Administration

FFL/FFLA Feminists for Life/Feminists for Life of America

HHS (U.S. Department of) Health and Human Services

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HLA Human Life Amendment

HLC Human Life Center

HLC (Scotland) Human Life Council

HLI Human Life International

HLPL Human Life Protection League

ICPD International Conference on Population and Development

(UN’s Cairo Conference)

IRNFP International Review of Natural Family Planning

IUD Intra-Uterine Device

IPPF International Planned Parenthood Federation

LAPAC Life Amendment Political Action Committee

MAP More Agricultural Production

NARAL National Abortion Rights Action League

NFP Natural Family Planning

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NOW National Organization for Women

NRLC National Right to Life Committee

OSB Order of Saint Benedict

PEACE People Expressing a Concern for Everyone

PLAC Pro-Life Amendment Campaign

PLAL Pro-Life Action League

PLAN Protect Life in All Nations

POPCOM Philippines Commission on Population

PNAP Pro-Life Non-violent Action Project

PRI Population Research Institute

PRONACER For Birth

PROVIVE Associacion Provida de Venezuela

PS Pro-Lifers for Survival

RCAR Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights

RCC Referendum Campaign Committee

SPUC Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

UN United Nations

UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population Activities

UNICEF United Nations International Children Education Fund?

U.S. United States of America

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USCL United States Coalition for Life

VHI Vida Humana Internacional

WCLF World Council for Life and Family

WCW World Conference on Women (UN Beijing Conference)

WHO World Health Organization

WOOMB World Organization of Ovulation Method, Billings

WPPA World Population Plan of Action

WTO World Trade Organization

Introduction Building a World Coalition for Life: Transnational Pro-life Networking, 1960s-1990s

I am told by those at his bedside that, at the moment of his death, Father raised his arms towards Heaven and said, ‘Take me home.’... May we all, in honor of this great Apostle of Life, redouble our efforts on behalf of God’s little ones.”1 Steve W. Mosher, on the passing of Father Paul Marx, March 2010.

"In the heat and emotion of the debate, I exclaimed the phrase 'it's a baby killer' in reference to the agreement reached by the Democratic leadership…"2

Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., left behind a formidable legacy of “global pro-life, pro-family” organizing when he died on March 20, 2010. Two days later, during debates over President

Barack Obama’s proposed health care legislation, Congressman Randy Neugebauer invoked over three decades of cultural conflict over abortion in the United States by shouting “baby killer!” on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.3 For a political and cultural phenomenon that many commentators predicted would die out once its self-appointed champion Ronald Reagan completed his second presidential term in 1989, the pro-life movement has proven to be a remarkably enduring, resilient and powerful part of American society, culture, and politics.4 Numerous scholars have studied the origins, strategies and

1 Steven W. Mosher, “PRI Special Alert: PRI Mourns the Passing of Father Marx, Our Founder and Chairman,” PRI Weekly Report, (20 March, 2010), http://www.pop.org (Accessed: 20/3/2010). 2 Congressman Randy Neugebauer (R. TX), during Rep. Bart Stupack’s (D. Mich) speech on healthcare on the floor of the House of Representatives, March 2010, quoted in Michael Falcone, “Randy Neugebauer Revealed As ‘Baby Killer” Shouter: Texas Republican Apologizes,” The Huffington Post, (22 March, 2010), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/randy-neugebauer-revealed_n_508525.html, (Accessed: 22/3/2010). 3 For a nuanced discussion of these cultural cleavages, see Robert Wuthnow, The Struggle for America’s Soul: Evangelicals, Liberals and Secularism, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 21, and James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, (New York: Basic Books, 1991). 4 A brief word about terminology: I have chosen to use the terms pro-life, pro-choice, and, eventually, pro- family, for the simple reason that this is how activists represented and referred to themselves and their opponents in this way. Leaders on both sides of these debates imbued the terms in question with very specific religious and political connotations. In the 1990s, the global pro-life movement’s pro-family rhetoric provided a vital link between activists of different ethnic, cultural and religious denominations that allowed them to transcend their differences and establish transnational interfaith alliances. At the same time, this thesis often uses the terms “population control” and “international family planning” interchangeably, again because pro-life activists often deliberately made no distinction between the two. In each of the above instances I use these terms with some reservations, but do so in order to highlight the specific meanings pro-life, pro-family activists embedded – often quite deliberately – in their rhetoric. Admittedly, many of these terms are politically loaded, but they are central to understanding both the ideology and trajectory of pro-life, pro-family groups between the 1960s and 1990s. 2

influence of the U.S. pro-life movement, but few have acknowledged the fact that at least

some of the reasons for its longevity lie beyond U.S. borders.5 By analysing the career of

Father Paul Marx, the “grandfather” of global pro-life activism, this study sheds light on the

origins and transnational dimensions of the movement, as well as its trajectory and impact on

U.S. domestic and foreign policies up to 1994.

Significance They represented a contrast in every way from the traditional crowd of activists that attended this kind of conference to observe and lobby governments…The newcomers were mostly male, white, young, conservative, and religious, while we were female, (mostly) middle-aged, racially diverse, liberal, and (mostly) secular, or at least private about our religious beliefs…6 When representatives of conservative Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) stormed

onto the global stage at a series of United Nations (UN) Conferences in the late twentieth and

early twenty-first century, they “unnerved” many of the progressive delegates who had grown

accustomed to monopolizing NGO forums.7 Soon after, this “pro-family” coalition began to

challenge the “largely progressive social agenda” that had long dominated official UN policy

by “target[ing] NGO caucuses for takeover.”8 Progressive observers and scholars have since

struggled to understand the origins and impact of this “new” global conservative alliance.9

Dori Buss, Didi Herman and Jennifer S. Butler, for example, trace the trajectory of the global

pro-family alliance at the UN from the 1990s onward, but fail to offer more than a cursory

discussion of its historical roots. Far from being unprecedented, however, the surge of

conservative activity within UN NGO forums actually grew out of transnational networks

5 The most recent generation of pro-life scholarship, which tends to focus on activism from the 1990s onwards is a significant exception to this rule. See Jennifer S. Butler, Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized, (London: Pluto Press, 2006), and Dori Buss and Didi Herman, Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). 6 Butler, Born Again, 1. 7 See the Introduction to Butler’s, Born Again, 1-19. 8 Butler, 3, 5. 9 See Butler, and Buss and Herman.

established during an earlier phase of globalization that generated remarkably similar

problems and opportunities to the ones activists faced and exploited in the 1990s.

The first transnational pro-life networks formed in response to the deeply polarizing

politicization of human fertility in the latter half of the twentieth century.10 The genesis and

trajectories of two organizations founded by Father Marx—the Human Life Center (HLC)

and later, Human Life International (HLI)—offer new insights into the ideological and indeed

direct ancestors of the contemporary global Christian Right.11 This dissertation therefore

borrows heavily from innovative scholarship in international relations, political science and

sociology to identify and describe the catalysts for and workings of transnational NGOs. By

expanding analyses of the U.S. pro-life movement to include its global manifestations, this

thesis will add to the growing body of literature concerned with the conservative resurgence

in the Unites States since the 1970s. Similarly, this study will broaden the scope of

transnational analysis to include conservative NGOs, and in so doing provide new insights

into globalization’s role in the growth of civil society in the late twentieth and early twenty-

first centuries.

Pro-life politics in the United States

The budding American pro-life community dubbed January 22, 1973 “Black Monday”

after the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its Roe v. Wade verdict, which legalized abortion

across the United States. “Black Monday” was a defining moment for Father Marx and other

10 Matthew Connelly offers a particularly incisive analysis of the ideological underpinnings and evolution of the modern push for population control. See Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population, (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), especially Chapters Five and Six, pp. 155-236. Also see Donald T. Critchlow, Intended Consequences: birth control, abortion, and the federal government in modern America, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), and Donald T. Critchlow, The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective, (University Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996). 11HLI provided seed funds, educational and political nuance, and ideological basis to establish both the Population Research Institute and for C-Fam, (the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) in 1989 and 1997 respectively. See Butler, 94-95, and Buss and Herman, xxix-xxx, xxviii.

4 early pro-life leaders.12 In fact, the Roe decision galvanized thousands of converts to the pro- life cause, helping the movement become a formidable force in U.S. politics, society and culture.13 Consequently, pro-life activism has attracted considerable scholarly interest, and spawned dynamic debates over the origins, strategies, and impact of one the most vocal and enduring social movements to emerge in modern U.S. history.14

The first generation of scholars to study pro-life groups sought to explain their emergence by analysing the movement’s most prominent leaders and sources of financial support.15

Connie Paige’s The Right-to-Lifers: who they are, how they operate, where they get their money is characteristic of this generation of scholarship, as is Andrew H. Merton’s Enemies of Choice.16 Whereas Paige focuses on individual pro-life groups, Merton observes that the early pro-life movement was largely defined by its Catholic origins; he therefore explains many pro-life leaders’ politicization in terms of their ties to other activists.17 Although he does not belabour the point, Merton also notes that “the Right-to-Life movement” quickly

12 See Father Paul Marx, “What About the Human Life Center?” (no date), 2, CMRX 53/13 – Human Life Center, St. John’s University, 1979-1988. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Chronicle, c. 1972-1976,” (22 Feb. 1972- Nov. 27, 1972): 1-2, Father Paul Marx Papers, University of Notre Dame Archives (hereafter CMRX Box number/file number) CMRX 77/17. 13 Twenty years after the fact, Pro Life Action League Founder Joseph Scheidler wrote that Father Marx had “been [his] inspiration to fight for the lives of unborn children and their mothers” since he had first met him “in March 1973.” Marx had, Scheidler said, “helped me decide to dedicate my life to the Pro-Life cause.” See Joe Scheidler, quoted in Human Life International, A Tribute to the Apostle of Life Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., (Gaithersburg, MD: HLI, 1994), 33. National Right to Life Committee founder Dr. Jack Willke made a similar claim at an international pro-life conference in 1991. See Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary – Rome,” (15 November, 1991), 10, CMRX 79/38. 14 See for example Andrew H. Merton, Enemies of Choice: The Right-to-Life Movement and Its Threat to Abortion, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1981); Laurence H. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992); Dallas A. Blanchard, The Anti-abortion Movement and the rise of the religious right: from polite to fiery protest, (New York: MacMillan, 1994); Dallas A. Blanchard, The Anti- abortion Movement: References and Sources, (New York: G.K. Hall and Co, 1996); Alesha E. Doan, Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007); Rickie Solinger, Abortion Wars: a half century of struggle, 1950-2000, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); Barbara M. Yarnold, Abortion Politics in the Federal Courts: Right Versus Right, (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1995). 15 I owe a debt here to Australian historian Dr. Prudence Flowers, who identified three generations of pro-life scholarship in her doctoral dissertation Compromise and Conflict in the Fight to End Legalized Abortion in the United States, 1971-88, (Melbourne, Australia: School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne, 2008), 10-14. Flowers focuses exclusively on the domestic political manoeuvrings of early pro-life activists, but her analysis of existing anti-abortion scholarship is pertinent to this study. 16 Connie Paige, The Right-to-Lifers: who they are, how they operate, where they get their money, (New York: Summit Books, 1983). 17 Merton, 58-59, 150.

started to oppose population control as well as abortion in the hope that this might aid its

“fight against abortion,” an observation similar studies rarely make.18 Within a matter of

years, the pro-life movement’s ranks also swelled with thousands of fundamentalist

Christians.19 Although scholars often depict these ecumenical pro-life partnerships as an

“uneasy alliance,” Catholic and Protestant pro-life leaders in the United States demonstrated

a remarkable level of cooperation and cohesion.20

A second generation of scholarship assessed early pro-life activists’ worldviews to

explain the rapid expansion of the pro-life movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Kristin Luker, for example, explains the growth of interfaith pro-life coalitions by analysing

how activists’ believed abortion affected U.S. society and culture.21 Abortion and the Politics

of Motherhood concludes that abortion was just the “tip of the iceberg” for many pro-life

activists, and had in fact become a powerful symbol for the grave threat modernization posed

to their “traditional values,” from religious beliefs to family structures.22 Sociologist Michael

Cuneo builds on Luker’s analysis in The Smoke of Satan, which dissects the ideology driving

the most conservative U.S.-based Catholic pro-life groups. According to Cuneo, this

conservative Catholic ideology revolves around Humanae Vitae, the 1968 Papal encyclical

that explicitly forbade Catholics from using birth control.23

In fact, Father Paul Marx and his closest allies and friends formulated their own distinct

pro-life ideology dedicated to defending Humanae Vitae by opposing what they eventually

18 Merton, 83. 19 See for example Michael Cuneo, “Life Battles: The Rise of Catholic Militancy within the American Pro-Life Movement,” in Mary Jo Weaver and R. Scott Appleby (editors), Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America, (Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 1995), 270-299, and Clyde Wilcox, Onward Christian Soldiers: The Religious Right in American Politics, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996). 20 See R. Scott Appleby, “Catholics and the Christian Right: An Uneasy Alliance,” in Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning (eds), Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Inc., 1997), 93-114. 21 Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). 22 Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. 23 Michael Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 62-63; 61-67.

called the “contraceptive mentality.”24 Contraception was not only the “cultural gateway to

abortion,” but also undermined traditional religious and moral teachings and made a raft of

other social evils acceptable; this “sexual permissiveness” resulted in rising rates of

“violence…drugs…pornography,” homosexuality, and ultimately, family breakdown.25 By

the mid-1970s, Father Marx had assumed a leadership role in the burgeoning global pro-life

movement as the world’s foremost opponent of the contraceptive mentality.26 Though Cuneo

recognizes Humanae Vitae’s centrality to the “contraceptive mentality” thesis and in spite of

his incisive analysis of its symbolic and practical significance for American Catholics, The

Smoke of Satan says little about the self-consciously global context in which pro-life leaders

operated.

By contrast, Charles B. Keeley argues that the worldwide controversy that followed

Humanae Vitae actually prevented the Pope from marshalling the Church’s formidable

transnational networks to mount an effective challenge to world population control; arguably,

this inaction created a niche later filled by transnational pro-life NGOs.27 Nevertheless,

Cuneo’s analysis illuminates one of the global catalysts for Father Paul Marx’s pro-life

organizing, and by extension, for the eventual establishment of transnational pro-life

networks: at least some of these organizations formed because their leaders were determined

to defend Humanae Vitae by opposing the spread of the contraceptive mentality as promoted

by world population control programs. In any case, it is apparent that many Catholic pro-life

24 Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan, 54, 62. 25 Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan, 54, 62. 26 Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan, 61-67. For autobiographical accounts of Father Marx’s early organizing endeavours, see Father Paul Marx, The Death Peddlers: War on The Unborn, (Collegesville, MN: St John’s University Press, 1971); Father Paul Marx, Confessions of A Prolife Missionary: The Journeys of Father Paul Marx, (Gaithersburg, MD: Human Life International, 1988). 27 See Charles B. Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power: Vatican Inaction After Humanae Vitae,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 20 Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning (1994): 220-240, and Ivan Vallier, “The Roman Catholic Church: A Transnational Actor,” International Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations and World Politics, (Summer 1971): 479, 482.

7 activists never conceived of their cause as a purely domestic problem, even though recent studies of the global Christian Right obscure these early origins.28

Yet another generation of scholarship endeavoured to explain how activists were able to gain political access at local, state and federal levels after the U.S. pro-life movement emerged as a powerful political lobby group in the late 1970s and 1980s.29 Ronald Reagan’s relationship to the pro-life movement attracted particular attention because he was the first

U.S. president to publicly endorse their agenda.30 A significant number of these studies, however, focus almost exclusively on the movement’s evangelical Christian faction.31 This peculiar emphasis is perhaps attributable to the fact that fundamentalist Christians in the

United States largely eschewed political involvement for “religious reasons” prior to the

1980s, and had therefore “played a surprisingly small role in…politics” since World War

28 Instead, scholars often focus on evangelical Christians’ ambivalence toward the UN. See Buss and Herman, 19-32. 29 Laurence H. Tribe offers a particularly incisive account of pro-life advocates push for political representation and power from the beginnings of the New Right’s ascendancy to the early 1990s in Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. See Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, especially Chapter 7 “The Politics of Abortion: from a New Right to a ‘New Right,’” and Chapter 8, “The Politics of Abortion: Pro-Life Advocates in Power.” 30 See William Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, (New York: Broadway Books, 1996), especially Chapter 9: “Prophets and Advisors,” 221-237; Wilcox, Onward Christian Soldiers? 113-117; A. James Reichley, Religion in American Public Life, (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1985), 327-331; Richard G. Hutcheson, God in the White House: How Religion Has Changed the Modern Presidency, (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1988), 153-197. Reagan cemented his reputation as the first pro-life president when he penned a pro-life appeal to Americans in the lead up to the 1984 presidential elections. See Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984). Reagan was not, however, the first US President to bow to religious lobbies; prohibition is one obvious example of a successful religious lobby. But during the Reagan presidency, the number of major religious lobbies in Washington D.C. did increase exponentially, from around sixteen in 1950, to around eighty in 1985. See Allen D. Hertzke, “The Role of Religious Lobbies,” in Charles W. Dunn (editor), Religion in American Politics, (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 1989), 124-136. 31 Clyde Wilcox’s work, for example, is representative of a broader field of study concerned with the political mobilization of American evangelicals who comprised a significant segment of the pro-life movement. See for example Clyde Wilcox, “The Christian Right in Twentieth Century America: Continuity and Change,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Fiftieth Anniversary Issue: Religion and Politics, (Autumn 1988): 659-681; Clyde Wilcox, “Evangelicals and the Moral Majority,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 28, No. 4, (Dec. 1989): 400-414; Clyde Wilcox, Sharon Linzey, and Ted G. Jelen, “Reluctant Warrioris: Premillenialism and Politics in the Moral Majority,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 30, No. 3, (Sep. 1991): 245-258; Mark A. Shibley, “Contemporary Evangelicals: Born Again and World Affirming,” Annals, AAPSS, Vol. 558 (July 1998): 67-87; John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and James L. Guth, “Bringing in the Sheaves: The Christian Right and White Protestants, 1976-1996,” in Smidt and Penning (eds), Sojourners in the Wilderness, 75-92.

Two.32 Politicians and academics alike were therefore somewhat shocked by the broad-based

Christian Right coalition that made its presence felt in the lead up to the 1980 election.33

The atmosphere on Capitol Hill was certainly more congenial to pro-life leaders during

Reagan’s presidency than it had been during previous administrations.34 Many analyses of the

U.S. pro-life movement’s political ascendancy therefore highlight the unprecedented level of access moral conservatives seemed to enjoy in federal politics.35 For their part, moral conservatives, including pro-life activists, “craved” Reagan’s “supportive rhetoric” because, according to Matthew C. Moen, the political “access, and…credentials” the president offered helped legitimize and “mainstream” their agenda.36 Yet the movement found it very difficult

32See Michael Leinesch, Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 139. Notable exceptions to this rule obviously include the fundamentalist resurgence in the 1920s, often termed the first or “old” Christian Right. For a discussion of the “old” and “new” Christian Rights, see Clyde Wilcox, “Popular Backing for the Old Christian Right: Explaining Support for the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade,” Journal of Social History, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Autumn, 1987), 117-132. 33 Leinesch, 139. 34 For a discussion of Reagan’s rhetorical endorsements of moral conservatives during his presidency, see Matthew C. Moen, “Ronald Reagan and the Social Issues: Rhetorical Support for the Christian Right,” The Social Science Journal, Volume 27, No. 2, (1990): 199-207. Moen analysed Reagan’s State of the Union addresses to track the president’s symbolic support for various Christian Right groups. An innovative new body of literature has begun to document the rise of conservative social movements in the 1970s, including, for example Donald Critchlow’s Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade, and Lisa McGirr’s Suburban Warriors. A Woman’s Crusade clearly documents Schlafly’s successful grass roots campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) for women in the 1970s. Critchlow pays scant attention to the 1980s, however, during which time Schlafly remained at the center of the conservative movement. Lisa McGirr’s Suburban Warriors, meanwhile traces the rise and achievements of conservative grassroots political campaigns by focusing on women’s activism in California, but again focuses more on the period prior to Reagan’s presidency. See Donald T. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade, (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005), and Lisa McGirr, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). Also see Ronnee Schreiber, Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 35See Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right, (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1989), 63. 36 Moen, “Ronald Reagan and the Social Issues,” 206. Moen also claims that Reagan’s public support for the Christian Right’s major agenda items represented “a major coup,” and was “exceedingly useful to the Christian Right.” 205. Joseph Gusfield’s landmark work Symbolic Crusade argues that cultural conflict that is most often settled when one side “establish[es] social dominance through political measures,” even if the legislation in question ultimately proves “unenforceable.” His observations are equally applicable to the pro-life movement. See Joseph S. Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976), 110, 148, and Joseph S. Gusfield, The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking- Driving and the Symbolic Order, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).

to translate Reagan’s rhetorical support into tangible political gains.37 Pro-life leaders soon

realized that, as Sara Diamond put it in 1989, “the Reagan administration remained committed to” their “domestic agenda in rhetoric only.”38 Scholars should, however, refrain

from reducing Reagan’s responses to the anti-abortion lobby as “symbolic politics,” as

Robert Dallek does in Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism, especially since political patronage substantively altered the subsequent trajectory of the pro-life movement during the

1980s and 1990s.39

Indeed, one of the most fascinating aspects of the American pro-life movement is its

resilience: pro-life groups not only endured but often expanded during periods of political

adversity. The most recent generation of scholarship therefore analyses changes and

continuities in pro-life strategies and tactics that sustained the movement even when it was

shut out of federal politics.40 In her study of the Temperance movement, Anne-Marie

Syzmanski notices that “movement participation” often “radicalize[d] adherents.”41 The same

was true, as Alesha Doan discovered, for pro-lifers; Doan identifies political patronage—both

granted and rescinded—as a key catalyst for the escalation of pro-life protests in Opposition

and Intimidation. Clinic bombings and assassination attempts along with protests and

sidewalk counselling were, she suggests, a direct result of pro-life activists’ frustrations with

their inability to reverse Roe.42 Groups such as Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue and Joseph

Scheidler’s Pro-Life Action League, both of which engaged in militant direct action protests

37 Anti-abortion forces did witness two pieces of domestic legislation, the Helms Human Life Statute (Helms Bill) and the Hatch Human Life Federalism Amendment (Hyde Amendment) introduced early in Reagan’s presidency, but both failed prior to the 1984 elections. See Tribe, 165-166. 38 Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, 64. 39 Robert Dallek, Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984). 40 See Blanchard, The anti-abortion movement and the rise of the religious right, especially pages 54-55 and 69- 77, and Tribe, 171-172. 41 Here, Syzmanski is alluding to the work of renowned civil rights scholar Douglas Mc Adam, who concluded that participants in the Freedom Summer were more likely to subscribe to radical political viewpoints afterward than their contemporaries who did not travel to Mississippi. See Anne-Marie E. Szymanski, Pathways to Prohibition: Radicals, Moderates, and Social Movement Outcomes, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), 4. Also see Doug McAdam, Freedom Summer, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). 42 See Doan, 7, 84-89, and Blanchard, The anti-abortion movement and the rise of the religious right.

at abortion clinics, gained “national recognition” for their extremist, inflammatory rhetoric

and tactics.43 Mass protests and violent outbursts were not, however, the only strategies

activists employed after they were denied political opportunities in the U.S.; as early as the

1970s, pro-life leaders looked abroad for new opportunities and began to oppose federal

funding for world population control programs.

The pro-life movement’s domestic agenda and efforts to influence a narrowly defined

arena of U.S. foreign policy nevertheless dominate the vast majority of scholarship. This

oversight is due to the assumptions that many scholars have made about the “unique”

conditions that allowed the Christian Right to flourish within the United States. For example,

American Christians’ history of establishing independent institutions such as universities,

together with the U.S. political system’s “open, diffuse and federal” structure contributed, in

Steve Bruce’s estimation, to the U.S. Christian Right’s eventual political power.44 Corwin E.

Smidt and James M. Penning’s edited collection Sojourners in the Wilderness also

emphasizes the distinctions, rather than the connections, between the American moral

conservatives and their international contemporaries.45 But these studies belie the extent to

which transnational currents and crosscurrents carried the ideals of the Christian Right around

the globe after the 1980s, and certainly do not explain why activists in Latin America,

Eastern Europe, and Africa proved so receptive to HLI’s overtures.

Global pro-life networks further complicate prevailing depictions of a “unique” U.S.

Christian Right, and therefore pose an implicit challenge to American exceptionalist

43 See Doan, 84-85. 44 Bruce further suggests that Christianity has “remain[ed] stronger in the United States than any other modern society” because “American fundamentalists” have cocooned themselves in separate, “insulated worlds with independent Christian schools, colleges, universities and television.” Steve Bruce, Politics and Religion, (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2003), 153. 45 See J. Christopher Soper, “Divided by a Common Religion: The Christian Right in England and the United States,” and Dennis R. Hoover, “The Christian Right under Old Glory and the Maple Leaf,” both in Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning (eds), Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Inc., 1997), 171-192; 193-216.

11 interpretations of history.46 After all, Ronald Reagan entered the White House during a period of intensifying social, political, and cultural conflict over the nature of global citizenship and politics, and even America’s place in the world.47 To understand U.S. cultural skirmishes, scholars must therefore situate them in their broader global context, if only because pro-life leaders frequently framed the problems they faced in global terms, and therefore sought similarly global solutions.48 Yet those historians who have started to analyse the Christian

Right’s influence on the Reagan administration’s foreign policy focus almost exclusively on relations with the USSR.49 Sara Diamond’s Spiritual Warfare is a significant exception to this rule, and instead focuses on the relationship between the U.S. government’s push to

“privatiz[e]…foreign policy,” and religiously-affiliated NGOs active in the developing world.50 Although Spiritual Warfare clearly shows that federal funding decisions impacted

NGOs, it does not offer much analysis of the instances in which their relationship to the U.S. government was more reciprocal. An example of the reciprocity Diamond overlooks was the

Reagan administration’s changing world population control policy, and its impact on pro-life groups’ trajectories.

In a striking departure from its stasis on proposed human life amendments in the U.S., the Reagan administration made abortion “a central concern” at the UN’s Second

46 Despite taking early American history as its subject, Thomas Bender’s recent Nation Among Nations makes a strong case for the ways in which analyzing transnational flows of ideas and experience can contribute significantly to the historical record. By placing events within the United States in their broader global context, Bender begins the process of breaking down some of the preconceptions that contribute to the myth of American exceptionalism, and is an early example of a dynamic new field of historical inquiry. See Thomas Bender, A Nation Among Nations: America’s Place in World History, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006). Also see Thomas Haskell “Taking Exception to Exceptionalism,” Reviews in American History 28, (March 2000), p. 164- 64, which also tackles this issue, finally concluding that “there is more than one way of taking exception to exceptionalism,” meaning that while exceptionalists and antiexceptionalists have much in common in their view of American history and the writing of the same, the postexceptionalist viewpoint is best suited to transnational analysis, allowing the historian to remain “open to the push and pull of empirical evidence.” 47 Buss and Herman suggest that the future leaders of the pro-family lobby were particularly concerned with the UN’s “globalist” challenges to US sovereignty. See Buss and Herman, 27. 48 These anxieties actually increased at the end of the Cold War, and were paralleled in many other nations. See Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004). 49 See for example William Martin, “The Christian Right and American Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy, No. 114 (Spring 1999): 66-80. 50 Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, 161.

International World Conference on Population, held in Mexico City in 1984. In fact, the U.S. delegation initiated a fundamental paradigm shift by terming population growth a “neutral” phenomenon and by promising to tighten restrictions governing U.S. funding for international population control programs.51 The new U.S. position reflected pro-life groups’ opposition to abortion and world population control, as well as the work of a few key “population bomb” sceptics.52 James Davison Hunter views this type of cultural conflict between orthodox and progressive forces as a “struggle to achieve or maintain the power to define reality.” For pro- life activists at least, influencing foreign policy was one way to assert their cultural clout.53

Changes in U.S. population policy are especially significant, then, because they have become an important battlefield in the “culture wars” since 1984.54 Though scholars frequently attribute the policy shift to pro-life groups’ influence over the Reagan administration and criticize its impact on women in the developing world, few have stopped to consider the

Mexico City Policy’s effect on pro-life organizations.55

In practice the Mexico City Policy affected pro-life organizations in two main ways.

Pro-life leaders used Reagan’s policy shift as “a platform from which” to “gain global attention for antiabortion perspectives and…strengthen transnational connections,” while simultaneously attempting to influence U.S. funding for international family planning.56 HLI,

51 See Jason L. Finkle and Barbara B. Crane, “Ideology and Politics at Mexico City: The United States at the 1984 International Conference on Population,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, (March 1985): 13, 2, and The White House Office of Policy Development, “US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (September 1984), 576. 52 Carl Anderson, who had close ties to a number of pro-life groups including HLI was widely rumoured to have drafted much of the US statement for the Mexico City Conference. The US position also reflected the influence of Julian L. Simon, a renowned critic of the rationale behind population control programs. See Chapters three, four and five of this thesis, and Julian L. Simon, The Ultimate Resource, (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1981). 53 See Davison Hunter, The Culture Wars, 45, 53. 54 See Susan A. Cohen, “Abortion Politics and US Population Aid: Coping with a Complex New Law,” International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), 137-139, 145. 55 Barbara B. Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” Population and Development Review Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994), 248; Malini Mehra, “Working Paper # 244: The Mexico City Policy: An Examination of the Conservative Assault on US International Population Policy and Women’s Reproductive Rights,” (Michigan State University: July 1994); Paige Whaley Eager, Global Population Policy: From Population Control to Reproductive Rights, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004). 56 Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 248.

for example, used information gathered from its worldwide network to pressure the federal

government to enforce the new population policy; at the same time, the publicity generated

by the policy shift actually helped HLI expand its global presence.57 Yet to date no detailed

studies of groups such as HLI exist and their activities have garnered limited interest outside

of population and development studies.58 The interstices of transnational pro-life NGOs’

operations and U.S. foreign policy therefore demand further analysis, especially given the

subsequent growth and diversification of the pro-life movement.

Global Context: Transnational Civil Society and NGOs The rapid expansion of the U.S. pro-life movement coincided with an extraordinary

rise in NGO activity on the global stage.59 Transnational NGOs not only “proliferated”

throughout the 1970s, but also “evolved significantly in size, funds, scope, character,

influence, and transnational dimensions.”60 Beginning in the 1980s, there was a veritable

“explosion in the number of…NGOs…active in relief and development.”61 Jessica Mathews

attributes the timing of this sudden burst of NGO activity to opportunity: a

“telecommunications revolution” beginning in the 1970s broke “governments’ monopoly on

the collection and management of large amounts of information.”62 Transnational NGOs

became particularly adept at collecting and disseminating this communicative power and also

57 Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 248. 58See Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 241-262, and Jason L. Finkle and Alison C. McIntosh, “The New Politics of Population,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994): 3-34. 59 Estimates vary considerably, but between 1850 and 1988, the NGO population had grown to at least 35 000. See John Boli and George M. Thomas (eds), Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 20. Also see Akira Iriye, Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 133. 60 Jael Silliman, “Expanding Civil Society, Shrinking Political Spaces: The Case of Women’s Nongovernmental Organizations,” in Jael Silliman and Ynestra King (eds), Dangerous Intersections: Feminist Perspectives on Population, Environment, and Development, (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1999), 137. Also see Iriye, 97- 98, and 128-129. 61 Michael Edwards and David Hulme (editors), Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World, (West Hartford, Connecticut: 1996), 1. 62 Jessica T. Mathews, “Power Shift,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 1, (January-February 1997), 51.

14 owed their growing influence to the increasing access to and affordability of air travel.63

Johns Hopkins University Professor Lester M. Salamon has even suggested that the global

“associational revolution” of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries might prove to be “as significant a social and political development…as the rise of the nation state” a century before.64

While Salamon may be overstating his case, sociologist Manuel Castells also argues that the formation of “global networks of the economy, communication, and knowledge and information” have “profoundly transformed or rearranged” the traditional “power apparatuses” of nation states.65 National governments have by no means ceded all of their political power to transnational civil society, though; after all, NGOs rely on political access, patronage, or some level of political leverage to achieve their goals. Transnational civil society has, however, opened up a new range of lobbying options for activists unable to access political power in their home countries. Moreover, transnational NGOs seem to be

63 In many respects, the effects of the wave of globalization discussed above closely parallel the impact of earlier advances in transport and communications technology. The Nineteenth Century also witnessed a burst in transnational organizing after the invention of the steamship, and trans-Atlantic telegraph, for example, both of which effectively made the world a “smaller” place, causing activists to view their causes as global and applicable to diverse circumstances. These in turn fuelled the “flowering” in the “latter part of the Nineteenth century” described by Elise Boulding, who argues that such developments gave rise to an array of international organizations “oriented toward solving the problems of war, economic and social justice, and human rights.” See Elise Boulding, “Foreword,” in Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield and Ron Pagnucco (editors), Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the States, (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997), ix. Successive “waves” of global integration can, therefore, be seen to wash up new transnational social movements on the shores of transnational civil society. In the nineteenth century, global pressures and opportunities promoted linkages between religion, globalization, and US imperialism; American missionaries, for example, actually participated in broader project of forging and enforcing American hegemony. See Bender, A Nation Among Nations, and Ian Tyrrell, Transnational Nation: United States History in Global Perspective Since 1789, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007). 64 Lester Salamon, “The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 4, (July/August 1994), 109. Jessica Mathews has echoed this sentiment, arguing that the latest phase of globalization has, “at least for a while,” ended “the steady concentration of power in the hands of states that began in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia.” See Mathews, 50. 65 Manuel Castells, “Toward a Sociology of the Network Society,” Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 5, (September 2000), 694. Also see Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd Edition, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000). One early work on the evolution of “networks of interdependence” and the role of INGOs in this process is Harold K. Jacobson’s Networks of Interdependence: International Organizations and the Global Political System, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979).

15 reconfiguring relations between national governments and their citizens at the same time as they attempt to exert influence over supranational bodies such as the UN.

In this way, transnational NGOs became key players in a global political arena no longer exclusively populated by nation states, a process that generated considerable interest among international relations scholars and political scientists, and which has spawned a growing and innovative body of literature.66 Yet despite these fascinating developments, few historians had incorporated transnational analysis into their repertoire before the 1990s.67 The timing is anything but coincidental—transnational history came into vogue at the same time that transnational NGOs became increasingly visible participants in domestic and global political forums.68 By the mid-1990s, “Union of International Associations” reported that

“well over 15 000 recognisable NGOs,” defined as organizations that “operate[d] in three or more countries and [drew] their finances from sources in more than one country” were active

66 See Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, (editors), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002); Shamima Ahmed and David Potter, NGOs in International Politics, (Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2006); Thomas G. Weiss and Leon Gordenker (editors), NGOs, the UN, and Global Governance, (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., 1996); Kerstin Martens, NGOs and the United Nations: Institutionalization, Professionalization and Adaptation, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005); Thomas Princen and Matthias Finger, Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the local and the global. (London: Routledge, 1994); William E. DeMars, NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wildcards in World Politics, (London: Pluto Press, 2005); Claude E. Welch, Jr. (editor), NGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001); Peter Willetts (editor), “The Conscience of the World”: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations in the U.N. System, (London: Hurst and Company, 1996). 67 Pioneering discussions of transnational exchanges appeared as early as 1956 in the field of international law, and in 1971 an entire edition of the political science journal International Organization was devoted to the subject of “Transnational Relations and World Politics.” The International Organization special edition’s authors fail, however, to explain the causes of this phenomenon. See Phillip C. Jessup, Transnational Law, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956), and International Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations and World Politics, (Summer 1971). As David Thelen observed in 1992, “Study of the borderlands created by the worldwide diffusion of popular culture can cure us of the assumption that a television program, or an act of Congress, is a fixed and American product,” and the borderlands inhabited by transnational NGOs born of the Christian Right provide an ideal forum to evaluate this premise. David Thelen, “Of Audiences, Borderlands, and Comparisons: Toward the Internationalization of American History,” The Journal of American History, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Sep. 1992), 442. 68 Early examples of this type of work include Ian Tyrrell’s True Gardens of the Gods: Californian-Australian Environmental Reform, 1860-1930 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), and Tyrrell’s contribution to Thomas Bender’s (editor), Rethinking American History in a Global Age, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

worldwide.69 Then UN Chief Executive Boutros Boutros-Ghali acknowledged the central role

non-state actors played in “a world that [was] both social and mobile,” and where “the

“movement of people, information, capital, and ideas” had become “as important…as the

control of territory” in the past.70 Within this context, Boutros-Ghali said that NGOs

represented “a basic form of popular participation” in global politics, and had therefore

become an integral part of the “framework” by which the UN addressed “political issues” as

well as “economic behavior and cultural aspirations.”71

Jackie Smith’s edited collection Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics

goes further, arguing that “non-state actors” have not only “become significant international

actors,” but will actually “increase in importance as the world stage becomes more complex

and integrated.”72 A surprising number of academics and participants in transnational civil

society even laud transnational NGOs’ as the “conscience of the world.”73 But except for a

“few groups such as Amnesty International, the Red Cross and Greenpeace,” which

“managed to break through the barrier of invisibility,” the majority of NGOs were initially

“rather inconspicuous.”74 Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, a new

generation of scholars expanded their repertoire to include studies of human rights

69 See Boutros Boutros-Ghali, “Foreword,” in Weiss and Gordenker (eds), 18. More recent estimates suggest that over one million NGOs are now active worldwide. See Edwards and Hulme (eds), 1; Mathews, 53; Silliman, in Silliman and King (eds), 137; Iriye, 97-98, 128-129. 70 Boutros-Ghali, “in Weiss and Gordenker (eds), 7. 71 Boutros-Ghali, in Weiss and Gordenker (eds), 7. 72 Boulding, “Foreword,” in Smith et al (editors), Transnational Social Movements, xiii. 73 See for example Willetts (ed), Conscience of the World, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, “Foreword,” in Weiss and Gordenker (eds), NGOs, the UN, and Global Governance, 7-18. 74 Willetts (ed), 1, and Kjell Skjelsbaek, “The Growth of International Nongovernmental Organizations in the Twentieth Century,” International Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations and World Politics, (Summer, 1971), 421.Also see Kenneth Cmiel, “The Emergence of Human Rights Politics in the United States,” The Journal of American History, Vol. 86, No. 3, (December 1999): 1231-1250. Other transnational histories have focused the growth of multinational corporations and the world labor movement, but histories of more conservative NGOs have not followed as swiftly in their wake. For an example of transnational labor history, see Marcel van der Linden, “Transnationalizing American Labor History,” The Journal of American History, Vol. 86, No. 3, (December 1999): 1078-1092.

17 organizations and the global women’s movement.75 Despite the fact that conservative NGOs emerged and evolved alongside their progressive counterparts, scholars have generally given them a wide berth, as evidenced by Richard Price’s criticisms of “the liberal cast” of recent work on transnational civil society, which he said analyzed “‘good’ campaigns” to the exclusion of “‘bad’…or failed campaigns.”76

Historians’ choice of subject matter quite likely reflects their personal political proclivities. Analyses of transnational NGOs are, according to Peter Willetts, heavily skewed toward progressive organizations.77 International Relations scholar William De Mars also laments this fact in his study of NGO effectiveness in world politics; all too often, he says,

“analysts” tend “to celebrate and promote the NGOs they profile.”78 As he concludes, too many scholars have “identif[ied] too closely” with the “goals” of the NGOs they study, and this “tunnel vision” has “fail[ed] to reveal the politics of NGOs in its full range and complexity.”79 At best, such studies offer a severely limited perspective on transnational civil society; at worst, this sort of selective myopia obscures an entire realm of NGO activity.

75 See for example Val Moghadam, “Transnational Feminist Networks: Collective Action in an Era of Globalization,” International Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 1, (March 2000): 57-85; Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), especially “Chapter Five: Transnational Networks on Violence Against Women,” 165- 198; Kathryn Sikkink, Mixed Signals: U.S. Human Rights Policy and Latin America, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), and Kenneth Hopgood, Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), 76 Richard Price, “Review Article: Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics,” World Politics, Vol. 55, No. 4, (July 2003): 601. John Boli and George M. Thomas’ interdisciplinary collection, Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875 is a case in point. Constructing World Culture offers a broad historical overview of international NGOs’ activities but fails to acknowledge conservative religious NGOs’ contributions to transnational civil society. This is perhaps understandable however, as Constructing World Culture concludes its discussion of NGOs with 1973, the last year for which complete data from the Yearbook of International Organizations was available prior to publication. See John Boli and George M. Thomas, “INGOs and the Organizations of World Culture,” in Boli and Thomas (eds), Constructing World Culture, 21. Elise Boulding’s “Foreword” for Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State also betrays this bias against conservative NGOs by suggesting that “the social movement perspective” embodied by transnational NGOs displays a “passion for human betterment for the planet as a whole.” Boulding, “Foreword,” in Smith, Chatfield and Pagnucco (eds), Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics, ix. 77Willetts cautions against this assumption because “[i]n reality small influential groups with good establishment credentials may also work for very progressive causes and some social movements, for example European neo-Nazi groups, may be considered by many to be evil.” Willetts (ed), 2. 78 DeMars, 4. 79 DeMars, 4.

There are, of course, some exceptions to this trend. Multinational corporations and, since

September 11, 2001, transnational terrorist networks are among the few non-progressive

participants in transnational civil society to have attracted academic attention.80 But to come

to a “full understanding of the complex dynamics of world politics,” historians must

challenge the assumption that international activists share a unity of vision, tactics and

purpose, which is best done by analysing the origins and influence of all types of NGOs.81

My thesis attempts to transcend this scholarly myopia by suggesting that transnational

NGOs represent a deeply conflicted nascent global conscience, which is more often than not

very much at odds with itself. Father Marx’s Human Life Center and its successor Human

Life International prove this point. Father Marx established HLI to oppose progressive NGOs

such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and other population control

providers.82 From humble beginnings in 1981, HLI had evolved into the linchpin of a

growing transnational NGO network consisting of tens of thousands of members and

sympathizers who are connected via affiliates in 87 nations by 2010.83 As HLI’s operations

expanded and professionalized in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the group established a

number of spin-off organizations, two of which—the Population Research Institute (PRI) and

C-Fam (the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute), formed in 1989 and 1997

80 See Mathews, Power Shift, Boli and Thomas, Constructing World Culture, 3-4, 13, 19, and Iriye, vii, 129- 130, for discussions of Multinational Corporations; For recent analyses of the formation and evolution of transnational terrorist networks, see Kristopher K. Robison, Edward M. Crenshaw, and J. Craig Jenkins, “Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist Transnational Terrorism,” Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 4, (June 2006): 2009-2026; Jaideep Saikia and Ekaterina Stepanova, Terrorism: Patterns of Internationalization, (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2009), and Bruce Jones, Carlos Pascual, and Stephen John Stedman, Power & responsibility: building international order in an era of transnational threats, (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009). 81 Willetts (ed), “The Conscience of the World,” 1. 82 Within transnational society, “linking-pin organisations” such as HLI play a vital role in the development of global advocacy networks by acting as “brokers and communication channels between organisations in the network,” or put more simply, they are “nodes through which a network is loosely joined.” See Weiss and Gordenker 35. 83 According to the organization’s 2009 Annual Report, HLI received over three and a half million dollars in donations that year alone, putting its net worth at over four and a half million US dollars by the end of that year. See HLI, “HLI 2009 Annual Report,” http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/annual-report, Accessed: 21/5/2010.

respectively—went on to exercise considerable power in U.S. and UN politics.84 Together

with the Vatican, and often with President George W. Bush’s support, C-Fam spearheaded

the pro-family push at the UN in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.85 The

only detailed analyses of contemporary transnational pro-family groups, authored by Dori

Buss, Didi Herman and Jennifer Butler, have, however, omitted crucial details about these

groups’ origins.86 By returning to the early years of Father Marx’s global apostolate, this

study will show that a constellation of interrelated domestic and global problems and

opportunities provided the catalysts for transnational pro-life, pro-family organizing; it will

also offer insights into the evolution of their ideology, aspirations, and trajectory up to 1994,

when Father Paul Marx relinquished HLI’s leadership to Father Matthew Habiger. As well as

being the last year for which Father Marx’s detailed personal archives are complete, 1994

also witnessed the intensification of HLI’s UN activism, and growing determination to build

on Father Marx’s legacy of fostering transnational alliances and activism. It is fitting then,

that this study concludes with a brief snapshot of HLI’s activities in the 1990s, but focuses

more specifically on the earlier years of global pro-life organizing that laid the foundations

for these later developments.

Understanding transnational activism

Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink adapt social movement theory to define and

describe transnational advocacy networks and their framework is useful for understanding the

origins and activities of conservative NGOs as well, even though they pay scant attention to

84 See Steven W. Mosher, Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2008), vii, and Buss and Herman, xxviii. 85 See Doris E. Buss, “The Christian Right, Globalization, and the ‘Natural Family,’” in Mary Ann Tetreault and Robert Allen Denemark (editors), Gods, Guns, and Globalization: Religious Radicalism and International Political Economy, (London: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2004), 60, 75. 86 In fact, Buss and Herman incorrectly date HLI’s formation to 1972 – the year that Father Marx established the Human Life Center, suggesting that they paid little attention to this earlier period of pro-life, pro-family activism. See Buss and Herman, xxix. Butler makes the same mistake, compounded by the fact that she refers to C-Fam’s parent organization just once in her entire study. See Butler, 95.

such groups.87 According to their analysis, transnational advocacy networks generally form

for three reasons: first, when “channels between domestic groups and their governments are

blocked or hampered.” Secondly, “activists or ‘political entrepreneurs’” establish

transnational alliances when they “believe that networking will further their missions and

campaigns.” Lastly, leaders “create…and strengthe[n] networks” when they have access to

new international opportunities such as UN conferences.88 Jackie Smith offers a similar

formulation and states that transnational NGOs are most likely to appear when “national

political opportunity structures are relatively closed,” or if their leaders identify “favourable

international political opportunity structures, including new institutional opportunities within

IGOs (Intergovernmental Organizations).”89

While these scholars focus almost exclusively on progressive or left-leaning NGOs, it

is clear that Father Marx’s reasons for establishing HLI conform to Keck, Sikkink and

Smith’s rubrics. Father Marx and his colleagues resorted to transnational organizing for three

reasons: first, to challenge the prevailing belief that depicted population growth as a global

“problem” requiring control; secondly, because political opportunities were scarce in the

United States; and finally, so that pro-life activists could begin to access global political

opportunities at the UN. Keck and Sikkink’s framework is certainly useful for explaining

why Father Marx resorted to transnational organizing, but it does not account for the

worldwide resonance of his message. So what caused this explosion of NGO activity?

Sociologist Louis Kreisberg has identified four interrelated trends that he believes contributed

to the increased importance of non-state actors: growing democratization, increasing global

87 Activists Beyond Borders’ discussion of the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing does in fact make brief mention of HLI and the International Right to Life Committee (IRLC), but Keck and Sikkink downplay both groups’ political impact and significance. Keck and Sikkink, 189-192. 88 Keck and Sikkink, 12. 89 Jackie Smith, “Characteristics of the Modern Transnational Social Movement Sector,” in Smith et al (eds), Transnational Social Movements, 59.

integration, converging and diffusing values, and proliferating transnational organizations.90

Of these, globalization’s impact on diverse communities worldwide was the single common

factor that facilitated the formation and evolution of transnational pro-life networks.

Globalization: problems and opportunities as catalysts

In economically, globally integrated countries, the effects of globalization had

intruded upon all aspects of modern society and culture by the 1970s.91 In this instance,

“globalization” refers to the “thickening of a range of economic, social, and cultural ties,”

that have increasingly necessitated “the reorganization of social life on a transnational

basis.”92 As “a process” characterized by “advances in electronic communications and high-

speed international travel,” globalization has also encouraged “worldwide linkages, joint

action, and the formation and maintenance of transnational institutions.”93 In many respects,

the problems and opportunities globalization precipitated were responsible for the concurrent

surge in NGO activity.94 Akira Iriye makes this point in Global Community, which traces the

rise of internationalism and the concurrent ascent of transnational organizations from the

nineteenth to the twentieth century. In Iriye’s estimation, the “[f]orces of globalization,”

including increased travel and communications technology, “that had been manifest

during…earlier decades became even more effective in connecting different parts of the

world” in the 1970s.95

90 Kriesberg defines transnational NGOs as organizations whose membership is active in “two or more states.” See Louis Kriesberg, “Social Movements and Global Transformation,” in Smith et al (eds) Transnational Social Movements, 3, 12. 91 This study draws on two definitions of the still contested term. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye define globalization as the progression of globalism, that is: “a state of the world involving networks of interdependence and multicontinental distances, linked through flows and influences of capital and goods, information and ideas, people and forces, as well as environmentally and biologically relevant substances.” See Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Power and Interdependence, 3rd Edition, (NY: Longman, 2001), 229. 92 Keohane and Nye, 234. Also see Robert O. Keohane, Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. (London: Routledge, 2002), 15. 93 Ivan Strenski, “The Religion in Globalization,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 72, No. 3, (September 2004): 631. 94 Keohane and Nye, 229. 95 Iriye, 128-129.

More specifically, Iriye says that these connections actually generated a burgeoning

global consciousness that precipitated the development of what he calls a “genuine world

community.”96 I take Iriye’s argument as a starting point, but suggest that globalization also

spawned a “dark side,” populated by a range of conservative NGOs such as transnational pro-

life networks. With this diversity in mind, it might perhaps be more accurate to say that a

number of competing world communities evolved parallel to each other after the 1970s. By

analysing the impetus for transnational pro-life organizing, my thesis draws a range of

conclusions regarding globalization’s impact on populations worldwide, and in so doing

contributes to a fuller understanding of this “global community” or communities.97

Religion provides the lens through which I analyse globalization’s impact on

communities worldwide.98 Peter Beyer’s groundbreaking 1994 study Religion and

Globalization paves the way for my analysis of transnational pro-life NGOs by demonstrating

that fundamentalist religious groups actually further[ed] globalization by opposing its

effects.99 Despite a brief slump in the 1960s, when traditional religions appeared to be losing

ground in a global battle with secular humanism, the world’s leading religions generally

experienced significant resurgences during the following decade; one academic has even

characterized these revivals as “a political retaliation ordained by God.”100 Since this

religious re-awakening coincided with the proliferation of transnational NGOs in the 1970s, it

96 See Iriye, 127-129. 97 Ian Tyrrell and Bruce Mazlish have both initiated discussions of the impact incipient globalization had on the United States during the 1980s, suggesting that the pressures of these processes had a broad range of effects on the disparate populations throughout America during the period in question. Although neither has taken up the case of the Christian Right, in light of their arguments, such an analysis is implicitly suggested. See Bruce Mazlish, Nyan Chanda and Kenneth Weisbrode (editors), The Paradox of a Global USA, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 64-80. 98 Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization, (London: Sage Publications, 1994). 99 Beyer, 3. 100 See Danielle Hervieu-Legeer (translation Roger Greaves), “Faces of Catholic Transnationalism: In and Beyond France,” in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and James P. Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion and Fading States, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 112. Also see the iconic Time cover that asked “Is God Dead?” in red typeface against a stark black background, Time, (April 8, 1966), Steve Bruce, God is Dead: Secularization in the West, (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), Philip Jenkins, Decade of Nightmares: The end of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 17, 84-85, Huntington, Who Are We? 101-102, and Butler, 22-23.

seems that globalization played an important role in both.101 In fact, Mary Tetreault posits “a

direct connection between the rise of religious social movements and structural changes in

the political economy.”102 My study builds on Tetreault’s observations by tracing the stresses

that inclined people to join the transnational pro-life movement after the 1970s back to the

same fundamental catalyst: the threat “modern” values, transmitted by globalization, seemed

to pose to communities worldwide.

The “explosion of religious formations” such as HLI was actually aided by the very

forces that were supposed to have eroded “credulous” religious belief, namely “increased

print and electronic media, increased literacy—including the higher literacy of post-

secondary education—and urbanization.”103 Academics initially ignored the growing presence of “religious communities” on the global stage, but many have since realized that religiously-affiliated NGOs have not only become “vigorous” participants in “transnational civil society,” but have even started to “shape world politics.”104 Global terrorist networks intimately linked to Islamic conceptions of jihad, or holy war, are one manifestation of this phenomenon; transnational pro-life NGOs are another—as yet understudied—example.105 I therefore regard Father Marx’s life-work as part of a broader global trend that has seen people “turn to religion for comfort, guidance, solace and identity” in the face of rapid economic, political, social and cultural changes.106 Globalization by no means affected countries uniformly, but my thesis argues that global “problems” provided the initial rationale for transnational pro-life organizing, while simultaneously giving activists the tools with which to expand their global networks.

101 Beyer, 4, 132. 102 Mary Ann Tetreault, “Contending Fundamentalisms: Religious Revivalism and the Modern World,” in Mary Ann Tetreault and Robert A. Denemark, Gods, Guns, and Globalization: Religious Radicalism and International Political Economy, (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004), 3. 103 Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, “Introduction,” in Rudolph and Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion, 3. 104 Hoeber Rudolph, “Introduction,” in Rudolph and Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion, 1. 105 See Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, (London: Verso, 2002), especially 255-302. 106See Huntington, Who Are We? 14-15.

Thousands of transnational NGOs, including global pro-family groups, came of age

during the two decades after the “flowering” of transnational civil society in the 1970s. In

that time they had grown in size and scope, and many, including HLI and its offshoots, had

become well-funded, professional operations. The transnational pro-family activism of the

1990s was certainly not, therefore, as “new” as some scholars have intimated, even though

HLI and its contemporaries became far more visible participants in UN politics at the end of

the twentieth century.107 Interestingly enough, there were striking parallels between the

atmosphere of uncertainty that gave rise to transnational pro-life NGOs in the 1970s and the

post-Cold War power vacuum of the 1990s.108

U.S. politicians and citizens alike were struck by “the complexity and novelty” of a

world no longer divided down sharp ideological lines, and according to Samuel P.

Huntington, “conflicts over what” the U.S. “should do abroad” were more deeply “rooted in

conflicts over who” Americans were “at home” than ever before.109 One of the clearest signs

that domestic cultural realignments were affecting U.S. foreign policy was, of course, the

Mexico City Policy, which pre-dated the end of the Cold War. Set against this backdrop, the

growing NGO presence in UN politics clearly suggests that transnational groups aspired to

fill the power vacuum left by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But, whereas Huntington

expected the world to split between Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms and Philip

Jenkins predicted that future global conflict would result from “clash[es] between a secular

global North and a religious global South,” transnational pro-life organizing charted a third

course.110 This thesis explores the catalysts for, and evolution and impact of, transnational

107 See Butler, 4-5, 13, and Buss and Herman, xxxiv. 108 Huntington, Who Are We? 13. 109Huntington, Who Are We? 9-10. 110Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, (Summer 1993), 22, Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), and Butler, 86.

pro-life communities that not only crossed national borders, but also attempted to bridge

religious and political gaps to achieve their goals.

Chapter Outline

Until the 1980s, U.S. pro-life leaders enjoyed relatively limited political opportunities.111

Bipartisan support for U.S.-funded population control programs, coupled with the devastating

blow of Roe v. Wade, deepened pro-life leaders’ sense of alienation from American social

and cultural mores. Consequently, many sought support and political opportunities outside of

the U.S. American pro-life leaders who formed transnational NGOs never viewed national

and global activism as an “either or” proposition, however. Rather, in many cases,

transnational organizing complemented domestic lobbying by expanding its range of

opportunities. Global pro-life, pro-family leaders proved particularly adept at exploiting

political opportunities when and where they arose. I explain why American pro-life leaders

sought out international alliances, what predisposed people in the countries they targeted to

accept their message, and their reasons for focusing on population control and abortion in

their evolving “pro-family” ideology.

My thesis comprises three parts. Chapters one through three identify the catalysts that

propelled Father Paul Marx into a leadership role of the nascent global pro-life community.

Chapters one and two explore the two related global “problems” that prompted Father Marx

to embark on what he later termed his “global pro-life…apostolate”: Pope Paul VI’s

controversial 1968 encyclical on birth control Humanae Vitae, the concurrent push for world

population control, and the U.S. pro-life movement’s failure to prevent the legalization of

abortion.112 Father Marx formulated a distinct pro-life ideology that was strongly influenced

by Humanae Vitae; as explained in chapter one, from the 1960s onwards he argued that

111 See Chapters one and two of this thesis. 112 Father Paul Marx, “Dear Friend Letter,” (December 1981), 1, CMRX 53/22.

26 contraception led to abortion and that together they represented a serious threat to traditional family structures, and, by extension, the Catholic Church.

Chapter two, meanwhile, details the cultural realignment in the U.S. that eventually came to be reflected in the global pro-family movement. There, I also analyse the domestic problems and global opportunities that gave rise to the first transnational pro-life networks. I pay particular attention to the means by which early global pro-life leaders expanded and maintained their transnational connections. When international family planning advocates framed world population growth as a global “problem,” they inadvertently spawned a countermovement spearheaded by transnational pro-life, pro-family NGOs.113 Father Marx was among the first in the U.S. pro-life movement to recast population control as a global

“problem” in response. In the 1970s, he joined a growing international community of pro-life leaders who rejected the neo-Malthusian “crisis discourse” typified by Paul Ehrlich’s

Population Bomb, and instead interpreted international population control programs as efforts to redefine sexuality, gender roles, ideal family structures, and a reconfiguration of the relationship between citizens and their governments.114

113 After WWII, international aid grants to developing nations with high fertility rates often required – or at least encouraged – their governments to set and enforce population targets. See Ngaire Woods, The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006), especially Chapter Three, “The Power to Persuade,” pp. 65-83, for a discussion of the conditions the WB often places on borrowers. 114 See Thomas Robert Malthus, an English clergyman who posited a link between exponential population growth and famine in his 1798 essay on population; his arguments formed the basis of many later discussions of population problems. See Malthus in Kenneth E. Boulding (Foreword), Malthus – population: the first essay, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959), Fairfield Osborn, Our Plundered Planet, (London: Faber and Faber, 1948), William Vogt, Road to Survival, (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1948), Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, (London: Pan Books, 1968), Garrett Hardin, Population, evolution, and birth control : a collage of controversial ideas, (San Francisco : W.H. Freeman, 1969), Garrett Hardin, Living within Limits: ecology, economics, and population taboos, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Catholic economist Colin Clark was one of Father Paul Marx’s first anti-Malthusian influences. See Colin Clark, “Do Population and Freedom Grow Together?” Fortune, LXII (1960): 136-139, 203-208, and “The Population Blessing: Interview with Colin Clark,” The Sign, (1960), both in CMRX 58/07. For pro-life objections to the rationale behind population control, and the execution of the programs themselves, see Father Anthony Zimmerman, Catholic Viewpoint on Overpopulation, (Garden City, NY: Hanover House, 1961), Father Paul Marx quoted in Michael Engler, “mothers fathers love babies children families God,” (Minnesota: Human Life Center, no date): 1; Randy Engel, “The International Population Control Machine and the Pathfinder Fund,” International Review of Natural Family Planning, Vol. V, No. 1, (Human Life Center: Spring 1981); Mosher, “The Malthusian Delusion and the Origins of Population Control,” in Population Control, 31-70.

In 1972, Father Marx established his first pro-life organization, the HLC, to mount a

sustained international challenge to demographers, economists, politicians, medical experts,

feminists and environmentalists who advocated “world population control.”115 Early

transnational pro-life leaders also displayed a distinctly opportunistic spirit in their

endeavours: for example, Father Marx and his colleagues attended the UN’s world population

control conferences to protest the dominant “neo-Malthusian” discourse, but simultaneously

used the international forums to strengthen and expand their own networks. Chapter three

highlights this pragmatism: after proposed human life amendments failed in the U.S., Father

Marx threw HLI’s resources behind Irish and Filipino pro-life groups who succeeded in

securing pro-life legislation.

Part two of my thesis, including chapters four and five, examines the ways in which

political opportunities affected the subsequent trajectory of pro-life groups by discussing the

formulation and implementation of the Mexico City Policy which Reagan’s representatives

announced at the UN’s Second International Conference on Population in 1984. I argue that

the change in U.S. population policy represented the Reagan White House’s attempt to

appease disaffected pro-life supporters. However, it also had a broader, long-term impact that

the administration did not necessarily anticipate—Reagan’s “global gag rule” sounded the

death knell for the nearly twenty-year-old bipartisan consensus on world population control

in U.S. politics; since 1984, U.S. funding for international family planning programs has

115 A range of scholars offer excellent overviews of the centrality of contraception and abortion to women’s rights discourse since the 1960s, both in domestic and international contexts, see Whaley Eager, Global Population Policy; Betsy Hartmann, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control, (New York: Harper and Row, 1995); Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, Abortion and Woman’s Choice: The States, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom, (New York and London: Longman, 1984). The importance and evolution of international or global norms in response to transnational social movements is explained in Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational Advocacy Groups Restructuring World Politics,” Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink, (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 3-23. For detailed discussions of the United Nations’ evolving population control policies, see Stanley P. Johnson, World Population and the United Nations: Challenge and response, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), and UNFPA, The United Nations and Population: Major Resolutions and Instruments, (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications Inc, 1974).

become a deeply partisan issue. Each Republican president since Reagan has reinstated the

global gag rule, while both Democrats to hold office—Bill Clinton and Barack Obama— made a point of repealing the policy almost immediately after their inaugurations. This clearly demonstrates that population control has, alongside abortion, become a politicized symbol of broader social, cultural and political cleavages in U.S. society and culture.

Consequently, chapter five argues that the Mexico City Policy would have had little impact had pro-life groups such as HLI not pressured the Reagan administration to enforce the new policy. HLI was especially well-prepared to capitalize on the Reagan administration’s policy shift; in 1986, for example, Father Marx and John Cavanaugh-

O’Keefe persuaded their contacts on Capitol Hill to oppose a World Bank loan to Bangladesh by presenting them with evidence that the country’s population control program employed coercion and therefore violated the terms of the Mexico City Policy. In 1989, HLI further demonstrated its commitment to the cause by establishing the Population Research Institute.

The PRI subsequently took over from HLI’s earlier work of monitoring U.S. funded population control programs and lobbying energetically against appropriations for programs that violated Congressional restrictions on international family planning aid. Throughout the

1990s, the PRI forced Congress to investigate possible violations in a number of countries and made a significant impact on U.S. spending for population control. The transnational influence of the Mexico City Policy was also apparent when several other countries contemplated, and in some cases instituted, similar “gag rules” governing their international aid programs.

The third part of my thesis, encompassing chapters six, seven, and the conclusion, introduces three case studies to show how HLI used the pressures and opportunities of globalization to expand its operations in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa. Although these three regions appear to have little in common, closer analysis reveals a striking single

common denominator. In all three instances, HLI took advantage of the anxieties rapid social,

cultural and political changes generated in local communities to expand its operations.

Chapter six, for example, argues that HLI manipulated the climate of uncertainty following

the fall of several dictatorships to expand its Latin American network. Local Catholic leaders

and other conservatives agreed that the ensuing growth of civil society made it more likely

that feminists and population control advocates’ calls for legalized contraception, abortion,

sex education and divorce would succeed; like their North American counterparts,

conservative Latin Americans perceived these potential changes as serious threats to

traditional values and family structures. Consequently, HLI’s message resonated across the

region.

Chapter seven expands upon these themes by showing that HLI participated in Pope

John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan’s campaign to liberate Eastern Europe from communism. At first glance, HLI certainly faced a very different situation in Eastern Europe.

In most Soviet bloc countries abortion had been legalized for decades, and limited access to alternative forms of contraception meant that abortion became a primary form of birth control

Eastern European women in, for example, Poland. For HLI, this meant that instead of preventing population control providers from spreading the “contraceptive mentality” and pushing for legalized abortion, the new challenge was to “roll back” abortion, and by extension communism. In Eastern Europe, as in much of Latin America and Africa, HLI also benefitted from the trend toward conservatism within the Church hierarchy.116 HLI’s campaigns in Latin America and Eastern Europe, for example, both coincided with Pope John

Paul II’s efforts to restore his conservative authority within the Church by installing orthodox clergy, for example. Incidentally, these priests then also endorsed HLI’s work. Finally, my thesis concludes with a brief overview of HLI’s expansion into Africa, which foreshadowed

116 See N.J. Demerath III, “Crisscrossing the Gods: Globalization and American Religion,” in Mazlish, Chanda and Weisbrode, The Paradox of a Global USA, 96.

30 the ground-breaking interfaith alliances that would emerge at the UN in the 1990s and early twenty-first century.

Although this study began as an investigation into the pro-life movement’s influence over U.S. population control policies, it evolved into a much broader project seeking to explain how and why transnational pro-life NGOs had emerged as surprisingly powerful players in national and global political arenas by the 1990s. The simple answer to both parts of this second question is that globalization not only generated the problems pro-life groups attempted to solve, but also gave them the opportunity to establish transnational networks that eventually acquired considerable political influence. There is, of course, much work still to be done on conservative transnational activism, but this study offers an important contribution to the field by tracing the origins, trajectory, and impact of global pro-life networks between the

1970s and 1990s.

Chapter One

Catalysts for Global Pro-life Networking: Population Control, Humanae Vitae, and the birth of a “Pro-Life Missionary”

…I am convinced that contraception is a chief cause of the present moral chaos…In every nation, bar none, contraception has led to abortion… Once the purposes of sex are torn loose from procreation and the family, the homosexual interest…steps forward. Sexual activity becomes fun-and-games, the distinction between recreational and procreational sex is glibly made, teen pregnancies and abortion skyrocket, VD burgeons out of control, the divorce rate escalates, the birthrate falls, while the veterinarian approach to birth control called sterilization becomes commonplace; soon we see the swift disintegration of the family.1 As Father Marx’s comments above—made retrospectively after nearly twenty years at the helm of the pro-life movement—suggest, moral conservatives, including both Catholics

and Protestants, felt that “traditional” family values were under threat from changing sexual

mores as symbolized by contraception, population control and abortion. So as to understand

the ideology and objectives of the contemporary global pro-family movement, it is first

essential to explain why activists began to establish transnational networks to “defend the

family” in the 1970s. I argue that 1968, the year that the sexual revolution collided with the

Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception, was the turning point that defined the “global

threats” transnational pro-life groups would address and which helped constitute their

ideological foundations. The ensuing cultural conflict provided the catalysts for the formation

and growth of global pro-life networks.

When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae in 1968 he did not anticipate that his

encyclical, which explicitly prohibited observant Catholics from using any “artificial” form

of contraception, would have such far-reaching consequences.2 As it turned out, Humanae

Vitae exacerbated underlying tensions between progressive and orthodox Catholics; the

1 Father Paul Marx, “Contraception vs. Family Planning,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 3, (February 1993), 5. 2Pope Paul VI, “Encyclical Letter: On the Regulation of Birth,” (Vatican City, 1968), 7, CMRX 56/15. 32 ensuing conflict between the two weakened the Pontiff’s power both within and outside of the Church.3 The same year that Humanae Vitae forbade more than half a billion Catholics worldwide from using contraceptives, Planned Parenthood officially endorsed abortion as a form of birth and population control. Moreover, the United States signalled its commitment to defusing the “population bomb” by establishing a dedicated Office of Population Affairs within the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The United

Nations (UN) went even further by declaring “the ability to determine the number and spacing of children…a human right.”4

While the sexual revolution and the population control movement were gaining momentum, Minnesota priest Father Paul Marx was formulating his own distinctive pro-life philosophy well before the term became popularized. The second youngest child of seventeen born to Roman Catholic farmers in St. Michael, Minnesota, he was one of the fourteen Marx children who survived infancy.5 Like several of his siblings, he pursued a religious vocation and joined the Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) at St. John’s Seminary in 1947.6 In addition to his theological training, Father Marx completed a doctorate in the sociology of Marriage and

Family Life in 1956.7 Soon after, he began teaching sociology at St. John’s University and the neighbouring College of St. Benedict, where he specialized in marriage and family

3 Shortly after issuing the encyclical, Pope Paul VI reportedly told his advisor Cardinal Gagnon not to worry: “in twenty years time they’ll call me a prophet,” but critics have condemned Humanae Vitae as “one of the great disasters of the Church history” leading countless Catholics to “[abandon] the Church.” See Robert McClory, Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church, (New York: Crossroad, 1995): 145-146. 4 Peter J. Donaldson, quoted in Charles B. Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power: Vatican Inaction After Humanae Vitae,” Population and Development Review, vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994): 226. Also see John T. Noonan (editor), The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970), xiv, Ivan Vallier, “The Roman Catholic Church: A Transnational Actor,” International Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations and World Politics, (Summer 1971): 483,; Randy Engel, “The International Population Control Machine and the Pathfinder Fund,” International Review of Natural Family Planning, Vol. V, No. 1, (Human Life Center: Spring 1981), 3, Father Paul Marx, “Why Pro-Lifers Should Oppose Contraception,” (1983), 3, CMRX 51/131, and Father Paul Marx, “Contraception – the Gateway to Abortion,” A.L.L. About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 11, (November 1983), 20-21. 5 Loyal F. Marsh, PhD, “Psychodiagnostic Evaluation of Reverend Paul Marx, O.S.B., (January 20, 1981): 2. CMRX 3/8. 6 Paul Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” (no date): 1, CMRX 53/16. 7 Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 1.

preparation courses and remained for more than two decades.8 Together, his faith and

academic vocation drew Father Marx into the front lines of the battle over contraception

within the Catholic Church.

When he toured Europe in 1959 as a chaplain for a group of young women, Father

Marx observed that in every country he visited “the birth control problem was the biggest

faced by the church.”9 More troublesome, this was an issue for which the Pope seemed to

have “no answer.”10 In fact, widespread acceptance of contraceptives had already seen

England, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, and Belgium

record significant declines in their birth rates, leading Father Marx to surmise somewhat

despairingly that Christianity was “dying in Europe.”11 When the American Law Institute

sent a model abortion bill to state legislatures across the United States that same year, Father

Marx concluded that there was a causal connection between legalized contraception and

abortion.12 Yet within five years Catholic leaders from the Netherlands and England were

publicly questioning the Vatican’s stance on contraception.13 Just three years after the Foods

and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the pill in 1960, the new contraceptive was at “the

center and symbol of efforts to modify the Catholic position on birth control.”14

In this chapter I argue that Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which

prohibited the faithful from using “artificial” methods of birth control, established the

ideological basis for Catholic opposition to population control. Specifically, it provided the

8 Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 1. 9 See Father Paul Marx, “Europe Diary,” (16th July, 1959), 16-17, CMRX 51/143. 10 See Marx, “Europe Diary,” 16-17. 11 Marx, “Europe Diary,” 16-17, 67. 12Paul Sweeney, “Father Marx: Long Fight; Education is Best Weapon,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 4, No. 9, (October 1982), 6. 13 Seven English bishops joined twenty-three of their Dutch colleagues who resolved to leave “the question of the ‘licitness’ of the pill as an acceptable contraception” open to debate in 1964. Loretta McLaughlin, The Pill, John Rock, and the Church: The Biography of a Revolution, (Boston: Little, Brown and company, 1982), 167- 169; John R. Cavanagh, The Popes, the Pill, and the People: A Documentary Study, (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965), 10-11. 14 John Noonan, quoted in McLaughlin, The Pill, 168.

practical rationale for Father Marx’s decision to establish global pro-life networks.

Population control advocates ridiculed the Pope’s teaching on contraception as a callous

response to the tragic human toll of overpopulation. Yet by framing world population growth

as a global problem requiring a coordinated international response, these same advocates

inadvertently provided the impetus for the development of a countermovement spearheaded

by pro-life leaders.

Popes, Procreation, Population Control and Public Opinion

For over seventeen centuries the Catholic Church was the western world’s pre-

eminent religious institution.15 For observant Catholics who were taught to “pray and obey,”

a clear hierarchy existed: truth “came down from above,” from “God to the Pope to the

bishops… pastors…and laity.”16 Papal authority was absolute and the Catholic Church

promulgated its message around the globe, making it one of the first explicitly transnational

institutions in the modern world.17 For much of its history the Catholic Church had operated

quite effectively as a political entity and a voluntary association with little regard for the

boundaries of empires and sovereign states.18 Laypeople were even encouraged to recognize

the international dimensions of their faith: in 1960, for example, Pope John XXIII called on

Catholic organizations “to stir the Catholics of the whole world into a great fraternal effort on

behalf of the less developed nations.”19 Catholics therefore have long viewed themselves as

dual citizens: of their nations and of a global religion.20 By the same token, as “global pastor”

15 The Holy Roman Empire survived threats from Islam and internal schism by wielding substantial political as well as spiritual power.For example, politics, monarchy and religion were inextricably linked in the 16th Century, when several European and Balkan princes ascended their respective thrones on the condition that they first converted to Catholicism. See Steve Bruce, Politics and Religion, (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2003), 15. 16 McClory, Turning Point, 28. 17 Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power,”238. 18 Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power,”238. 19 Father Anthony Zimmerman, Catholic Viewpoint on Overpopulation, (Garden City, NY: Hanover House, 1961), 124. 20 Outspoken Catholic pro-life activist Judie Brown went further: “It does not matter where the Catholic Church is operating or during what period in man’s history she is found; truth never changes.” Judie Brown, Saving Those Damned Catholics, (Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris, 2007), 26.

the Catholic Church ruled over its adherents’ bodies as well as their souls—most explicitly by

prohibiting all methods of birth control.21 Observant Catholics traditionally based their

opposition to contraception on Thomas Aquinas’ Thirteenth Century teachings on “natural law,” which warned that tampering with human fertility thwarted God’s will.22

Catholic debates over contraceptives began in 1930 in response to the Anglican

Council of Lambeth approving the use of contraceptives for married couples who felt a moral

obligation to “limit or avoid parenthood.”23 The Lambeth decision allowed Anglicans to

choose from a variety of devices and methods including condoms, “modern” diaphragms, and

the “rhythm method.”24 That same year, Pope Pius X issued Casti Connubii, which expressly

forbade Catholics from using contraceptives. “The conjugal act,” Pius reasoned, was

“destined primarily…for the begetting of children.”25 Casti Connubii referenced influential

Catholic theologian Saint Augustine, who, like Aquinas, argued that it was a “sin against

nature” to “deliberately frustrate” the “natural power and purpose” of marital intercourse.26

Catholic clergy, especially in the United States, were well aware that their

parishioners were deeply sceptical of the Pope’s claim that contraception violated a

“universal and unchangeable natural law.”27 In reality, Catholic birth control teachings were

already “under siege” in many developed nations including the United States.28 As early as

1931 the editors of Commonweal, a leading Catholic periodical, acknowledged contemporary

debates and foreshadowed future pro-life arguments by “plead[ing] with ‘all sensible

21 Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power,” 238; Vallier, 500. 22 McLaughlin, 148-149. 23 See Brown, Saving those Damned Catholics, 44, and The Lambeth Conference, “Resolution 15: The Life and Witness of the Christian Community – Marriage,” (1930), The Lambeth Conference Official Website, http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm, Date Accessed: 12/8/08. 24 McLaughlin, The Pill, 26. 25 Pope Pius XI, “On Christian Marriage, Castii Conubii: Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Christian Marriage,” (December 31, 1930): Papal Encyclicals Online, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM. Accessed 28th August 2007. 26 Pius XI, “Castii Conubii,” Papal Encyclicals Online. 27 John T. McGreevey, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History, (New York: W.W. Norton, and Company, 2003), 220, 222. 28 McGreevey, 220, 222.

people’” to realize that artificial contraception represented the first stumble down a slippery

slope that descended into sterilization, abortion, and at worst, a “pagan state.”29 The editorial’s phrasing, particularly its final comment, is significant: the author intimated that contraception posed a threat to the nation and Catholicism at large and therefore alludes to the deeper moral and spiritual implications of contraception for orthodox Catholics. This impression is reinforced by the fact that large Catholic families remained the norm well into

the 1960s, although one 1936 report by the National Catholic Welfare Council had shown

that most (Catholic) Americans, from ordinary people to “legislatures” and “the courts,”

favoured birth control.30

In 1951 Pope Pius XII relaxed the Church’s birth control prohibition somewhat when

he authorized married Catholic couples with serious “medical, eugenic, economic or social”

reasons for not having children to use the rhythm method, later known as Natural Family

Planning (NFP).31 In theory, NFP was licit because it left the possibility of conception open

to God’s will, even though it taught couples to “achieve or avoid pregnancy” by timing

“sexual intercourse with reference to the…fertile and infertile phases of the menstrual cycle”

or the natural “rhythms” of women’s bodies.32 But Catholic birth rates continued to exceed

those of other Americans, even at the height of the “post-war baby boom”; open dissent

against church teaching was virtually “nonexistent” in the USA “in the 1940s and 1950s.”33

Yet changes were afoot: Catholics were starting to achieve secular success, and growing

numbers transcended their migrant identities and assimilated almost seamlessly into U.S.

29 McGreevey, 222-223. 30 McGreevey, 228. 31 McLaughlin, 158-159; Zimmerman, Catholic Viewpoint, 194-195. 32 Australian Council of Natural Family Planning Incorporated, “Code of Ethics for NFP Teachers,” (Weston, ACT: Australian Council of NFP Inc., 1980), 1, CMRX 77/42 – Natural Family Planning Centers. By the 1960s, Natural Family Planning no longer relied on the rhythm method, but employed techniques including monitoring body temperature to look for a signature “spike” around the time of ovulation (the Sympto-Thermal method), and watching for changes in vaginal mucus (the Billings’ method) to determine fertile and infertile periods for women. Also see Human Life International, “Where There’s God’s Will There’s a Way,” WSHS Pamphlet # 98-2922. 33 McGreevey, 232.

society.34 Despite some controversy over his Roman Catholic faith during his presidential

campaign, John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inauguration seemed to signal that this social shift was

almost complete.35 Many Catholics took advantage of this new social mobility to explore

different methods of birth control that were prohibited by the Church.

As the Catholic Church maintained its strict prohibitions on contraception, scientists

in Massachusetts developed the most potent symbol of the coming sexual revolution: the

contraceptive pill.36 In 1951, heiress Katherine McCormick offered to fund fertility

specialists Drs. John Rock and Gregory Pincus’s attempts to develop an effective and safe

contraceptive pill.37 Within four years the first clinical trials of progestin-based birth control

pills had proved successful in preventing unplanned pregnancies in women, and field trials

expanded across Massachusetts and into Puerto Rico.38 The experiments were illegal in

several states and defied Catholic teaching, but years of treating indigent women burdened by

unwanted pregnancies and his personal belief that population growth posed a serious “threat

to social order” convinced devout Catholic Dr. Rock that the pill was not only moral but

necessary.39 Dr. Rock also believed that the Catholic Church would eventually accept these

facts and modernize its birth control stance.40 In May of 1960, the Foods and Drug

Administration (FDA) authorized G.D. Searle and Company to distribute the contraceptive

pill.41 After the FDA set “sex…free,” conflict over female fertility became a “culture-

34 Michael Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 9. 35 Arthur M. Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), 1-7, 14. 36 See McLaughlin, 93-110. 37 See McLaughlin, 93-110. McCormick was a close friend of birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger. 38 McLaughlin, 117-118. 39 McLaughlin, 125-126, 158. 40 McLaughlin, 125-126, 158. 41 McLaughlin, 138, 140-144.

rending…national issue” in the United States, and a defining feature of the coming culture

wars.42

The pill, which promised to liberate women from unwanted pregnancies and save the

earth from overpopulation, was nothing short of “bedevilment” for the Catholic Church.43

Catholic leaders allegedly referred to Rock and Pincus’s innovation as that “damn pill,” but

the expected Catholic consumer backlash against their innovation never materialized.44

Instead, a conspiracy of silence between women and their doctors ensured that thousands of

pill prescriptions were filled to treat “menstrual disorders.”45 The “unintended” consequence

was pregnancy prevention. The distinction was vital, because Catholic teaching allowed

women to take the pill if valid medical reasons were at hand. In practice, this meant that if the

“intended” action of the pill was “therapeutic,” not contraceptive, then it was permitted “by

the principle of the double effect,” even if it occasioned “infertility.”46

By 1965 more than five million women across the United States were using the pill,

and after the Second Vatican Council, approval ratings for artificial contraceptives soared

among American Catholics.47 At the same time, American attitudes toward parenthood

underwent a seismic shift that rendered the Catholic Church even more out of step with its

adherents. For the first time, it became “frighteningly irresponsible” not to use contraception,

whereas previously the reverse had been true.48 At an informal gathering of Cardinals in 1964

42 McLaughlin, 138, 140-144, and Rickie Solinger, Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America, (New York: New York University Press, 2005), 166. 43 Solinger, 167; McLaughlin, 146. 44 McLaughlin, 130, 137. 45 McLaughlin, 139. 46 Cavanagh, 8-9. 47McLaughlin, 180; Conducted by a team of sociologists and published in 1997, the study showed that 20 percent of pre-Vatican II Catholics agreed that “birth control was ‘always wrong,’” compared with just 6 percent of their Vatican II era counterparts, and 4 percent of those in the post-Vatican II era. See James D. Davidson et al, The Search for Common Ground: What Unites and Divides Catholic Americans, cited in Judie Brown, Saving those Damned Catholics, 43. 48 Solinger, 170.

39 the Pope admitted to feeling pressure to address the birth control issue.49 Striking a balance between “population increase on the one hand and…family morality on the other” was a

“problem.”50 Pope Paul VI viewed the international push for population control as a serious threat to Catholic teaching because it might spread permissive attitudes toward sex and contraception from the developed world to poorer countries.

Global Problems, Global Solutions: World Population Control

Public acceptance of contraception was premised as much on developments outside of the United States as within, including the so-called “population explosion,” and the rise of international family planning organizations.51 A powerful population control lobby was determined to foster acceptance of contraception in developing nations as well.52 Margaret

Sanger had spearheaded this movement after 1914, when she had embarked on a “cross- country speaking tour” to promote access to birth control for all women.53 Sanger was one of the first activists who insisted that the consequences of birth and population control were inherently global. Yet not all politicians, religious leaders and activists agreed with Sanger on

49 Pope Paul VI, quoted in Cavanaugh, 1. 50 Pope Paul VI, quoted in Cavanaugh, 1. 51 The sexual revolution picked up pace in the 1960s, but before that had advanced cautiously and deliberately since 1936, when a federal appeals court repealed the first of a series of nineteenth-century federal prohibitions against indecency known as the Comstock Laws, which forbade Americans from “dispensing contraception information and materials, even to married couples.” The decision paved the way for two complementary US Supreme Court verdicts in the coming decades. In 1965, the Court ruled that prohibiting access to contraceptives “presented an unconstitutional invasion of the privacy of married couples” in Griswold v. Connecticut. Seven years later, the Court’s Eisenstadt v. Baird decision extended the same privacy privileges to unmarried couples. Together, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized contraception in the United States. The individual right to privacy that judges inferred in both rulings also increased the possibility of abortion becoming legalized in the future. Solinger, Pregnancy, 177; Deborah Rowland, The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Women’s Rights in America, (Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing, 2004): 97, 122- 123. The Eisenstadt v. Baird ruling, for example, read in part: “If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972). The Griswold and Eisenstadt cases alarmed pro-lifers outside of the United States for similar reasons; see Chapter three of this thesis for a discussion of the legalization of contraception and abortion in Ireland. Some Catholic scholars posit a direct link between the pill’s popularity and the “population explosion.” Cavanagh, 25. 52 Randy Engel, “The AID-Ravenholt Philosophy,” Pro-Life Reporter, Vol. 5, No. 13 (Spring 1977), 10. 53 Kathleen E. Powderly, “Contraceptive Policy and Ethics: Lessons from American History,” in Ellen H. Moskowitz and Bruce Jennings (editors), Coerced Contraception: Moral and Policy Challenges of Long-Acting Birth Control, (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, (1996), 26-27.

the necessity and efficacy of international family planning. While population control

enthusiasts promised that birth control would liberate women from unwanted pregnancies and

ensure the United States’ national security by slowing rapid population growth in the

developing world, hence limiting the possibility of revolution, critics described international

family planning programs as “Orwellian intrusion[s] into matters of the utmost privacy.”54

Forecasts predicting that the world’s population would increase to between 5 and 7

billion people by the year 2000 helped population control advocates convince the United

Nations of the dangers of unchecked population growth soon after the institution's founding

in 1945.55 Yet the same demographers who endorsed world population control regularly

failed to acknowledge that U.S. citizens—just “7% of humanity”—used approximately “half

of the world’s…basic resources.”56 Instead, they presented governments of developed

countries with scenarios in which an “avalanche of babies” born in Asia and Africa would

outpace food production and put enormous pressure on natural resources.57 Juxtaposed with

the tense geopolitical realities of the mid-twentieth century, such predictions spawned a new

constellation of worries: an “apocalyptic quartet” including “the Cold War, the atomic bomb,

the spectre of race revolution,” as Africans and Asians threw off the yoke of colonial rule,

“and the ‘population explosion’” seemed to threaten developed nations.58

Famed businessman, philanthropist, and population control advocate John D.

Rockefeller III spoke for many Americans when he expressed concerns that unchecked

54 Engel, “A Pro-Life Report,” 13; Charles E. Rice, “Something Happened on the Way to the Forum,” in USCL, “Special Report,” 21. 55 Cavanagh, 25. Also see Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconceptions: The Struggle to Control World Population, (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2008), 124. 56 Engel, “A Pro-Life Report,” 31. 57 Newsweek, April 17, 1959, quoted in Cavanagh, 26. Population control advocates published these sorts of warnings in leading US newspapers and magazines, echoing the dire predictions English reverend Thomas Malthus had offered in his 1798 Essays on Population. Malthus argued that because England’s population was rapidly outstripping its food production, widespread famine among the “indigent masses” was inevitable. See Elizabeth Draper, Birth Control in the Modern World: the Role of the Individual in Population Control, (London: Penguin Books, 1965), 281, and Randy Engel, “A Pro-Life Report on Population Growth and the American Future,” (United States Coalition for Life, 1972), 28-29. 58 Solinger, 164.

41 population growth in the developing world would adversely affect U.S. citizens’ “quality of life.”59 Population control lobbyists such as Rockefeller insisted that the U.S. government should fund a birth control break wall to protect developed nations from the “mounting tidal wave of humanity” from the developing world.60 As the most effective and reliable means of regulating fertility, the pill became the centrepiece of proposed international family planning programs. In 1961, Dixie Cup magnate Hugh Moore launched a public relations campaign in the United States aimed at persuading President Kennedy to fund population control efforts.61

After Kennedy’s death Moore refocused his efforts on President Lyndon Johnson, intimating that that his domestic War on Poverty and foreign aid efforts would be “nullified” by the impending “population explosion.”62 The solution, according to advertisements in the New

York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal, was twofold: convince developing nations to accept population stabilization targets and finance large scale international family planning programs.63 Moore’s close friend and national chairman of the

Population Crisis Committee, General William Draper, pushed their agenda on Capitol Hill, and within a relatively short period of time, American public opinion had fallen into line with population control advocates.64

59 John Rockefeller III, “The Hidden Crisis,” Look, (February 9, 1965), quoted in Engel, “A Pro-Life Report,” 17-18. After founding the Population Council, Rockefeller remained a trustee of the organization and served on UNFPA’s advisory board and as Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, which also financed population control programs. 60 Judy Shea, “Authentic Reproductive Freedom,” in Feminists For Life, Pro-Life Feminism, 17, Feminists for Life (also Feminists for Life, America) Records, Box 1, Folder 2 (hereafter FFL). Garrett Hardin went even further with this “lifeboat ethics,” suggesting that to prevent national “lifeboats” from being “swamped” by starving hordes from poor nations, developed nations should limit immigration and let them die. Also see Jacqueline Kasun, “Population Bomb Exploded by Facts: Spooky Stories,” Sisterlife, Vol. X, No. 3 (Summer 1990), 4. Richard Gamble, the son of renowned population control advocate and Pathfinder Fund founder Dr. Clarence Gamble, used a similar formulation in a 1980 letter soliciting support for programs in the developing world, referring to “the mounting flood of people.” See Randy Engel, “The International Population Control Machine and the Pathfinder Fund,” International Review of Natural Family Planning, Vol. V, No. 1, (Human Life Center: Spring 1981), 19. 61 Steven W. Mosher, “The Malthusian Delusion and the Origins of Population Control,” Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, (New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publishers, 2008), 39. 62 See various advertisements, Lawrence Lader, Breeding Ourselves to Death, (NY: Ballantine Books, 1971), p. 21-28. 63 See ads sponsored by Moore in Lader, 21-28. 64 Engel, “Pathfinder Fund,” 3-4.

Despite the growing popularity of family planning in the United States, pro-natalist

governments in poorer nations often resisted external pressure to introduce population control programs.65 Consequently, after World War Two, philanthropists and activists not only framed world population growth as a global problem, but established a number of NGOs and advocacy groups, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), to promote international family planning programs as a means of hastening economic growth in developing nations.66 The IPPF and its contemporaries distributed contraceptives, but more importantly, attempted to overcome deeply entrenched opposition toward birth control in developing nations.67 Though the Catholic Church attempted to slow the IPPF’s progress by pressuring governments of large Catholic nations to refuse “illicit methods of birth control,”

international family planning programs made steady progress between 1945 and 1970.68 At

the same time, the UN set about coordinating a global response to world population growth

by hosting two international conferences for demographic and family planning experts.69

However, delegates were unable to agree on the best way to address world population growth

at either the 1954 Rome or the 1965 Belgrade meeting.70

Yet U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson did bow to internal and external pressures to

commit federal funds to population control programs.71 “I will seek new ways,” Johnson

promised in his 1965 State of the Union address, “to use our knowledge to help deal with the

65 Margaret Sanger’s early forays into India were frustrated by Gandhi’s resistance to the introduction of artificial birth control, a point later taken up by pro-lifers. See Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary,” (January 19, 1990), 47, CMRX 52/5. 66 See Betsy Hartmann, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: the Global Politics of Population, (New York: Harper and Row, 1995), 102-103 and Connelly, Chapter 5, pp 155-194. 67 See Marx, “Travel Diary,” (January 19, 1990), 47. 68 Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power,” 222. Ultimately, the “planned parenthood” movement evolved into a well- funded transnational network of dedicated activists, intellectuals, philanthropists and lobbyists. See Connelly, 112; 120; 124; 138; 151-154. 69 See Connelly, 151-152, and United States Coalition for Life, “United States Coalition for Life Special Report on the United Nations World Population Conference Tribune, Bucharest, Romania, August 19-30, 1974,” (Export, Pennsylvania: USCL, 1975), 2. 70 See Connelly, 151-152, and The United Nations Fund for Population Activities, The United Nations and Population: Major Resolutions and Instruments, (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceania Publications, 1974). 71 Harold K. Jacobson, Networks of Interdependence: International Organizations and the Global Political System, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 251.

43 explosion in world population and the growing scarcity in world resources.”72 The

President’s pledge signalled a major change in U.S. policy, which quickly gained

Congressional support.73 The federal government committed funds to international family planning programs for the first time that same year.74 Less than a decade after President

Dwight D. Eisenhower had emphatically denied that contraception was an appropriate matter for public, let alone political discussion, the United States had become the largest donor to population control efforts in the world.75 Father Paul Marx was among the U.S. pro-life activists who concluded that contraception fostered dangerous threats to traditional family structures, and therefore the United States was effectively exporting the sexual revolution and all of its negative side effects by funding world population control initiatives.

Until 1984, U.S. population policies were premised on several interrelated points: smaller populations meant higher standards of living, U.S. economic interests were best served by stable populations in poor countries, and medical breakthroughs—often spearheaded by American doctors—had reduced mortality worldwide, contributing to population pressures.76 Each of these factors reinforced the growing conviction on Capitol

Hill that the United States was obliged to take a leading role in controlling world population

72 Lyndon Baines Johnson, quoted in Chalmers M. Roberts, “First White House Sanction Given for World Birth Control Efforts,” The Washington Post, (Wednesday, January 8, 1965), in Population Policy Panel, “Population Bomb News Items,” CMRX 58/12. 73 Roberts, “First White House Sanction Given for World Birth Control Efforts,” The Washington Post, (Wednesday, January 8, 1965) CMRX 58/12. Like Hugh Moore and his fellow believers in the population control movement, the President alluded to a neo-Malthusian intellectual tradition reinvigorated after World War Two by William Vogt and Fairfield Osborn that foreshadowed Paul Ehrlich’s dire predictions in The Population Bomb. Engel, “A Pro-Life Report,” 11. Also see for example Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet, (London: Faber and Faber, 1948) and William Vogt’s Road to Survival, (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1948); Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, (London: Pan Books, 1968). 74 President Johnson encapsulated the United States’ new stance on population control at a twentieth anniversary celebration for the UN in 1965: “Let us act,” he said “on the fact that less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic development.” Johnson’s “ounce of prevention” being worth a “pound of cure” formulation characterized the United States’ official population policy for almost twenty years afterward. President Lyndon B. Johnson, quoted in Engel, “Pathfinder Fund,” 5. 75 Stanley P. Johnson, World Population and the United Nations: Challenge and Response, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987): xxiv. 76 Paul Wagman, “U.S. Program To Sterilize Millions,” St Louis Dispatch, (Friday April 22, 1977), 1.

growth.77 On December 10, 1974, National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200,

also known as the Kissinger Report) explicitly linked world population control to U.S.

national security and its global economic interests.78 The United States’ reasons for

supporting world population control initiatives further demonstrates a growing awareness that

technological development and economic globalization had “intimately fused” U.S. interests

to others within the transnational system.79

It is difficult to gauge public attitudes toward population growth, but one survey of

American magazine content published between 1946 and 1990 showed that most articles on

the subject favoured rather than opposed population control measures.80 By encouraging

Americans to “see themselves as participants in a problem of truly global proportions,” the

U.S. media had effectively “facilitated the acceptance” of U.S. funding for population control

programs.81 American politicians also knew that it was far easier to commit U.S. dollars to

international family planning initiatives that targeted developing nations than to convince

their own citizens to accept reductions in their standard of living. This point was not lost on

leaders of developing nations; when U.S. birth control promoter Dr Abraham Stone spoke in

India, a local official reportedly introduced him by wryly commenting: “We asked the United

States for bread; instead they sent to us – and I present to you – Stone.”82 Put simply,

American population control advocates framed human fertility as a global “problem.” Yet in

so doing, they inadvertently laid the groundwork for the emergence of a transnational counter

movement adamantly opposed to the exportation of the sexual revolution.

77 Wagman, “U.S. Program To Sterilize Millions,” 1. 78 See National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, (Washington D.C.: National Security Council, 1974), http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf, Accessed: 10/6/2009. 79 Vallier, 500. 80 John R. Wilmoth and Patrick Ball, “The Population Debate in American Popular Magazines, 1946-1990,” Population and Development Review Vol. 18, No. 4, (December 1992), 660. 81 Wilmoth and Ball, 660. 82 Zimmerman, Catholic Viewpoints, 188.

Father Marx often attributed the passage of the 1967 English Abortion Act, which

also became “widely imitated throughout Commonwealth countries,” to a decline in Britain’s

“mental health and morale.”83 The British were not alone in globalizing the anti-family

malaise, according to Father Marx: “if the British…influenced the Commonwealth” he

complained, “barbaric Americans” were “influencing the world,” via their support of

population control programs.84 After 1968 Father Marx’s objections to contraception,

abortion and population control crystallized into a coherent pro-life ideology based on

Humanae Vitae.

Humanae Vitae: “An earthquake in the Church”85

By the early 1960s, rumours from Rome hinted that the Pope might reconsider the

Church’s prohibition on artificial contraceptives in light of growing support for world

population control and changing social and sexual mores in developed nations.86 Global

debates over birth control coincided with sweeping changes to Roman Catholic tradition and

practice initiated by the Second Vatican Council between 1962 and 1965 as well as the

appearance of a “new pattern of ‘internationalization’” in the Church’s hierarchy, which saw

“French, German and American clergy” entering high offices and strategic positions within

the Vatican.87 Coupled with images of population growth careering out of control, these

83 Father Paul Marx, “Abortion International,” (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1978), 6-7, PMRX Box 3. 84 Marx, “Abortion International,” 6-7. Evidence to support Father Marx’s domino theory extended beyond the English Commonwealth to France and Africa as well. As he reflected years later, “one-fourth of Africa is French-speaking, so to get abortion in the French-speaking countries of Africa, you had to get abortion legalized in France.” As quoted in John Kurzweil, “Catholics of the Year,” Catholic Twin Circle, Vol. 28, No. 4, (Sunday January 26, 1992), CMRX #2005-255, Box 3. There was a modicum of truth to Father Marx’s claims; some Commonwealth countries did legalize abortion after 1967 and through donations to pro-choice population control NGOs, the United States could be said to have swayed poorer countries toward legalizing abortion in the 1960s and 1970s. 85 Bernard Haring, “The Encyclical Crisis: contradiction can and must be a service of love for the Pope,” Commonweal, (6 September 1968), 590, CMRX 56/13. 86 McLaughlin, 177. 87 For a discussion of the impact of the Second Vatican Council on the Catholic Church see Benedict M. Ashley, “The Loss of Theological Unity: Pluralism, Thomism, and Catholic Morality,” in R. Scott Appleby and Mary Jo Weaver, Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995):63-87. Also see Vallier, 484.

developments increased the pressure on the Holy See to reconsider the question of artificial

contraception.88 Consequently, Pope Paul John XXIII established the Pontifical Commission

for the Study of Population, Family and Births, or Papal Birth Control Commission, to

investigate and offer an expert recommendation on the question of birth control in 1963.89

When Pope Paul VI made the Commission public the next year, he also expanded it from

fifteen clergy to fifty-eight members, who included scientists, academics, lay Catholic

couples, doctors, psychiatrists and clergy.90 Since most American Catholics had already

embraced some form of birth control, it is hardly surprising that half of those surveyed agreed

that the Pope should permit married couples to use contraceptives.91

However, the Commission seemed likely to remain faithful to Pius XI’s Casti

Connubii. “I don’t think any of us felt…that the old doctrine could or should be changed,”

one delegate recalled some years later.92 But the hopes of countless Catholics worldwide

rested on the delegates changing their minds.93 Commission member Patty Crowley later

recalled that “the preponderance of testimony from…lay” Catholics indicated that they

anticipated change, and if their hopes were dashed “great problems” would ensue.94 Among

the dozens of appeals Crowley alone received during the Commission’s deliberations, one in

particular stands out: was “contraceptive sex” still “irresponsible,” the writer asked, when she

88 McGreevey, 235; Brown, Saving, 46-47. 89 McClory, 42. 90 McClory, 40-41, 47, 55, 62. 91 Between 1960 and 1965, fifty-one percent of Catholic men and women in the USA admitted to using a birth control method not sanctioned by the Church. Only around a quarter of the seventy-seven percent of Catholic women who admitted to using contraception were practicing the only Church-sanctioned form of birth control - the rhythm method. See McLaughlin, The Pill, 176. In full, the question read: “Right now, Catholics are forbidden by the Church from using artificial birth control devices. Would you like to see the Catholic Church decide to allow Catholics to use birth control devices (contraceptives) or would you oppose that?” Only 15 percent of respondents thought that the Church should not allow contraceptives, and 33 percent were reportedly unsure. Survey by Louis Harris and Associates, February 1964. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from the iPoll Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ropercenter.unconn.edu.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/ipoll.html. 92 Dr John Marshall, as quoted in McClory, 43. 93 Cuneo, Smoke of Satan, 21. 94 McClory, 107.

“had already borne ten little responsibilities?”95 By the time the Commission submitted its

findings to Pope Paul VI in 1966, an “overwhelming majority” of the delegates recommended

that the Pontiff give married couples the right to choose their preferred “methods of birth

regulation.”96 Conservative delegates strenuously objected to the majority opinion because

they believed that if he accepted the recommendations, Pope Paul VI would be leading “the

Church down” a “slippery slope toward…abortion.”97 Despite these reservations, however,

the final document retained its core principles.98 Backed by an array of “theologians,

cardinals and bishops,” delegates were certain that they had “made history.”99 But by April

1967 reports that Pope Paul VI had rejected the Commission’s findings leaked throughout

Europe and North America.100

On July 25, 1968 Pope Paul VI dashed the last remaining hopes that he would

reinterpret Catholic teaching on birth control by issuing Humanae Vitae, which instead

renewed the Church’s ban on artificial contraception.101 Conservatives who had “opposed the

Council from the beginning” celebrated the encyclical as “a great victory.”102 For those who

had so eagerly awaited change, however, Humanae Vitae was a devastating disappointment.

“The Church,” observed one Catholic father who actually agreed with the encyclical, had

“not caught up with or addressed the sexual revolution.”103 Furthermore, Pope Paul VI’s

statement did not silence debates over birth control among Catholics. Instead, scathing

critiques of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical erupted across the United States and around the world;

95 “A Catholic Mother,” as quoted in McClory, 86. 96 Haring, “The Encyclical Crisis,” 590. This document required “married couples to act in a manner commensurate with married unity and self-giving and with the preservation of a genuine atmosphere of married love, within which life might responsibly be handed on and the children reared.” 97 McClory, 120. 98 Birth Control Commission, “Responsible Parenthood,” in McClory, 179. 99 McClory, 128. 100 Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power,” 221. 101 See McClory, 138-146; Keely, “Limits to Papal Power, 222; Sweeney, “Long Fight,” 8. 102 Haring, “The Encyclical Crisis,” 588. 103 Ingrid Smith, diocese of Lansing, Michigan, “Contraception and Today’s Catholic,” (Winter 1984-1985): 4, John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe Papers, Box 1, Folder 3 (hereafter JCOK).

one child of the sexual revolution who eventually left the Church condemned Catholicism’s

“rules for sexuality,” which she said “bound like iron bands.”104

The Catholic hierarchy may have “closed ranks” around Casti Connubii in the 1930s,

but nearly four decades later Pope Paul VI’s encyclical precipitated “an earthquake in the

Church.”105 Clergy who favoured Humanae Vitae quickly discovered that many of their

colleagues were “prepared to welcome the sexual revolution, regardless of papal teaching,”

and perhaps even “in spite of it.”106 St. John’s University, Minnesota, soon became a

microcosm of the global conflict; whereas Father Marx applauded Humanae Vitae, many of

his colleagues vehemently opposed the encyclical.107 Several St John’s faculty members

were among the eighty-seven Catholic clergy and theologians from orders and institutions in

twenty-two states and provinces around the United States who publicly repudiated Pope Paul

VI’s teaching.108 When Father Marx was invited but refused to join the other dissenters, he

was appalled to see that his brother had already signed the document.109 In the months

immediately following Humanae Vitae’s publication, the encyclical’s opponents seemed to

outnumber its supporters.110

Critics charged that Humanae Vitae had not responded to the very real needs of

Catholics worldwide.111 The St John’s faculty referenced secular debates over world

population growth when they condemned Humanae Vitae’s “almost total disregard for the

dignity of millions of human beings brought into the world without the slightest possibility of

104 Juli Loesch Wiley, “The Tale of a Feminist ‘Freak’: Solidarity and Sexual Shalom,” New Oxford Review, (May 1990), 11. 105 Connelly, 85, and Haring, “The Encyclical Crisis,” 588. 106 Brown, Saving those Damned Catholics, 49. 107 John F. Cronin, Charles E. Curran, Edwin Falteisek, “Text of Statement by Catholic Theologians,” (Washington D.C., July 30, 1968): 1-4. CMRX 56/13. 108 See “Theologians who have endorsed the statement” in John F. Cronin, Charles E. Curran, and Edwin Falteisek, “Text of Statement by Catholic Theologians,” (July 31, 1968), 5, CMRX 56/13. 109 See correspondence between Father Marx and John O’Reilly in CMRX 5/2. 110 Cuneo, Smoke of Satan, 21; Brown, Saving, 50. 111Cronin et al, “Statement,” 3.

being fed and educated decently.”112 These dissenters concluded that married couples should

“decide according to their conscience[s]” whether to use “artificial contraception” since the

encyclical was not “an infallible statement.”113 Finally, they encouraged “all Catholic theologians” to make equally “candid” statements on the encyclical in a spirit of “true commitment to the mystery of Christ and the Church.”114 American Catholic bishops struggled with competing imperatives before admitting that even though Humanae Vitae

“challenge[d] the prevailing spirit of the times,” Pope Paul VI’s encyclical called Catholics to a “prophetic mission” to defend the Christian family—the “source of life”—from secular pressures such as birth control.115 Honourable intentions aside, public critiques of the Pope’s teaching threw the American Catholic Church into turmoil as theologians and clergy across the country struggled to reconcile their responsibility to their parishioners with fidelity to

Rome. Similar debates divided Catholics worldwide.

In fact, the “crisis of conscience” that Humanae Vitae precipitated within the

Church’s hierarchy perceptibly weakened the Pope’s authority and ability to respond to challenges within and outside of the Church.116 In practice, the same “new globalization” that had driven the growth of transnational population control networks exacerbated the crisis engendered by Humanae Vitae.117 Former Papal Birth Control Commission member Father

Bernard Haring observed that “rapid communication” had brought about “radical change…in the world,” and had created “a totally new situation” for Church statements not deemed

112 Cronin et al, “Statement,” 2. 113 Cronin et al, “Statement,” 3. 114 Cronin et al, “Statement,” 3. 115 “Partial Text of Roman Catholic Bishops’ Birth-Control Statement,” The Minneapolis Tribune, (November 16, 1968), 22. CMRX 56/11. 116 Jerome P. Theisen, O.S.B., “The Teaching Authority of the Church and Humane Vitae,” (September 18, 1968), 3, CMRX 56/12. 117 For a discussion of the “new globalization” of the latter half of the twentieth century, see Ian Tyrrell, Transnational Nation: United States History in Global Perspective Since 1789, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), 201-222. Also see John Boli and George M. Thomas (eds), Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), Akira Iriye, Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), and Bruce Mazlish, Nyan Chanda and Kenneth Weisbrode (editors), The Paradox of a Global USA, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 64-80.

“infallible.”118 Debates that had previously unfolded over decades suddenly evolved in “a matter of days or weeks.”119 “No significant theologian can write or express his opinion on an important issue,” Haring concluded, “without its being known almost the same day by anyone in the world with enough curiosity to learn about it.”120 Similarly, the St John’s faculty noted that it was virtually “impossible to keep…discussions from the people” in their present era “of instant communication.”121 In particular, Catholic news networks fuelled worldwide debates that soon plagued the Catholic Church’s “global empire.”122

Humanae Vitae had not only failed to resolve the questions Popes John XXIII and

Paul VI had put to the Birth Control Commission, but had actually “reinvigorated debates”

over “authority in the Church…conscience, and what type of law and teaching” bound

observant Catholics.123 These questions would dominate the papacies of Paul VI and his successors. In the meantime, debates over Humanae Vitae filled “hundreds of inches of space

in…newspapers” as far afield as Australia, where priests and laypeople refused to obey Pope

Paul’s teaching.124 In sum, “eighteen Episcopal conferences, including Ireland, Poland, Spain,

and New Zealand, accepted Humanae Vitae…without qualification.”125 A further ten

“including Austria, Belgium, Canada, and Holland, clearly mitigated the teaching. And nine,

including England, Italy, and the United States, issued statements that seemed uncertain or

118 Haring, “The Encyclical Crisis,” 588. 119 Haring, “The Encyclical Crisis,” 588. 120 Haring, “The Encyclical Crisis,” 588. 121 Theisen, “Teaching Authority,” 4. 122 For example, The Wanderer was a key conservative publication that promulgated Father Marx’s condemnations of contraception, and claimed that “defending Humanae Vitae” was akin to “proclaiming God’s power and sovereignty.” See Cuneo, Smoke of Satan, 40-41, 52-53. Pro-lifers found they could depend on The Wanderer and Our Sunday Visitor, in addition to house publications like the National Right to Life News to portray them in a positive light See USCL, “Special Report,” 1. 123 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Maurice O’Leary,” (September 16, 1968), 1, CMRX 77/37. Also see McGreevey, 245. This argument mirrors Keeley’s contention that the encyclical exposed significant limits to Papal authority, accounting for the Vatican’s curious stasis on matters involving birth and population control after 1968. See Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power,” 235. 124 “Australia: Dissent from the Encyclical,” This Christian Century, (September 18, 1968), 1185, CMRX 56/13. 125 Joseph A. Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae: A Study in Social and Fundamental Theology, (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1979), 31, quoted in McClory, 145.

ambiguous.”126 Less “than half of the world’s bishop conferences” accepted the encyclical without reservation.127 For the first time in history Catholics around the world chose to

“simply ignore” what the Pope said.128 Attitudes toward Humanae Vitae outside of the

Church were even more disparaging.129 Hugh Moore ran advertisements in Time, Fortune,

Harpers, and the New York Times that castigated the Pope for denying the human rights of

people in developing nations by denouncing “birth control as millions starve[d].”130

Effectively crippled by internal conflict, the Pope could not mobilize the Church’s

global network of clergy and laity to take “coordinated action” to enforce Humanae Vitae by

opposing population control programs.131 This reality contrasts markedly with the image of

the Catholic Church as a “global empire” able to influence geopolitics via its transnational

network of churches and missions, which tended to more than “560 million” adherents in

every “major [region] of the world.”132 If the Church remained a global empire after

Humanae Vitae, it was an empire wracked with internal conflict.133 Dissent within the church

meant that those who wished to defend Humanae Vitae, such as Father Marx, had to operate

outside the normal channels in order to by-pass recalcitrant bishops and priests.

With the Church hierarchy in turmoil, voluntary organizations like the Catholic

Marriage Advisory Council (CMAC), whose branches extended across England and Northern

Europe, were forced to mediate between the competing interests of members, clergy and

parishioners. In the midst of the post-encyclical furore, Father Marx sought advice from

126 Selling, 31, quoted in McClory, 145. 127 Selling, 31, quoted in McClory, 145. 128 McLaughlin, 189. 129 “Text of Statement by Catholic Theologians,” (Washington D.C.: July 30, 1968), 2, CMRX 56/13. 130 See Hugh Moore Ad, “Pope Denounces birth control as millions starve,” in Engel, “The AID-Ravenholt Philosophy,” Pro-Life Reporter, Vol. 5, No. 13 (Spring 1977), 14, and “Display Ad 345 -- No Title.” New York Times (1857-Current file), 25 April 1971, BR63. ProQuest Historical Newspapers., Accessed: 12/8/2008. 131 See Keeley, “Limits to Papal Power,” 224; Cuneo, Smoke of Satan, 61-65. 132 See Vallier, 479, 482, 500. 133 Joseph Cardinal Hoeffner of Cologne commented in 1979: “A religious crisis, such as we have today, has never occurred before in human history,” quoted in Father Paul Marx, “The Tenth Anniversary Meeting of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life,” 3, CMRX 51/113.

London CMAC representative Reverend Maurice O’Leary, who had already expressed his personal relief that Paul VI had confirmed “traditional teaching” on contraception, but counselled colleagues to be sensitive to those who had hoped “for different guidance” only to be “left disappointed, hurt and bewildered” by Humane Vitae.134 In response to Father Marx’s appeal, Reverend O’Leary forwarded him the summary of a private CMAC gathering in

September of 1968 at which members had attempted to formulate a unified response to

Humanae Vitae.135

The fifty clergy and lay participants had expressed a wide range of views on the subject, and lively debates culminated in a statement that the CMAC submitted to The Tablet, an English Catholic weekly that had previously published critiques of Humanae Vitae.136 The

CMAC also forward their conclusions to English, Irish and Scottish Bishops, urging clergy and laypeople alike

to foster discussion between the different groups in the Church with a view to resolving the considerable outstanding theological and practical difficulties, and to promoting unity and harmony in the search for the fullness of truth.137 Where possible, “existing structures,” including organizations such as the CMAC, should be

used to facilitate discussions, the report continued, but if these structures “did not exist or

suffice, others would have to be invented.”138 Years of individual networking and activism

convinced Father Marx that the Church could not effectively counter the growing threat

posed by the sexual revolution, which population control programs were exporting to

developing countries. Ancillary voluntary organizations were needed, and he therefore

decided he would form one.

134 Reverend Maurice O’Leary, “Letter to Members of the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council,” (30th July, 1968), 1, CMRX 77/37. 135 Maurice O’Leary, “Humanae Vitae discussion: Spode House, 6th-8th September,” 1, CMRX 77/37. 136 Two bishops, twelve theologians, six parish priests, twelve doctors, eight university lecturers, five marriage counsellors, and two teachers attended. Maurice O’Leary, “Invitation to Conference,” (8th August 1968): 1; O’Leary, “Discussion,” 1-8. 137 O’Leary, “Discussion,” 1. 138 O’Leary, “Discussion,” 8.

Conclusion Humanae Vitae, world population control, & the global pro-family ideology Many years later, Father Marx’s close friend, German Lutheran Dr. Siegfried Ernst,

succinctly captured the essence of global pro-life activists’ objections to contraception. The

crux of the argument was

that contraception and sterilization destroy[ed] the family and so society, and with that the Church and state. Babies indeed are the only future that Church and state have, indeed the only future the married couple has since what is left but your children in old age! And as the Pope says, “When God gives life, he gives it forever.” Therein is the glory of the married and their sexual life and love.139 Father Marx had long since concluded that the pill was directly responsible for the erosion of

family values, and that it paved the way for legalized abortion. In fact, Father Marx was one

of the earliest champions of what he called the “total approach,” meaning that he was

opposed to “contraception, abortifacient pills, IUDs,” and “euthanasia,” because he viewed

abortion as “a symbol of sex run loose.”140 Yet Father Marx differed from, or rather went

beyond his fellow U.S.-based opponents of the “contraceptive mentality” in his global

outlook and determination to apply the “total approach” beyond U.S. borders.141

When asked why he had established his first pro-life group, Father Marx told his

interviewer that he had “learned two lessons” in the late 1960s and early 1970s; the first was

that “abortion” was “one of a whole complex of evils caused by abuse of God’s great gift of

sexuality.”142 But second, and perhaps more importantly, the controversy surrounding

Humanae Vitae had proved to him that one “could not count on most

intellectuals…physicians, or even…churches for leadership.”143 Even Bishops, Father Marx

139 Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary – Colombia,” (24 September, 1991), 4, CMRX 52/10. 140 Marx, quoted in Kurzweil, “Catholics of the Year.” 141 He was joined, however, by many of his international colleagues. See Dr. H.P. Dunn, “Contraception’s unwelcome ‘fall out,’” AD 2000 (February 1991), 8, CMRX 64/9. 142 Marx, “Human Life Center,” 1. 143 Marx, “Human Life Center,” 1.

claimed, could not be relied upon because they had become “cowards…afraid of

publicity.”144 Humanae Vitae showed that the Church had already lost control of individual

Catholic bodies, and as a result the Pope now risked losing power over the Church itself.

Debates over the encyclical not only highlighted divisions between conservative and

progressive Catholics, but widened the breaches between the two. For conservatives such as

Father Marx, “adherence” and loyalty “to the encyclical” assumed enormous “symbolic

importance” as a “badge of religious authenticity” in their rapidly changing world.145 In “an

age of weak” leadership throughout “the Western world” Father Marx said, “[w]e needed a

new kind of organization.”146 Father Marx’s comments echoed the CMAC’s conclusions,

especially when he outlined his ultimate goal: to “bring together laymen and professionals

from all fields and fight back on all fronts.”147 Combined with further domestic pressures in the United States as well as a range of international opportunities generated by the rapid pace of globalization, Father Marx’s goals of establishing ecumenical alliances with “other

Christian and Jewish groups and men and women of good will” to fight the “sexual holocaust” became a reality in the 1970s.148

144 Sweeney, “Long Fight,” 9. 145 Cuneo, Smoke of Satan, 27. 146 Sweeney, “Long Fight,” 9, and Marx, “Human Life Center,” 1. 147 Marx, “Human Life Center,” 1. 148 Father Paul Marx, “From Contraception to abortion,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. LXXXIII, No. 5, (February 1983), 12-13, CMRX 73/23.

Chapter Two

“The Ovaries are not Catholic”: Negotiating local and global “culture wars” in the 1970s

Roe has created two Americas. One America views abortion as a fundamental right. The other America views Roe as a regression to the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that defined Black Americans as property, not people…Pro-abortion politicians have made their choice between God and the guillotine, and they have put its blade over all our necks.1

Twenty years after the Roe v. Wade decision, the United States was still split into

“two Americas,” as the above quote suggests; each side interpreted abortion—both the

procedure and its broader social and cultural significance—in fundamentally different ways.

Although abortion did not lead to civil war, it became one of the cornerstones of a profound

cultural realignment in the 1970s, which saw shared values and worldviews starting to

supersede religious affiliation as the basis of American identity.2 Robert Wuthnow has

described these nascent schisms in U.S. society as a “ravine running through the culturescape

of American religion.”3 But the cultural divisions that emerged in the 1970s and crystallized

over the coming decades are perhaps more accurately characterized as fault lines that

continue to crisscross U.S. society, culture, and politics, regularly erupting with varying

degrees of violence. The patterns that emerged in the 1970s are all the more significant

because they have endured for four decades, and laid the ideological and strategic

foundations for global pro-life organizing. This chapter will provide an overview of the

genesis of this “cultural realignment” in the U.S. during the 1970s before identifying and

analysing the problems and opportunities that propelled Father Marx into a leadership role

within the nascent transnational pro-life community.

1 Terrance J. Hughes, “The Casey decision: God and the Guillotine,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 3, (February 1993), 3. Comparing abortion to slavery was a common conceit within the pro-life community; in 1984, President Ronald Reagan did so in his unprecedented pro-life publication. See Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 19. 2 See Robert Wuthnow, The Struggle for America’s Soul: Evangelicals, Liberals and Secularism, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), and James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 43. 3 Wuthnow, 21. 56

Father Marx “abandon” the U.S. pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade, but the decision did mark a major turning point in his approach.4 With one frontier in the abortion wars seemingly closed, Father Marx began to seek new opportunities beyond U.S. borders.5

Abortion at home and population control abroad became inseparable issues for many leaders

of the pro-life movement.6 The same cultural conflicts over abortion and contraception that

divided Americans were reflected in the emerging realm of transnational civil society in the

1970s. When Father Marx established the Human Life Center (HLC) in Minnesota in 1972,

he was inspired both by the pro-life movement’s failure to prevent the legalization of abortion

in the United States and his desire to prevent the spread of similar legislation in developing

nations.7 He therefore collaborated with international allies to establish pioneer organizations

dedicated to rolling back the global tide of contraception and legalized abortion.8 In so doing,

Father Marx and his allies participated in a broader social, cultural, and political realignment

in the United States, and paved the way for similar developments on the global stage.9

While foreign policy turmoil embroiled successive administrations from Nixon to

Carter, a more complex global cultural realignment with lasting implications for national

identity and transnational activism also developed.10 Although the U.S. pro-life community

displayed a remarkable diversity of opinion on domestic issues, many groups shared a

4 In fact, Father Marx insisted that the U.S. pro-life movement was essential, because the Americans were “imitated widely, both in our good deeds and in the evil we propagate internationally.” The right-to-life movement therefore had to fight on two fronts, because the U.S. government and U.S.-based and funded NGOs were “relentless purveyors of contraception, sterilization and abortion.” Consequently, Father Marx resolved to continue lecturing across the U.S. and supporting domestic pro-life groups, while at concurrently intensifying his international organizing efforts. See Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 1, (October 1981), quoted in Confessions of a Prolife Missionary, (Gaithersburg, Maryland: Human Life International, 1988), 1-2. 5 Father Paul Marx, “Chronicle, c. 1972-1976,” (January 25 1973- August 29, 1973), 2, CMRX 77/17. 6 See Chapter one of this thesis for details. 7 Speaking of the ecumenical appeal of Natural Family Planning, Father Paul Marx once observed that “An Arab doctor once explained “the ovaries are not Catholic.” See Michael Engler, “mothers fathers love babies children families God,” (Minnesota: Human Life Center, no date), 1. 8 Engler, “mothers fathers love babies children families God,” 1. 9 Donald T. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and grassroots conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 267. 10 Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), 171-173.

surprisingly similar global outlook; this is a point that studies of the movement’s most prominent organizations rarely acknowledge. The fact that Father Marx was able to meet and

forge close relationships with international leaders suggests that, even at this early stage,

global pro-life activists were united by a profound sense of alienation generated by the

pressures globalization exerted on diverse communities.

Worldviews at War: U.S. Cultural Realignments in the 1970s

Human fertility had already become a locus of conflict between U.S. progressives and

conservatives in the 1960s, and this trend escalated in the 1970s when feminists marshalled

by the National Organization of Women (NOW) pushed for legal access to abortion as a part

of their campaign for women’s equality. NOW’s 1966 statement of purpose attested to the

complex relationship between domestic and international politics by embracing the emerging

global rights discourse. In it, the organization self-consciously situated women’s equality within “the world-wide revolution of human rights” taking place “within and beyond [their]

national borders.”11 The following year, NOW became the first national organization to call

for the legalization of abortion.12 Thereafter, abortion remained a central component of

NOW’s definition of equal rights, placing the group at the forefront of the burgeoning culture

wars.13 But for many Americans, especially those on the religious and political right, abortion

remained “a symbol” of the most “menacing…ideas about sexual freedom and women’s

liberation from traditional strictures of male-dominated family life.”14 In a very real sense,

abortion was more than a legal issue; it became the symbolic scapegoat for cultural conflicts

over modernity, both within the U.S. and well beyond its borders.

11 NOW, “National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose,” (October 29, 1966), http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html, [Accessed September 13th 2007]. 12 NOW, “Highlights from NOW’s Forty Fearless Years.” 13 NOW, “Highlights from NOW’s Forty Fearless Years.” 14 Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, Abortion and Woman’s Choice: The States, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom, (New York and London: Longman, 1984), vii.

Pro-life groups therefore fought some of the earliest pitched battles of the so-called culture wars in their bid to mould U.S national identity to suit their interests.15 In 1972,

Father Marx was determined to rouse enough grassroots opposition to keep abortion illegal.

To do so, he embarked on a year-long lecture tour across the United States and broadcast his pro-life appeals on 130 radio and television programs from Anchorage to San Francisco.16 He

hoped that his media blitz would help to counter pro-choice activists, even though they had

“enormous amounts of money” at their disposal.17 By October, Father Marx believed that a

“national groundswell” had arisen “against abortion.”18 He told supporters that “in the last

eighteen months fifty-seven bills have been defeated in thirty states,” which forced the “death

peddlers” to go “the route of the courts.”19 Yet on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court

handed down its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion across the United

States. In response, dozens of new pro-life and pro-choice organizations formed after “Black

Monday.”20 Uniting educationally, geographically and religiously diverse Americans, the

origins and ideologies of these groups signalled the beginnings of a social, cultural and

political realignment within the United States.

15 Davison Hunter, 43, 50. One need look no further than 2008 Presidential hopeful John McCain’s selection of social and moral conservative Sarah Palin as his running mate for evidence of their continued salience in U.S. society. 16 See Father Paul Marx, “Chronicle, c. 1972-1976,” (22 Feb. 1972-Nov. 27, 1972): 1-2, CMRX 77/17; This determination to counter what he saw as an antagonistic, liberal media had much in common with FFL’s reasoning for founding Sisterlife. See Wuthnow, 53, for further commentary on the role of conservative media networks in fostering the pro-life movement. Television’s power to shape Catholic opinion is explored in depth in Christopher Owen Lynch’s Selling Catholicism: Bishop Sheen and the Power of Television, (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1998). 17 Marx, “Chronicle, c. 1972-1976,” (22 Feb. 1972-Nov. 27, 1972), 1-2, CMRX 77/17. 18 Marx, “Chronicle,” (Oct 26, 1972), 1. 19 Marx, “Chronicle,” (Oct 26, 1972), 1. 20 Father Paul Marx, “What About the Human Life Center?” (no date): 2, CMRX 53/13. Robert Wuthnow references estimates suggesting that by the mid-1980s “more than 800 religious special purpose groups had been organized as nonprofit organizations,” more than half of which had appeared since the early 1960s. Wuthnow, 53.

It is hardly surprising that opponents of abortion interpreted the Roe decision as a

crushing defeat.21 Conservative women’s organizations, including Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle

Forum and Beverley La Haye’s Concerned Women for America (CWA), established in 1972

and 1979 respectively, sought to counter the verdict by championing a return to traditional

gender roles and family values.22 Moreover, NOW’s emphasis on the relationship between

abortion and women’s rights even incited dissent within its own ranks. Ohio NOW members

Patricia Goltz and Catherine Callahan, both of whom committed feminists, found themselves

in an untenable position, caught between their belief in equal rights and opposition to

abortion.23 Goltz and Callahan argued that NOW’s “single-minded focus…on abortion” was

“diametrically opposed” to the organization’s promise to champion the “rights of the weak

and socially dispossessed.”24 Abortion not only abrogated unborn children’s rights, but

actually perpetuated sexism in Goltz’s view. Far from advancing the feminist agenda, it

posed a “most insidious threat to women’s equality.”25 Consequently, Goltz and Callahan

founded Feminists for Life (FFL) as an alternative forum for feminists who shared their

views on April 9, 1973.26

Over the next twelve months, Goltz’s vocal public critiques of NOW’s pro-choice

platform drew her into inexorable conflict with her chapter’s leadership. After several failed

attempts to silence Goltz, the President of NOW’s Columbus chapter scheduled a formal

hearing to review her membership. Disappointed that she had been “ostracized…for speaking

21See Laurence H. Tribe, Abortion: the Clash of Absolutes, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992), 141, 143. 22Recent scholarship has begun to explore the ideologies and goals of the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America. See Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, and Ronnee Schreiber, Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 39. 23 Cindy Osborne, “FFLA Description,” (no date): 1, Feminists for Life Records (hereafter FFLA) Box 1, Folder 1. 24 Osborne, “FFLA Description,” 1, and Feminists for Life of America, “A Brief History of Feminists for Life,” (no date): 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 1. 25 Patricia Goltz, “Statement before the Columbus Chapter, National Organization for Women,” (December 18, 1974), 7, FFLA, Box 1, Folder 3 26 Osborne, “FFLA Description,” 1.

in favour of life,” Pat Goltz questioned the strength of NOW’s commitment to the

“destruction of stereotypes.”27 To her mind, the organization should make room for differing

viewpoints on such an important issue. In a series of interviews with local media, Goltz

accused NOW of trying to curtail her freedom of speech by stipulating that she not speak

publicly about abortion and maintained that she would defend her beliefs no matter what the

organization decided. But her protests fell on deaf ears and her membership was terminated

in December of 1974.28 From these acrimonious beginnings FFL expanded across the United

States, amassing an “estimated 5000 members” in 42 states by 1975.29

FFL was both modelled on NOW and shared most of its aspirations and values.

Members were encouraged to engage in “consciousness raising” activities, and FFL’s agenda

included “eliminating sexual stereotyping in the mass media…promot[ing] equal opportunity

and equal protection of the law, regardless of sex,” and supporting “a strong, flexible family

unit.”30 In spite of rejecting NOW’s pro-choice ethos, FFL deliberately appropriated the

organization’s rhetoric, explaining that “abortion merely accommodate[d] the underlying

social and economic inequities” it was meant to solve.31 Elizabeth Moore and Daphne De

Jong linked the rising abortion rate to the “sexism” that pervaded society, which served “male

convenience and profit” more than women’s interests.32 If feminists were serious about

equality, women and men needed to “re-examine…basic assumptions about men and

women…child-care and employment…families and society and design new and more

27 Liz O’Connor, “Feminists for Life,” (September 1974), FFLA Box 1, Folder 3. 28 Osborne, “FFLA Description,” 1. Also see Erica Scurr, President Columbus NOW, “Letter to Pat Goltz,” (November 25, 1974), 1 and Liz O’Connor, “Hearing on expulsion from NOW of pro-life feminist,” (December 5, 1974), both in FFLA Box 1, Folder 3. 29 “Pat Goltz – Pro-Life Feminist,” OSV, (18th May, 1975), 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 3. 30 Paulette Joyer, “Letter to Vicky Whipple,” (January 27, 1984), 1-2, FFLA, Box 1, Folder 25; “Goltz – Pro- Life Feminist,” 1. 31 Feminists for Life of America, “Pro-life Feminism,” (1980), 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 2. 32 Elizabeth Moore, “Playboy and NARAL Host Fundraiser,” in Pro-Life Feminism, (Milwaukee, WI: 1980),1, and Daphne De Jong, “The Feminist Sell-Out,” Pro-Life Feminism, (Milwaukee, WI: Feminists for Life, 1980), 4, both in FFLA Box 1, Folder 2.

flexible modes for living.”33 In this way, FFL characterized women who had abortions as

victims of society’s sexism and thereby sought to undermine NOW’s claims that reproductive

freedom would advance women’s fight for equal rights.

Since FFL focused on reassessing women’s roles in society, the group differed

markedly from the Eagle Forum and CWA.34 FFL marketed itself as an “inclusive

organization”; its acceptance of many central tenets of feminism meant that it was, at least at

first, a lone voice uniting women’s rights and the rights of the unborn in an increasingly

polarized political atmosphere. But FFL members also shared the contentious belief held by

pro-life groups that life began “at conception.”35 In an article published in the Catholic

periodical Commonweal, FFL member Mary Meehan noted that scientists and doctors had

demonstrated the “rapid development of the embryo and fetus” from the “detectable heart

beat between four and five weeks” through “making faces by 10 weeks.”36 “Can one say,”

she then asked, “that the fetus is not human…is not alive?”37 FFL’s attempt to oppose

abortion rationally so as to attract a wider support base distinguished the group from other

prominent pro-life organizations that relied almost exclusively on moral or religious

arguments.38 FFL members were also ideologically distinct from the mainstream right-to-life

movement, and instead aligned with a small minority of pro-lifers on the political Left, such

as Jesse Jackson, Dick Gregory, as well as pacifists who merged anti-nuclear and pro-life

principles in what became known as a “seamless garment” approach.39

By the end of the 1970s, FFL publicly supported two proposed constitutional

amendments that they hoped would further their “consistent pro-woman, pro-life

33 De Jong, “The Feminist Sell-Out,” 5. 34 Schreiber, 50. 35 Catherine Callahan quoted in Osborne, “FFLA Description,” 4. 36 Mary Meehan, “The other right-to-lifers,” Commonweal, (18 January 1980), 13-14, FFLA, Box 1, Folder 26. 37 Meehan, “The other right-to-lifers,” 13-14. 38 Meehan, “The other right-to-lifers,” 14. 39 Mary Meehan, “Will Somebody Please Be Consistent,” Sojourners, (November 1980), 14, FFLA Box 1, Folder 26; Gordon Zahn, “Choosing Life,” Sojourners, (November 1980), 20, FFLA Box 1, Folder 26.

philosophy”: the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the Human Life Amendment (HLA).40

The first ERA, which would have guaranteed women’s equality before the law, had been

unsuccessfully introduced to Congress in 1924.41 Between 1967 and 1968 alone, over 140

equally unsuccessful ERA bills had been submitted to Congress.42 In 1972, however,

Congress passed an ERA and sent it to the fifty states for ratification, which set the stage for

a decade-long battle between its supporters and opponents.43 While NOW endorsed the ERA,

the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) opposed the amendment because “it would

almost certainly write into the Constitution the mother’s alleged right to kill her unborn

child.”44 FFL disagreed, arguing that the ERA was “not only pro-woman,” but “pro-life.”45

Meanwhile, after 1973 several incarnations of the Human Life Amendment were introduced

to Congress, all designed to reverse Roe v. Wade by outlawing abortion or enshrining the

right-to-life of the foetus in the Constitution.46

FFL’s legislative focus not only represented the strategies employed by the early U.S.

pro-life movement but was also “partly tactical,” according to Daphne De Jong, who thought

that it was “much easier to fight a statute than to overcome social attitudes.”47 Just as

suffragettes had become “cohesive and powerful” by focusing on the right to vote, and NOW

had “gained momentum” by focusing on abortion rights, FFL hoped to rally members behind

the ERA and HLA.48 Though the two amendments were supported by vastly different

demographics, FFL represented a small minority determined to link them. At Senate

40 Paulette Joyer, “January Thoughts on Extremism,” Pro-Life Feminism, (Milwaukee, WI: FFLA, 1980), 7, FFLA Box 1, Folder 2. Also see Meehan, “Will Somebody Please Be Consistent,” 14. 41 “Resolutions of the National Right to Life,” in National Right to Life Convention Program ‘79, (June 14-24, 1979), 27, FFLA Box 1, Folder 12; Deborah Rowland, The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Women’s Rights in America, (Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing, 2004), 581. 42 “Resolutions of the National Right to Life,” 27; Rowland, 581. 43 Rowland, 581. 44 “Resolutions of the National Right to Life,” 27. 45 Mary Bea Stout, “Press Release: Feminists for Life Reaffirm Support of ERA,” (June 19, 1981), 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 13. 46 See “Anti-Abortion Bill Voted, 4-0,” The New York Times, (December 17, 1981), B16, and FFL, “Feminists for Life of America Endorse Hatch Human Life Amendment,” (no date): 1, FFLA Box 3, Folder 8. 47 De Jong, “The Feminist Sell-Out,” Pro-Life Feminism, 6. 48 De Jong, “The Feminist Sell-Out,” 6.

Subcommittee hearings on the HLA in 1974, for example, FFL’s then-President Pat Goltz

endeavoured to convince politicians that abortion not only took a human life, but was

“woman abuse.”49 FFL often described the two amendments as “complementary,” and

claimed that the HLA would actually further the cause of women’s equality and “genuine

reproductive freedom” by compelling men and women to accept joint responsibility for

fertility control and to share “equally the responsibility for child nurturing and rearing.”50

In pursuit of these goals, FFL operated in a decentralized manner reminiscent of the

protest movements that had politicized many of its members in the 1960s, and which allowed

local groups to take innovative approaches adapted to local conditions.51 Denied a voice in

mainstream feminist and conservative pro-life publications alike, FFL also launched its own

newsletter in 1974.52 Sisterlife, which was distributed across FFL’s domestic and

international network, allowed branches to maintain contact with one another, attempted to

influence “public opinion,” and aimed to “reach…potential participants and policymakers.”53

Because FFL operated as a loose federation, the group was able to deploy its small

membership and limited resources in ways that got “a lot of publicity.”54 Tactics varied by

region, from addressing public forums to submitting testimony to State legislatures in support

of the HLI and ERA. On the eve of the 1980 election, one such engagement highlights the

attempts by pro-life constituents to reclaim the Democratic Party.55

49 O’Connor, “Feminists for Life,” (September 5, 1974). 50 Paulette Joyer, “Testimony on Behalf of Feminists for Life of America, Inc., at the Senate Judicial Subcommittee on the Constitution,” (December 16, 1981), 1-2, FFLA Box 1, Folder 20. 51 O’Connor, “Hearing on expulsion from NOW of pro-life feminist,” (December 5, 1974), FFLA Box 1, Folder 3 Joyer, “Letter to Vicky Whipple,” (January 27, 1984), 1-2. 52 Feminists for Life, Sisterlife, (January 1974), 1, FFLA Box 2, Folder 3. 53 Schreiber, 44-45. 54 O’Connor, “Hearing on expulsion from NOW of pro-life feminist,” (December 5, 1974). 55 Since Ronald Reagan assumed the mantle of ‘pro-life champion’ during his 1984 presidential election campaign, scholarship has tended to emphasize the relationship between the Christian Right – particularly pro- life leaders - and the Republican Party. But their alliance was certainly not inevitable, and has been quite strained at times. For an example of this sort of scholarship, see Connie Paige, The Right-to-Lifers: who they are, how they operate, where they get their money, (New York: Summit Books, 1983). Also see Chapter three of this thesis for information on tensions between leading pro-life figures and the GOP.

Democrats for Life, a group dedicated to persuading the Democratic Party to endorse

the pro-life cause, co-sponsored FFL member Mary Meehan’s testimony before the Platform

Committee of the Democratic National Convention in 1980.56 Meehan argued that

“combining the Equal Rights Amendment and the Human Life Amendment [was] in harmony

with the best traditions of the Democratic Party,” and that “far from solving social problems,

abortions [were] creating many new ones.”57 Any hopes that the Democrats would heed pro-

lifers’ calls were dashed at the June 24 Convention, however. Democrat for Life John

Doyle’s proposal that the party be neutral on abortion at the national level to allow

Congressmen and Senators to “work out” the issue with their constituents was defeated by a

90 to 22 vote.58 Some FFL members subsequently referred despairingly to the “psychological

strain” of finding themselves “allied with a pro-life movement notoriously conservative.”59

Faced with choosing between Jimmy Carter, who espoused a “personally opposed but…”

stance, and unapologetically conservative Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan, who had promised to

endorse a HLA but opposed the ERA, left FFL supporters in a quandary.60 One Feminist for

Life spoke for many members when she admitted that she “felt sick…and scared.”61 Mary

O’Brien’s comments allude to a broader political realignment that was occurring in U.S.

political culture at the end of the 1970s: the GOP was becoming the party of disaffected

moral, as well as fiscal conservatives.

56 Mary Meehan, “Statement Submitted to the Platform Committee of the Democratic National Convention,” (June 13, 1980), 4-5, and Mary Meehan, “Letter to Sharon Richardson re: DNC testimony,” (May 5, 1980), 1, both in FFLA Box 1, Folder 9. 57 Meehan, “Statement Submitted to the Platform Committee of the Democratic National Convention,” 4-5. 58 See “Efforts to Change Democratic Party’s Abortion Plank Fail,” St Louis Review, (July 11, 1980), 5, FFLA Box 1, Folder 9. 59Zahn, “Choosing Life,” 21. 60 Mary O’Brien, “Meeting in the Radical Middle,” Sojourners, (November 1980), 22, FFLA Box 1, Folder 26. 61 O’Brien, “Meeting in the Radical Middle,” 22.

Despite some differences, FFL advocated many of the traditional values championed

by Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and the CWA.62 As one FFL member asserted, the “right-

to-life movement cuts across ideologic [sic] lines…[of] religious, age, race, political

preference, [and] economic status.”63 FFL’s 1974 Board of Directors, which was composed

of a “Lutheran…Methodist...pagan, agnostic and a humanist,” clearly demonstrated that

“denominational ghettos” were being superseded by “interfaith cooperation” among

opponents of abortion across the United States.64 Although Phyllis Schlafly claimed that her

STOP ERA campaign introduced “something entirely new in American politics” by forging

“a coalition of Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews,” FFL’s similar

composition suggests that the Eagle Forum was actually participating in a broader social,

cultural, and political realignment that would soon come to be reflected in transnational

networks.65 In the words of one Feminist for Life, straddling the fence between the pro-life

and feminist camps and conservative and progressive politics made FFL members “outsiders

in the two major movements” they “regularly frequent[ed].”66

But even though they felt like outsiders in the United States, FFL’s message clearly

resonated abroad: just two years after its formation, FFL branches operated in eight nations

including Canada, Mexico and England, and the organization had additional contacts in New

Zealand and Australia.67 Irrespective of their locale, FFL branches aimed to protect the lives

of women and unborn children by changing “the conditions which forc[ed] women into

62 Feminists for Life, “Feminists for Life: Creating, Growing, Encouraging Women, Loving Life,” (Milwaukee, WI: no date): 1-2, FFLA Box 1, Folder 1. 63 Joyer, “Letter to Vicky Whipple,” 2. 64 O’Connor, “Hearing on expulsion from NOW of pro-life feminist,” (December 5, 1974); Wuthnow, 32, 63. 65 Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and grassroots conservatism, 267. 66 Joyer, “January Thoughts on Extremism,” 7. 67 Osborne, “FFLA Description,” 1; O’Connor, “Hearing on expulsion from NOW of pro-life feminist,” (December 5, 1974); Pat Goltz, “Letter to the Official Associated Press Almanac,” (1974), 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 1.

abortion.”68 A 1974 Sisterlife article demonstrated FFL’s increasingly global outlook when it

reported that population control had become a “political issue” in South Africa, because that

nation’s “white government” was distributing “pills free to all black girls.”69 Five years later,

FFL went further, claiming that population control posed a “very grave threat” to women’s

personal liberties in the developing world.70 FFL journalist Judy Shea even stated that the

contraceptive methods promoted in developing countries were “gynocidal.”71 In many ways,

Shea’s critique foreshadowed exposes of the inherent sexism of population control programs

published by mainstream feminists in the 1980s.72 The organization’s explicitly global

outlook also provides the clearest evidence that FFL remained in step with many of its more

conservative pro-life contemporaries. “We proclaim that we are homemakers,” read one

resolution from the group’s 1978 caucus, “that the world is our home and we make it –

loving, nurturing, gentle and pro-life.”73

Pro-choice groups also participated in the aforementioned cultural realignment. In

1973, the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR) formed to defend legalized

abortion from pro-life challenges.74 RCAR showcased the “pragmatic alliances” which

formed “across faith traditions…at the heart” of the burgeoning culture wars of the 1970s by

68 Judy Shea, “Authentic Reproductive Freedom: Presentation at Abortion Symposium, St. Olaf’s College,” (March 17, 1979), 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 2. 69 Austrian Pastor Walter Trobisch, quoted in Feminists for Life, “A Can of Worms,” Sisterlife, (January 1974): 1, FFLA Box 2, Folder 3. 70 Shea, “Authentic Reproductive Freedom,” 1-2. 71 Shea, “Authentic Reproductive Freedom,” 2. 72 Judy Shea notes that historian Linda Gordon criticized feminists for working with Planned Parenthood and Zero Population Growth in Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right in “Authentic Reproductive Freedom,” 2. For examples of mainstream feminist’s criticisms of population control, see Hartmaan, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, Johanna Schoen, Choice and Coercion: Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public Health and Welfare, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005), 232-238, Jael Silliman and Ynestra King (editors), Dangerous Intersections: Feminist Perspective on Population Environment, and Development, (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1999), Paige Whaley Eager, Global Population Policy: From Population Control to Reproductive Rights, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 85-87 73 Feminists for Life, “Feminists for Life,” 1-2. 74 Davision Hunter, Culture Wars, 47.

67 uniting thirty-one groups representing “13 Christian, Jewish and other denominations.”75

Controversially, one of RCAR’s member organizations, Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), asserted that even if Catholics objected to abortion on moral grounds, they should accept its legality.76 CFFC’s statement directly contradicted decades of Papal teaching, but the group nevertheless claimed that Catholics had “a responsibility to respect the views of other faith groups.”77 The RCAR eventually became a focal point for pro-life groups, drawn together by arguments advanced by the Coalition’s member organizations as well as their shared opposition to Roe v. Wade.

Evolving strategies: John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe and pro-life direct action protests

John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s pro-life ‘awakening’ had a great deal common with the conversion narratives of numerous Feminists for Life: like Pam Cira, FFL’s President between 1978 and 1983, Cavanaugh-O’Keefe came to the pro-life cause via the anti-war movement of the 1960s.78 Born to devout Roman Catholic, liberal Democrat parents,

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s formative years convinced him that progressive politics were compatible with his faith in God.79 But shortly before Cavanaugh-O’Keefe was due to enter

Harvard, his older brother, a Special Forces medic serving in Vietnam, was killed in the Tet

75 Davison Hunter, Culture Wars, 47, and Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, “what is the rcar?” (no date), John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe Papers, Box 7, Folder 9 (hereafter JCOK). The Coalition argued that abortion was not a matter of “public morality,” and as such did not require “society’s general consensus” or government enforcement. Consequently, the RCAR claimed that it was defending religious and individual freedom of choice by opposing the Human Life Amendment. At the same time, though, the Coalition’s emphasis on “private morality” did not prevent its constituents from asserting that “abortion rights” had to be enshrined in law. See Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, “Religious Freedom and the Abortion Controversy,” (no date), JCOK, Box 7, Folder 9. Also see Wuthnow, 44-45. 76 CFFC, “Catholics for a Free Choice,” (no date): 2, Wisconsin State Historical Society, Pamphlet, Call #91 3309. See Meehan, “The Other Right to Lifers,” 13 for example of biological rationale for opposing abortion. 77 CFFC, “Catholics for a Free Choice,” 2; Meehan, “The Other Right to Lifers,” 13. 78 For examples of these sorts of “conversion narratives,” see Sharon Richardson, “FFLA Officers,” (1991), 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 5, Lois Blinkhorn, “Some Feminists Fight Abortion,” The Milwaukee Journal, (Thursday September 16, 1982), 4, FFLA Box 1, Folder 26, and Juli Loesch Wiley, “Autobiographical Outline: Juli Loesch Wiley,” (no date): 1, Juli Loesch Wiley Papers, Box 1, Folder 2 (hereafter JLW). 79 Paul Galloway, “Anti-Abortion Crusader Follows lead of King and Ghandi,” Chicago Tribune: Tempo (Wednesday, August 20, 1986), 7, JCOK Box 2, Folder 1.

Offensive.80 The experience prompted Cavanaugh-O’Keefe to become a committed pacifist

and re-dedicate himself to Christianity.81 As a conscientious objector, Cavanaugh-O’Keefe

elected to work as an orderly at a mental institution in lieu of military service for nine years.82

During this time, a chance conversation with a female colleague changed his views on

abortion. For over an hour, the woman repeatedly justified her recent decision to terminate an

unwanted pregnancy. “She protested too much,” Cavanaugh-O’Keefe remembered, and this

led him to conclude that his friend “was a mother grieving because her child was dead.”83

“She was unable to deal with it,” he realized, “because she was denying that anything was

wrong.”84

From this moment onward, the “monstrous evils” of warfare and abortion became

inseparable to Cavanaugh-O’Keefe.85 Over time, he also shed his liberal-Democratic aversion

to pro-lifers, though he at first believed the stereotype that they “care[d]…about children and

not…women.”86 Eventually Cavanaugh-O’Keefe reconciled his politics with his stance on

abortion by claiming that the pro-life cause was actually closely linked to a range of leftist

concerns such as “peace, feminism…free speech and…press, capital punishment, racism and

non-violence.”87 Perhaps most importantly, Cavanaugh-O’Keefe characterized abortion as “a

family crisis” that required immediate, personal, local action.88 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s

formulation represented one of the earliest examples of pro-life activists inverting a well-

80 Galloway, “Anti-Abortion Crusader,” 7. 81 Galloway, “Anti-Abortion Crusader,” 7. Cavanaugh-O’Keefe was particularly enthralled by the teachings of Thomas Merton, a Trappist Monk whose writings suggested that nonviolence should work to transform “the present state of the world,” influencing O’Keefe’s belief that embracing non-violent action would allow pro- lifers to make a substantive difference from the grassroots up. See The Catholic Peace Fellowship, “Civil Disobedience: A Catalyst for Disarmament,” Peace Education Supplement, No. 5, JCOK Box 2, Folder 3. 82 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Curriculum Vitae,” (1981), 1-2, JCOK, Box 1, Folder 1. 83 Galloway, “Anti-Abortion Crusader,” 7. 84 Galloway, “Anti-Abortion Crusader,” 7. 85 Galloway, “Anti-Abortion Crusader,” 7. 86 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “No Cheap Solutions,” (Gaithersburg, MD: Pro-life Nonviolent Action Project, 1984), 20. 87 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “As Pogo Said: It Is Us – Prolifers revisited,” (1983), 1, JCOK, Box 4, Folder 1. 88 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Why Has the Pro-Life Movement Failed to Stop Abortion?” (April 17, 1986), 4- 5, 8, 10, 12-13, JCOK Box 2, Folder 6; John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Failure and Success in the Pro-Life Movement,” (no date), 1, JCOK, Box 2, Folder 4.

known women’s rights slogan: instead of the personal being political, pro-lifers sought to

personalize politics.

After he graduated from Harvard in 1976, John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe founded the Pro-

Life Nonviolent Action Project (PNAP) to put his convictions into action.89 From 1979

onward, PNAP collaborated with fellow left-wing pro-lifers FFL and Pro-Lifers for Survival

(PS).90 PNAP’s tactics in particular differed markedly from most of its contemporaries, which

focused on political lobbying and legislative reform. While Cavanaugh-O’Keefe agreed that

the movement’s ultimate goal should be to outlaw abortion, he argued that pro-lifers should

also disrupt the operations of abortion clinics in the hope of saving lives.91 Between 1976 and

1980 the Project maintained a vocal nationwide presence and encouraged sit-ins at abortion

clinics and hospitals that performed terminations.92 PNAP’s protests were the earliest

rumblings of pro-life frustrations, which would erupt into mass demonstrations and

increasingly violent incidents nearly twenty years later.

In the meantime, polarization over the abortion issue within the United States had

“reach[ed] the spiritual equivalent of a civil war.”93 Determined to “save lives,” a growing

number of pro-life leaders found themselves crossing well-established sectarian boundaries.94

Further attesting to the ongoing cultural realignment occurring in the United States during the

89 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Curriculum Vitae,” 1; Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “No Cheap Solutions,” 20-21; O’Keefe dates his involvement with the pro-life movement to a sit-in in Maryland in 1975. See John Cavanaugh- O’Keefe, “Dear Friends letter,” (no date), 1, JCOK, Box 7, Folder 12. That O’Keefe graduated from Harvard before embarking on a full time pro-life activist career again challenges claims that an education gap existed between conservatives and liberals in the United States. See Wuthnow, 34-35. 90 See Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Curriculum Vitae,” 1; Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “No Cheap Solutions,” 20-21. For examples of O’Keefe’s contributions to FFL’s newsletters, see Sisterlife, (March 1981), 1-2, FFLA Box 2, Folder 3. PNAP’s predominantly Catholic members emulated the nonviolent direct action tactics used by African American civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s to try to prevent abortions on a local, grass roots level. John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Pro-Life Nonviolent Action Project National Coordinators,” (8 July 1978), 2, JCOK, Box 4, Folder 12. 91 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Why Has the Pro-Life Movement Failed to Stop Abortion?” 92 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “What is the Prolife Nonviolent Action Project?” Alektor, Vol. 1, No. 1 (May 1982), 3, JCOK, Box 7, Folder 12. 93 Feminists for Life of America, Sisterlife, (March 1981), 1-2, FFLA Box 2, Folder 3. 94 Feminists for Life of America, Sisterlife, (March 1981), 1-2, FFLA Box 2, Folder 3.

1970s, Cavanaugh-O’Keefe adopted FFL’s openness toward ecumenical cooperation.95 In a letter to PNAP’s leaders he wrote, “anyone who believes that children are in danger of death are brothers and sisters of ours.”96 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe eventually concluded that the domestic evils of abortion and adverse international consequences of world population control programs were twin aspects of a global “holocaust.”97 Not long after making this connection, he joined Father Paul Marx’s growing global pro-life mission.

Cultural realignments and global overtures The diversity within the U.S. pro-life movement was apparent at the National Right to

Life Committee’s 1979 Convention, which featured a wide range of panellists covering the full ideological spectrum, from prominent politicians to arch-conservative grassroots leader

Phyllis Schlafly and FFL’s left-wing President Pam Cira.98 The Convention also showcased the increasingly transnational outlook of pro life leaders: several international activists attended the conference, and Father Paul Marx sat on several panels focusing on the global implications of abortion and population control.99 The global cast of the panel discussions demonstrated that pro-life leaders were already contemplating a “third way” of achieving

95 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Jeanne,” (5 September 1978): 2, JCOK, Box 4, Folder 2. 96 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Jeanne,” 2. On an individual level, John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s work reflected this impulse. In addition to his own activism and involvement with FFL, he also edited Pro-Lifers for Survival’s (PS) newsletter. Cavanaugh-O’Keefe even maintained his close ties to FFL and PS after the NRLC hired him as assistant editor for its’ flagship publication, the Right to Life News. Juli Loesch had formed PS in 1979 to “[build] bridges between the peace and pro-life movements.” See PS, “News Release: Peace Movement Goes Pro-Life,” (no date), 1, JLW, Box 1, Folder 7, and Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “CV,” (1981), 1. Although PS remained on the margins of the pro-life movement, its efforts to promote dialogue between pro-life factions are notable. The groups’ 1982 conference attracted Islamic, Methodist, pacifist and Catholic activists, proving that the meeting’s “Truth is Stronger than Faction” slogan really did reflect a nascent ecumenical impulse within the pro-life movement. See Juli Loesch, “Conference” Truth is Stronger than Faction,” P.S., Vol. III, No. 5, (August-October 1982): back page, JLW, Box 7, Folder 12. Also see Steve Levicoff, Building Bridges: The Prolife Movement and the Peace Movement, (Eagleville, PA: Toviah Press, 1982). PS foreshadowed the formation of similar ecumenical alliances at local and global levels; transnational pro-family NGOs that formed in the 1990s, for example, became a potent force in UN forums on a wide range of issues. See Jennifer S. Butler, Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized, (London: Pluto Press, 2006), and Dori Buss and Didi Herman, Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). 97 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Abortion in Montgomery County,” (no date), 1, JCOK Papers, Box 6, Folder 2. 98 See National Right to Life Committee, “Convention ’79 Inc: All Life is a Bridge to Tomorrow,” (June 14-24, 1979), FFLA Box 1, Folder 12. The program also showed that the NRLC convention hosted annual meetings by several smaller organizations, including FFL, the American branch of Doctors Who Respect Life, Democrats for Life and Lawyers for Life. 99 See National Right to Life Committee, “Convention ’79 Inc: All Life is a Bridge to Tomorrow.”

their goals beyond legislative and direct action, namely transnational organizing. As the

1970s drew to a close, lines between culturally orthodox and progressive pro-lifers had

sufficiently blurred to allow civil exchange and attempted cooperation. Although divisions

would calcify to the point where conflict within the movement paralleled debates with

opponents throughout the 1980s, yet another groundbreaking meeting in 1979 suggested that,

if only for a brief moment, even boundaries between pro-life and pro-choice activists might

be sufficiently fluid to permit some collaboration.

NOW’s national President Ellie Smeal invited forty pro-life and pro-choice groups to

send representatives to a 1979 meeting in the hope that avowed enemies might find some

common ground.100 The historic gathering officially purported to discuss ways of “reducing

the number of unwanted pregnancies,” but the unlikely gathering represented far more than

that to participants.101 By entreating leaders to “begin a dialogue” to “end the polarization and

violence” surrounding “the abortion issue,” Smeal implicitly acknowledged the symbolic

potential of the roundtable she had proposed.102 Representatives of eight pro-life and twenty

pro-choice organizations accepted her invitation, and at first seemed to make some headway.

Harvard educated medical doctor Mildred Jefferson, for example, lectured pro-choice

activists on the “abortifacient” character of the contraceptive pill, while the National

Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and Life Amendment Political Action Committee

(LAPAC) agreed “that the focus of sex education should be on the parents.”103 Some pro-life

groups had cooperated with pro-choice feminists in the past, but bringing together activists

not known for their willingness to compromise, such as Smeal and Jefferson “or LAPAC and

100 Eleanor Smeal, “Text of Telegram Sent to Anti-Choice and Pro-Choice Organizations,” (January 22, 1979), 1, FFLA Box 1, Folder 10. 101 Pat Nixon, “U.S. Pro-Lifers Meet Pro Abortionists But Dead Baby Crashes Historic Meeting,” The Uncertified Human, Vol. 7, No. 1, (June 1979), 3, JCOK, Box 7, Folder 10. 102 See “Pro-Choice & Pro-Life Organizations Invited to Attend February 15th Meeting,” (1979), 1-2, FFLA Box 1, Folder 10, and Smeal, “Text of Telegram,” 1. 103 Nixon, “U.S. Pro-Lifers Meet Pro Abortionists,” 5.

NARAL” was, according to one pro-life participant, “miracle enough to astound the sceptics.”104

Devoid of the usual acrimony characteristic of interactions between pro-life and pro- choice groups, the meeting closed with leaders of both factions resolving to “support more scientific research on fertility, so that methods of birth control morally acceptable to all religions could be improved and popularized.”105 The coverage the meeting received outside of the United States demonstrated that the leadership of the international pro-life movement was by and large American. Activists in Canada, for example, questioned whether they too should cooperate with their adversaries, and if so on what terms.106 A constructive ongoing dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice factions seemed certain to follow before a small splinter group called PEACE (People Expressing a Concern for Everyone) compromised the tenuous armistice by parading two “aborted” foetuses wrapped in blankets through the joint

press conference held after the meeting.107 PEACE’s protest undermined five hours of careful

negotiation, and the subsequent rupture between the pro-life and pro-choice groups

highlighted irreconcilable differences between the two factions.108

Juxtaposed against one another, these two 1979 meetings illustrate both the depth of

division between pro-life and pro-choice activists despite their best efforts to foster dialogue,

and one possible alternative to domestic détente. As the cultural fissures between U.S. pro-

life and pro-choice factions widened, some leaders including Father Marx sought out mutual

support and new opportunities to press their agendas in the transnational arena.

Global pro-life organizations in the 1970s

104 Nixon, “U.S. Pro-Lifers Meet Pro Abortionists” 4-6. 105 Nixon, “U.S. Pro-Lifers Meet Pro Abortionists,” 4-5. 106 See “Editor’s Note,” The Uncertified Human, Vol. 7, No. 1, (Toronto: June 1979), 7, JCOK, Box 7, Folder 10. 107 Nixon, “U.S. Pro-Lifers Meet Pro Abortionists,” 6. 108 See “Birth Control Parley Shaken as Protestors Display Two Fetuses,” Special to The New York Times, (February 16, 1979): B7. Proquest Historical Newspapers: Accessed 8/10/2008.

As FFL’s Mary Meehan, amongst others, had discovered, the U.S. government had

proven largely unresponsive to pro-life appeals in the 1970s. With few exceptions, both

legalized abortion and population control programs enjoyed a high level of bipartisan

support, so much so that the United States had become the single largest donor to population

providers worldwide. Before he cast his vote in the Roe v. Wade case, Supreme Court Justice

Potter Stewart had reportedly concluded that abortion could be “one reasonable solution to

population control.”109 By the 1970s, the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) was supplying 85 percent of the income of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).110 Since the U.S. government was not about to cut funding appropriations for world population control initiatives, Father Marx pioneered a global approach to the pro-life cause. He began by encouraging activism in countries where abortion remained illegal; for example, in the summer of 1973, Father Marx visited Canada and “every country” in South America to promote the pro-life cause.111

Father Marx’s earliest global networking efforts relied heavily on well-worn Catholic missionary trails, but in 1974 his four-month “round-the-world pro-life lecture tour” aimed to educate audiences in Japan, Turkey, Iran, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong

Kong and a number of European countries of the dangers of contraception and abortion irrespective of their religious affiliation.112 With Father Marx’s encouragement, fellow

109 See Bob Packwood and Scott Armstrong, quoted in Newsweek, (September 14, 1987), in Julian L. Simon, “Population Growth is not bad for humanity,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 6, (November/December 1993), 1. 110 Stanley P. Johnson, World Population and the United Nations: Challenge and Response, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987): xxiv; Between 1965 and 1984, the United States provided $1.3 billion to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities through the United States Agency for International Development; The United Nations, “1979-1983 Report,” and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, “1980 Report,” (New York), both quoted in Peter R. Huessy, “The United Nations’ Flawed Population Policy,” Backgrounder, (The Heritage Foundation, August 27, 1984): 3-4, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (hereafter Reagan Presidential Library), Edwin MEESE,III Files, Box 28, OA 118844. Pro-lifers including Judie Brown of the American Life Lobby, Patrick Trueman of Americans United for Life, and Randy Engel of the US Coalition for Life who attempted to stem the flow of US funds to population control programs met with limited success until the 1980s. 111 Fr Marx, “Chronicle,” (January 25 1973- August 29, 1973), 2. 112 By the end of his tour, Father Marx had addressed audiences in ten countries. Father Marx’s trip was from August to November 1974. See Fr. Marx, “Chronicle,” (February 26 1974- November 26, 1974), 3-5.

Catholic priest Father Anthony Zimmerman established the Family Life Association at

Nanzan University in Nagoya, Japan, soon after the tour. U.S. born and educated, Father

Zimmerman had relocated to Japan in the 1950s, where he became involved in demographic

research and promoted Natural Family Planning.113 Terminations were common practice in

Japan by the 1970s because the Japanese government had legalized abortion in 1948, but

actively prohibited most forms of contraception.114 Yet even equipped with pro-life

propaganda, Father Zimmerman struggled against entrenched Japanese attitudes toward

abortion, and often credited Father Marx for helping to “sustain” the Family Life Association

during these challenging early years.115

Global Opportunities: the UN’s 1974 Bucharest Conference on Population

Eighteen months after Roe v. Wade devastated the budding pro-life movement in the

United States, the UN hosted a World Conference on Population in Bucharest, Romania.116

Officially, representatives of the one-hundred and thirty-five participating nations and several

relevant NGOs met to formulate a World Population Plan of Action (WPPA), and persuade

delegates of developing nations to adopt population reduction targets.117 Nine years

beforehand, the director of More Agricultural Production (MAP), George Barmann, had met

pro-life demographer Fr. Anthony Zimmerman at a UN expert forum on population in

113 “About the Author” in Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, “Celibacy dates back to the Apostles,” (MD: HLI, 1994), inside cover, PMRX Box 3. 114 Father Anthony Zimmerman SVD, “Letter to Board of Directors of HLC,” (April 22, 1979), 1. CMRX 53/17,. 115 Zimmerman, “Letter to Board of Directors of HLC,” 1. 116 Keck and Sikkink make this point by exploring the importance of UN Conferences to the development of transnational women’s advocacy networks in the 1990s. See Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, 168. Also see Moghadam, “Transnational Feminist Networks,” 60-61; Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, “Introduction,” in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and James P. Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion and Fading States, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 9. 117 Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconceptions: The Struggle to Control World Population, (Cambridge MA: Belknap Press, 2008), 314-315; Pastor Daniel Ch. Overduin, “Population Tribune – Bucharest – August, 1974,” Right to Life, (Everard Park, South Australia: SA Right to Life Association, October 1974), 1.

Belgrade, Yugoslavia.118 Their experiences at the 1965 meeting convinced the pair that pro-

life leaders needed to make their presence felt at subsequent population control gatherings.

Consequently, Barmann and Zimmerman encouraged their international colleagues to attend

the Bucharest conference to challenge the dominant neo-Malthusian perspective on world

population growth.119 Director of the United States Coalition for Life (USCL) Randy Engel

immediately asked supporters to sponsor pro-life activists so that they could attend the

meeting, and the USCL received enough donations to send fourteen pro-life leaders from

Australia, Canada, England, Holland, New Zealand, the United States and Uruguay to

Bucharest.120

The conference therefore had a second, unintended consequence: Bucharest provided

opponents of abortion and population control, including academics, doctors, and activists,

with a forum to meet, to “cultivate shared understandings and…collective identities,” and to

formulate their own distinct “agendas.”121 Several of the pro-life representatives also backed

developing nations’ protests against neo-colonialist intrusions “into the bedrooms” of their

citizens.122 The USCL delegation attempted to reach a wide audience at the “Population

Tribune” by distributing pro-life literature printed in fourteen languages, hosting three meetings, and showing four films to promote their cause.123

118 United States Coalition for Life, “United States Coalition for Life Special Report on the United Nations World Population Conference Tribune, Bucharest, Romania, August 19-30, 1974,” (Export, Pennsylvania: USCL, 1975), 2. 119 USCL, “Special Report,” 2. 120 USCL, “Special Report,” 1-46; Overduin, “Population Tribune – Bucharest,” 1-3. 121 See Jackie Smith, Social Movements for Global Democracy, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 53. Paige Whaley Eager also concedes this point in Global Population Policy: From Population Control to Reproductive Rights, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 6. Eager refers to the parallel networking opportunities provided by UN Conferences to global Women’s and pro-life networks in the 1990s, but fails to acknowledge the long history of this type of interaction among pro-lifers. 122 Overduin, “Population Tribune – Bucharest,” 1-3, and Father Paul Marx, “Abortion in Argentina,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 7, (July 1985), 2. Overduin and Marx both documented the Argentine delegation’s vocal critiques of population control proposals, which saw their delegation propose 68 amendments to the World Population Plan of Action. 123 Kapusinski, quoted in USCL, “Special Report,” 12.

Pro-life leaders also participated in formal proceedings, presenting nine formal papers

that challenged depictions of world population growth as a global problem best remedied by

contraception during the course of the UN Conference.124 New Zealand Doctor Patrick Dunn,

for example, gave a speech entitled “Population Optimism,” in which he argued that “the

term ‘population explosion’ [was] hysterical,” and that technology, which he described as

“the genius of man” and “the providence of God” would overcome population pressures.125 In

Dunn’s estimation, population targets were therefore unnecessary. At the same time,

however, the NGO forum reflected the “ongoing polarization” between pro-lifers and

population control advocates, where the two factions found little common ground.126 As the

conference drew to a close, the pro-life delegation issued a series of joint statements that

reflected a range of Catholic, Protestant and medical opposition to population control.127 One

open letter addressed to the director of the UN Fund for Population Activities, Rafael Salas,

for example, urged him “not to allocate funds to programs which

would…spread…abortion.”128

Although individual members of the pro-life contingent liaised with official delegates,

including representatives of the Holy See, they were not able to alter the trajectory of the UN

meeting.129 At one press conference, Father Marx joined British and Dutch spokesmen for the

124 Overduin, “Population Tribune,” 2. 125 Overduin, “Population Tribune – Bucharest,” 3; “Speaker biography: Patrick Dunn M.D.” in National Right to Life Committee, “Convention ’79 Inc: All Life is a Bridge to Tomorrow,” (June 14-24, 1979), FFLA Box 1, Folder 12. 126 Overduin, “Population Tribune,” 2. 127 See USCL Pro-Life International Associates, “Statement of Pro-Life Bucharest Team,” and “Open Letter to Honorable Rafael Salas, Executive Director, U.N. Fund for Population Activities,” in USCL, “Special Report,” 4-5. 128 See USCL Pro-Life International Associates, “Statement of Pro-Life Bucharest Team,” and “Open Letter to Honorable Rafael Salas, Executive Director, U.N. Fund for Population Activities,” in USCL, “Special Report,” 4-5. 129 Father Paul Marx spoke about meeting with Vatican representatives Bishop Edouard Gagnon and Father De Reitmatten during the meeting in his travel diary. See Marx, “Chronicle,” (26 November 1974), 4. The Vatican’s representatives were the only official delegation who refused to endorse the World Population Plan of Action at the conclusion of the Bucharest meeting. See Jason L. Finkle and Barbara B. Crane, “The Politics of Bucharest: Population, Development, and the New International Economic Order,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 1. No. 1, (September 1975), 114.

pro-life lobby in lamenting their lack “of sympathizers on the official delegations.”130 As he and his colleagues observed, this had “limited their chances of influencing the amendments” to the final Plan of Action.131 Pro-life leaders would endeavour to remedy this oversight at future UN conferences. Yet even without better organized pro-life objections, official delegates took fifteen sessions over eight days to reach a broad agreement on a host of controversial population control issues.132 Discussions stalled repeatedly when official delegates from developed nations advocated population control as the panacea for security, environmental, and socio-economic problems, while representatives from developing countries lobbied for international aid for development projects.133 The WPPA was finally approved on August 28, 1974, despite the reservations of many developing nations and vocal opposition from the Vatican’s delegation.134 The Plan, which stipulated that less developed countries should “consider adopting population policies” in order to reduce “birth rates from

38 per 1000 in 1974, to 30 per 1000 in 1985” clearly reflected the goals advanced by developed nations.135 Equally terse discussions during the “Population Tribune”—the parallel

NGO forum sponsored by the IPPF—had raised serious questions over the necessity and efficacy of population control.136

Although the USCL delegation may not have been able to forestall the inevitable at the Bucharest meeting, its plans for future international collaboration formed the basis of future transnational pro-life organizing. Most importantly, the international pro-life contingent brought a diverse array of Protestant and Catholic perspectives to the UN meeting, foreshadowing a global cultural realignment that mirrored contemporary developments in the

130 Overduin, “Population Tribune - Bucharest,” 3. 131Overduin, “Population Tribune – Bucharest,” 3. 132 See Johnson, World Population and the United Nations, 126. 133 See Marx, “Chronicle,” (November 26, 1974): 4. 134 Johnson, World Population and the United Nations, 126, Harold K. Jacobson, Networks of Interdependence: International Organizations and the Global Political System, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 251-252, and Marx, “Chronicle,” (November 26, 1974): 4. 135 Jacobson, 251-252. Also see Marx, “Chronicle,” (November 26, 1974), 4. 136 Albert K. Kapusinski, quoted in USCL, “Special Report,” 12.

United States.137 In fact, the USCL released a statement encouraging “men and women of

good will – of all countries and all religions, or none” to join them in opposing population

control.138 Furthermore, at the end of the Bucharest conference, pro-life leaders from the

Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and the United States resolved to challenge the “blatant hedonism” and policies of “destruction” they had witnessed at the conference by forming international alliances to share information, strategies and resources.139 Finally, they agreed that “increased international organization of pro-life activities directed toward future international meetings and general mutual assistance” were vital.140 In an article published in his local Right to Life newsletter, pioneering Australian pro- life leader Dr. Daniel admitted that while the problems they faced endured, it had been “a privilege to be able to share” the “common concern and…goal” of seeking “human solutions”

to pro-life problems at Bucharest.141 The experience also reinforced Father Marx’s belief that

any effective challenge to population control providers would have to emulate international

family planning NGOs’ global approach.142

The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Life and the Human Life Center

Two months before the Bucharest meeting, the World Federation of Doctors Who

Respect Human Life (Doctors Who Respect Life) had held their inaugural meeting in

Amsterdam.143 A number of pro-life leaders who later attended the Bucharest conference

137 Overduin, “Population Tribune – Bucharest,” 1-3; USCL Pro-Life International Associates, “Statement of Pro-Life Bucharest Team,” in USCL, “Special Report,” 5. 138 USCL Pro-Life International Associates, “Statement of Pro-Life Bucharest Team,” in USCL, “Special Report,” 5. 139 Overduin, “Population Tribune,” 1. 140 See USCL Pro-Life International Associates, “International Coalition Needed,” (Augusts 29, 1974), in USCL, “Special Report,” 4. 141 At the time, Overduin played a leading role in Lutherans for Life, as well South Australia’s Right-to-Life group. Overduin, “Population Tribune,” 3. Also see USCL Pro-Life International Associates, “Statement of Pro- Life Bucharest Team,” in USCL, “Special Report,” 5. 142 International Planned Parenthood Federation, “The IPPF and the World Population Conference 1974,” (London: International Planned Parenthood Federation, 1974), 12. 143 World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, “Why was the Federation Founded?” http://www.euthanasia.com/belgium.html#federation, Accessed: 12/10/2009. Also see Richard Davis, director

helped found the Federation. Aside from Father Marx, they included Dr. Herbert Ratner of

Illinois, Australian Dr. Daniel Overduin and Dr Pat Dunn of New Zealand.144 Father Marx’s close friend Dr. Siegfried Ernst, a Lutheran who had convinced “400 doctors and 45 university professors” to issue a manifesto condemning the pill, contraception and abortion in

1964, was one of the Federation’s European founders.145 Founding members resolved to establish an international network of medical professionals opposed to abortion and euthanasia by promoting exchanges of information and pro-life strategies among its branches.146 The upcoming UN Conference had provided one of the rationales for the organization’s existence: on behalf of several thousand Doctors Who Respect Life members,

Dutch pro-life doctors expressed deep concern over the United Nations’ “anti-life” agenda in

an official statement submitted to the organizers of the Bucharest.147 The Federation also

foreshadowed USCL delegates’ objections to contraception as well as abortion at the

Bucharest meeting by requesting its members to sign their “Declaration of Doctors,” in which

they promised to respect “human life from the moment of fertilization.148

In 1977, Doctors Who Respect Life mounted their first public campaign, in

Switzerland, where a referendum proposing to legalize abortion was scheduled for

September. The proposal threatened to replace Switzerland’s blanket ban on abortion with

of Public Information, “For Immediate Release: Human Life Center’s Fourth Publication to be out soon,” (August 19, 1980),, and Dr Philippe Schepens, “The Fall and Decline of Medicine: a diagnosis and proposals for therapy,” News Exchange of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life, Vol. 9, Yr. 9, (1983), 3, both in CMRX 73/23. Also see Kevin Hume, “International Congress of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, European Division, February 2-4, 1979,” Right to Life, Vol. 7, No. 1, (South Australia: SA Right to Life, March 1979), 6. 144 Herbert Ratner, M.D., “Letter to Father Paul Marx re: Doctors Who Respect Human Life,” (January 7, 1980), 1, CMRX 73/23. 145 Father Paul Marx, “Award for Dr. Siegfried Ernst,”HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 7, (July 1991), 5. 146 Doctors Who Respect Life, “Why was the Federation Founded?” Davis, “Human Life Center’s Fourth Publication to be out soon.,” Schepens, “The Fall and Decline of Medicine,” 3, and Hume, “International Congress of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life,” 6. 147 World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, “Why was the Federation Founded?” 148 See Hume, “International Congress of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life,” 6, Davis, “For Immediate Release: Human Life Center’s Fourth Publication to be out soon,” Schepens, “The Fall and Decline of Medicine: a diagnosis and proposals for therapy,” 3.

new laws that permitted terminations in the first trimester.149 To pass, however, the Swiss

proposal needed to win both the popular vote and the majority of the cantons, or states.

Therefore, its prospects were uncertain at best since the initiative faced serious opposition

from the Catholic Church and Protestant clergy.150 Three weeks before the referendum,

Doctors Who Respect Life co-sponsored a symposium in Zurich with a Swiss anti-abortion

group called Yes To Life.151 The meeting targeted Swiss doctors—who might prove decisive

in swaying the vote—in the hope of converting them to the pro-life cause by introducing

them to pro-life experts from Germany, Great Britain and the United States.152 Father Marx

and Dr. Ratner both spoke in deeply emotive terms at the Zurich conference, describing

abortion as “the greatest war of all times.”153 They warned the Swiss physicians that once

“killing gets started as a solution to problems one never knows when it is going to stop.”154

The swift spread of legalized abortion throughout the western world in the wake of

contraceptives like the pill seemed to support pro-life claims that a worldwide reproductive

“domino effect” was in progress.155

It is difficult to gauge the actual impact of the symposium, but Doctors Who Respect

Life and their allies claimed their first victory when the Swiss referendum failed to legalize

abortion by a vote of 17 cantons to 25.156 Groups as far away as Australia shared in this

“most welcome” sense of accomplishment, which increased camaraderie and fostered a sense

149 “SWITZERLAND VOTING ON ABORTION REFORM: Weeklong Balloting Will Decide Fate of Amendment Seeking Relaxation of Requirements,” New York Times (1923-Current file), September 24, 1977, pg. 48, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 14, 2008). 150 “SWITZERLAND VOTING ON ABORTION REFORM,” pg. 48, and Special to The New York Times, “Swiss Voters Uphold Abortion Ban,” New York Times (1923-Current file), September 26, 1977, pg 4, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 14, 2008). 151 “Register Prolife Roundup: Special to the Register,” National Catholic Register, (September 1977), CMRX 60/16. 152 “Register Prolife Roundup,” Herbert Ratner M.D., “Killing is Not the Easy Way Out,” Special to The Wanderer, (September 22, 1977), 1. 153“Register Pro-Life Roundup.” Also see Ratner, “Killing is Not the Easy Way Out,” 1. 154 “Register Pro-Life Roundup.” Also see Ratner, “Killing is Not the Easy Way Out,” 1. 155 Fr Marx, “What About the Human Life Center,” (no date), 1. 156 South Australian Right to Life, “News Release: Abortion Turned Down in Switzerland,” We Respect Life, Vol. 6, No. 4, (November/December 1977), 6. Also see “Swiss Voters Uphold Abortion Ban,” 4, and Dr Herbert Ratner, “Letter to Marx,” (January 7, 1980), 1, CMRX 73/23.

of community among pro-life activists.157 For Doctors Who Respect Life, the referendum was a “rallying point” that augured well for future attempts to pressure

“politicians…governments…university faculties of medicine…doctors and…paramedical workers” to “support…the pro-life cause.”158 The Swiss campaign soon became the blueprint for similar efforts worldwide; international pro-life leaders began to converge on countries where campaigns to legalize abortion were underway. Pro-life veterans then met with local leaders to educate them, offering funding, facts, tactics, and organizational know-how. As more and more pro-lifers became involved in international as well as local legal and political battles, the culture wars took on a distinctly transnational cast.159

By 1979, the World Federation reported that its international membership stood

“around the 100,000 mark,” with branches in thirty countries from Australia to Zambia.160

The Federation’s branches were linked by annual meetings and the NewsExchange, an international bulletin published in English, French and Dutch.161 Two years later, the

Federation claimed some 150,000 members.162 Interestingly, a quarter of all national sections were in developing countries, suggesting that the organization’s principles appealed to shared values that transcended the North-South divide as well as national boundaries. The

Federation had added four new branches in Argentina, Haiti, South Africa, and Uruguay by

157 SA Right to Life, “Abortion Turned Down in Switzerland,” 6. 158 Hume, Australian Representative, “International Congress of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life,” 6; Schepens, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (9th December, 1981), 1. CMRX 73/23. 159After the Swiss Conference, Marx carried on a frequent and detailed correspondence with representatives of Doctors Who Respect Life including both U.S. based activists and those outside of the United States. At Dr. Herbert Ratner’s request, Father Marx agreed to become managing editor of the American branch of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life’s bimonthly newsletter. Ratner, “Letter to Marx,” CMRX 73/23. 160 Schepens, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (9th December, 1981), 1, and Schepens, News Exchange of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life Vol. 9, Year 9, No’s 5-7, (February-April 1983), 1, CMRX 73/23. 161 Schepens, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (9th December, 1981), 1, and Schepens, “News Exchange,” Vol. 9, Year 9, No’s 5-7, (February-April 1983), 1. 162 Countries with representatives in 1981 included: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Eire (Ireland), Finland, France, West Germany, Great-Britain, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Luxemburg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the USA, Vietnam, and Zambia. Schepens, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (9th December, 1981), 1. Also see Susan McKay, “HLC Controversy Deepens,” National Catholic Register, Vol. LVI, No. 49, (December 7, 1980), 10, CMRX 53/19.

1983, and seven years later claimed outposts in 54 nations spanning the entire globe, from

Asia to Africa, the Middle East to the South Pacific, in addition to the United States and

continental Europe. More than anything else, these numbers attest to the global resonance of

the pro-life message.163

Father Marx was equally determined to foster international pro-life awareness and

activism when he had established the Human Life Center (HLC), a “non-profit, tax-exempt,

international education center” at St John’s University in Collegeville in 1972.164 The

Center’s activities increased exponentially after 1974. Father Marx deliberately portrayed his

pro-life activities as a “David and Goliath” struggle, in which the HLC was the sole

challenger of formidable “anti-life groups such as Zero Population Growth, the American

Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood.”165 Each of these organizations, Father Marx

was fond of pointing out, received “millions of tax and foundation dollars.”166 But, he claimed, if one was “pro-life and pro-family” it was a “different story.”167 Nevertheless, the

HLC soon attracted its own private benefactors, much like corporations and the Ford and

Rockefeller foundations, as well as the U.S. government funded population control NGOs.168

The HLC’s biggest donor was the De Rance Foundation, which Harry John had founded in

1946 with his inheritance from the Milwaukee-based Miller Brewing fortune.169

163 Dr Philippe Schepens, News Exchange of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, (February-April 1983), 1. CMRX 73/23. 164 Father Paul Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 2, and Father Paul Marx, “The Human Life Center,” (no date), 4-5, both in CMRX 53/16. The HLC subsequently attracted hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax exempt grants from De Rance, along with the Raskob Foundation, and the Vatican’s Propagation of the Faith in Rome. See correspondence between Fr. Marx, Msgr. J. Hatton, and Harry John, 1978-1979, CMRX 4/21. 165 Michael Engler, “Interview with Father Paul Marx,” mothers fathers love babies children families God, (no date): 4, CMRX 53/13. 166 Engler, “Interview with Marx,” 4. 167 Engler, “Interview with Marx,” 4. 168 Ties between private philanthropists and population control programs are well documented; see Connelly, Chapter 5, 155-194, especially 168-169. 169 “Saga of John family fortune takes new turn – and bright – Harry and Erica John – De Rance Foundation – Editorial,” National Catholic Reporter, (January 15, 1993), FindArticles.com, Accessed 03 Sept. 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n11_v29/ai_13382185.

By the 1970s, De Rance had become the world’s largest Catholic charity, known for

funding institutions that were “loyal” to the Catholic “church’s magisterium (teaching

authority).”170 Under John’s chairmanship, the foundation supported projects ranging “from

leper colonies in Africa to antipoverty programs in…Milwaukee.”171 As a committed

Catholic and staunch defender of Humanae Vitae, John proved deeply sympathetic to Father

Marx’s pro-life agenda; consequently, when Father Marx decided to establish the HLC, De

Rance supplied him with a generous start-up grant.172 Within a matter of months, the HLC

grew to a ten-person staff devoted to the promotion of Natural Family Planning (NFP) and

the pro-life cause; a few years later the organization’s annual budget had risen to $633,000.173

The Center focused on the developing world in part because contemporary forecasts

suggested that by the year 2000, “70 percent” of Catholics would be living “in…Southern

continents,” including many developing nations, rather than Europe and North America.174

Initially, the HLC was little more than a clearing house which promoted the pro-life

cause by sending literature and other anti-population control materials to activists in

developing nations.175 Within a few years of its formation though, the HLC claimed that by

“encouraging and linking pro-family activists,” its meetings and literature were important

catalysts for the formation of global pro-life alliances.176 In the spring of 1976, the Human

Life Center hosted its first International Symposium on Natural Family Planning, which

brought NFP instructors and pro-life activists from around the globe together to meet, share

concerns and compare tactics.177 Around a dozen summer seminars sponsored by the HLC

170 NC News Service, “Three Pontifical Institutions Honor Milwaukee Philanthropist,” (Tuesday, September 25, 1979), CMRX 4/21. 171 NC News Service, “Three Pontifical Institutions Honor Milwaukee Philanthropist.” 172 Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 2, Marx, “The Human Life Center,” 4, and correspondence between Fr. Marx, Msgr. J. Hatton, and Harry John, 1978-1979, CMRX 4/21. 173 Marx, “The Human Life Center,” 4-5, and Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 2. 174 See Father Paul Marx, “Forthcoming priest shortage in the West,” (no date), 1, CMRX 51/34. 175Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 2. 176 Fr Marx, “The Human Life Center,” 7. 177Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 2.

ran at St John’s during each of the next four years, which introduced “hundreds of physicians,

nurses, teachers, priests, ministers, nuns, counsellors, family life directors, parents, students

and leaders of all kinds” to each other and the pro-life cause.178 “Led by some of the most

outstanding experts in the world,” Father Marx described the seminars as the setting for “a

cross-pollenization [sic] of ideas” between activists determined “to resist the anti-life/anti-

family movement more intelligently and more effectively.”179 After attending several

international conferences, including two of Father Marx’s seminars in 1978, Australian pro-

life leader Dr. Daniel Overduin observed that his experiences had reaffirmed his “deep

conviction” that it was possible to counter “inhuman abortion legislation.”180

By 1980, Father Marx boasted that the HLC had “trained more than 3,000 key people

from 39 states and more than a dozen countries as diverse as Germany, India, Japan,

Australia and Taiwan” at its annual seminar series.181 HLC-sponsored international

gatherings made a dual practical impact: activists discussed problems and opportunities, and

provided moral support for one another. In so doing, they established a global pro-life

community. First published in the spring of 1977, the HLC’s quarterly newsletter—the

International Review of Natural Family Planning (IRNFP)—provided another vehicle for the

propagation of a shared global pro-life ideology.182 The IRNFP complemented regular

international conferences and both proved central to the global propagation of pro-life ideals,

as were other pro-life publications and films the HLC produced and distributed.183 Many

activists who attended HLC gatherings and read its publications also went on to echo Father

Marx’s emphasis on the global dimensions of the problem faced by pro-lifers. At a 1978

178 Marx, “The Human Life Center,” 5. 179 Marx, “The Human Life Center,” 5. 180 Dr Daniel Overduin, “Editorial,” We Respect Life, Vol. 6, No. 6, (March/April 1978, Vol. 7, No. 1, May/June 1978), 7. 181 Marx, “The Human Life Center,” 6. 182 See Father Paul Marx, quoted in Michael and Jean Tupta, “Natural Family Planning – At the Heart of Family Life,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 10, (October 1991), 14-15. 183 Marx, quoted in Tupta and Tupta, “Natural Family Planning,” 14-15.

Right-to-Life meeting in South Australia, Dr. Overduin and conservative Australian Senator

Brian Harradine discussed “[a]bortion and its disastrous consequences viewed in local,

national and international perspectives.”184 Father Marx’s efforts to generate a global pro-life

discourse eventually resulted in the formation of transnational networks which drew

information from the rest of the world into the United States, as well as transmitting

American influence outward.

The composition of its advisory board serves as the best testament to the HLC’s

increasingly global character. By the end of the 1970s, twenty-five of the HLC’s forty

advisors resided outside of the United States, and together they represented fourteen countries

across Europe, North and South America, the subcontinent, and the Asia Pacific Region.185

Catholics were strongly represented among the Center’s advisors, but the group did not share

a single religious or philosophical viewpoint; only five members belonged to religious orders,

while a further twenty-three were medical professionals.186 Austrian pro-life advocate Dr.

Joseph Roetzer and New Zealand NFP expert Dr. Patrick Dunn, both of whom had spoken at

the Bucharest conference, were two of the first international leaders in their respective fields

to become advisors.187 Renowned fetologist A.W. Lilley of New Zealand, Australian

Lutheran Pastor Daniel Overduin, Dutch President of Doctors Who Respect Life Dr. Karl

Gunning and geneticist Dr. Jerome Le Jeune of Paris later joined their ranks.188 The presence

of so many international experts on the HLC’s board suggests that cultural conflict over

abortion was becoming a truly international phenomenon in an increasingly globalized world.

184 SA Right to Life “Interim Newsletter,” Vol. 7, No. 2, (July 1978), 1. 185 Canada, Colombia, England, Germany, Holland, Japan, the Philippines, Switzerland and Taiwan all boasted one advisor, while two Australians, and three each from Austria, India and New Zealand appeared on the HLC’s list. Five French advisors rounded out the international contingent, while the fifteen American advisors included such prominent activists as Mildred Jefferson and Herbert Ratner. See Michael Engler, mothers fathers babies children families love God, (c. 1979), 1, CMRX 53/13. 186 Engler, mothers fathers babies children families love God, 1. 187 Marx, “History of the Human Life Center,” 3-4. 188 Marx, “The Human Life Center,” 4-5, and Human Life Center, mothers fathers babies children families love God, 1.

In 1980, Father Marx dedicated himself to becoming the world’s first “global pro-life

missionary,” reflecting the centrality of international concerns to his identity and ideology.189

Conclusion

Global pro-life networks formed in response to many of the same reasons as their domestic counterparts during the 1970s. Roe v. Wade symbolized closing political opportunities in the United States, as did the U.S. government’s bipartisan consensus in favour of population control. Pro-life activists instead exploited the political and organizing opportunities presented by meetings such as the United Nation’s NGO forum at the 1974

Bucharest conference. International pro-life activists also hosted their own gatherings to establish and strengthen global pro-life networks and newsletters such as the NewsExchange and International Review of Natural Family Planning played a vital role in this process.

These developments set the stage for the intensification of international pro-life activism in

the 1980s, which was eventually able to affect politics in the United States at the same time

as it fostered grass roots movements in developing nations.

189 See Father Paul Marx, Confessions of a Pro-Life Missionary: The Journeys of Father Paul Marx, (Gaithersburg MD: Human Life International, 1988).

Chapter Three Pioneering pro-life politics in the Capitol: From political lobbying to local gradualism and global activism, 1980-1983 …we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have meaning.1 President Ronald Reagan took the unprecedented step of penning Abortion and the

Conscience of the Nation in 1983, apparently signalling, as the above quote would suggest,

his firm commitment to the right-to-life cause.2 Yet despite his rhetorical support for the pro-

life movement, Reagan had consistently refrained from hastening the passage of several

pieces of human life legislation that had languished in Congress during his first term.

Reagan’s dismal record stood in stark contrast to the promise his 1981 inauguration had held

for pro-life leaders, who had looked forward to a new era of political opportunities. Christian

lobbyists had hoped for and to some extent gained greater access to Capitol Hill in a process

that familiarized them with the inner workings of federal politics and raised their

expectations. Numerous scholars have since analysed the Christian Right’s impact on

Reagan’s policies and found that the promise greatly exceeded the delivery with regard to

New Right policies on morals. However, similar attention has rarely been paid to his

administration’s impact on conservative interest groups themselves.3 The omission reveals a

broader scholarly wariness of conservative subjects.4

1 Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 38. 2 J.P. McFadden, “Introduction,” Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, 7. Reagan’s essay was first published in the Human Life Review in the Spring of 1983. 3 See William Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, (New York: Broadway Books, 1996), especially Chapter 9: “Prophets and Advisors,” 221-237; Clyde Wilcox, Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996), 113-117; A. James Reichley, Religion in American Public Life, (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1985), 327- 331; Richard G. Hutcheson, God in the White House: How Religion Has Changed the Modern Presidency, (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1988), 153-197. Allen D. Hertzke, “The Role of Religious Lobbies,” in Charles W. Dunn (editor), Religion in American Politics, (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 1989), 124- 88

In this chapter I argue that frustration with the administration’s limited attention to social conservative’s agenda substantively altered the trajectory of pro-life activism during

Reagan’s first term in office. Although ‘establishment’ organizations such as the National

Right to Life Committee (NRLC) maintained their legislative approach, many pro-lifers were unsatisfied with the scope of proposed legislation and the Reagan administration’s inaction.

These groups’ experiences on Capitol Hill profoundly changed the nature and trajectory of their activism. Some activists resorted to a form of what historian Anne-Marie E. Szymanski calls “local gradualism.”5 Other pro-life leaders built on the networks established in the 1970s to seek solutions to what they regarded as problems of global dimensions. Father Paul Marx, who established Human Life International (HLI) to institutionalize and expand existing global pro-life networks in 1981, was foremost among this group.6 Whereas international pro- life campaigns had hitherto been of short duration and limited discernable impact, HLI began

136. Clyde Wilcox, “The Christian Right in Twentieth Century America: Continuity and Change,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Fiftieth Anniversary Issue: Religion and Politics, (Autumn 1988): 659-681; Clyde Wilcox, “Evangelicals and the Moral Majority,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 28, No. 4, (Dec. 1989): 400-414; Clyde Wilcox, Sharon Linzey, and Ted G. Jelen, “Reluctant Warriors: Premillenialism and Politics in the Moral Majority,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 30, No. 3, (Sep. 1991): 245-258; Mark A. Shibley, “Contemporary Evangelicals: Born Again and World Affirming,” Annals, AAPSS, Vol. 558 (July 1998): 67-87. Matthew C. Moen, “Ronald Reagan and the Social Issues: Rhetorical Support for the Christian Right,” The Social Science Journal, Volume 27, No. 2, (1990): 199-207. See William Martin, “The Christian Right and American Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy, No. 114, (Spring 1999): 66-80; Gary Wills, Under God: Religion and American Politics, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990); Gil Troy, Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). 4 Gary Wills argues that the Christian Right has been repeatedly “misplaced” and “rediscovered” throughout US history, but that it is actually a constant in American society, and, by extension, in U.S. politics. 5 See Anne-Marie E. Szymanski, Pathways to Prohibitions: Radicals, Moderates, and Social Movement Outcomes, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), 201. Szymanski observes that local gradualism mobilizes grass roots constituencies to effect local and, eventually, national change, but “has only prospered in social movements which already possess an ambitious agenda for the nation as a whole.” The pro-life movement clearly fits this rubric. John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, for example, returned to nonviolent direct action protests, resurrecting the Pro-life Nonviolent Action Project (PNAP) in a bid to build grass roots support for the cause. Joseph Scheidler’s Pro-Life Action League’s (PLAL) shared Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s goal of empowering local communities to combat abortion. See Alesha E. Doan, Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007). 6 Transnational Advocacy Networks are here defined as “sets of actors linked across country boundaries, bound together by shared values, dense exchanges of information and services, and common discourses.” See Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker and Kathryn Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational Advocacy Groups Restructuring World Politics,” 7, in Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker and Kathryn Sikkink (editors), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002).

to establish permanent outposts beyond U.S. borders, and strengthened its global pro-life

presence by working with Irish and Filipino activists to achieve pro-life victories abroad.

Political Patronage and Pro-Life Lobbying on Capitol Hill

Charismatic former actor and two-term governor of California Ronald Reagan secured

disaffected pro-lifers’ support during his 1980 presidential campaign by portraying himself as

a fiscal conservative who was equally committed to the pro-life movement’s moral agenda.7

Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had both refrained from issuing definitive statements on

abortion during the 1976 election.8 Ronald Reagan on the other hand quickly emerged as the

‘pro-life’ candidate in 1980 when he openly endorsed the anti-abortion movement, even

though as governor he had signed a 1967 state law that effectively increased Californians’

access to legal abortion.9 However, pro-lifers had little alternative. The Democratic National

Committee resisted Feminists for Life (FFL) and Democrats for Life’s appeals to change the

party’s pro-choice stance in 1980, leaving pro-life voters with two options: “cross party lines

and endorse the Republican candidate,” or focus on “local and state” races.10 Although

incumbent Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian, Reagan’s outspoken support for “a

constitutional amendment to ban abortions” proved decisive in many pro-life camps.11 The

1980 election therefore saw conservative pro-lifers, led by Paul Brown of the Life

7 Mary Elizabeth Quint, “Memo to Diana Lozano: 1980 Campaign Promises of President Reagan on Abortion,” (January 5, 1982), 1, Regan Presidential Library, Wendy Borcherdt Files, Box 6, OA 7115, “Abortion.” 8 T.R. Reid, “Reagan is Favored by Anti-Abortionists,” The Washington Post, (April 12, 1980), First Section, http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/lnacademic/delivery. Accessed: 27/11/07. 9 The statute permitted abortion in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman’s physical or mental health was threatened. Ellen McCormack, “June 23 Letter to the Editor: Answers on Abortion,” The New York Times, (July 12, 1980), 16, Proquest, Accessed: 23/2/2009; Reid, “Reagan is Favored,” A4, 10 “Efforts to Change Democratic Party’s Abortion Plank Fail,” St Louis Review, (July 11, 1980), 5. Also see Mary Meehan, “Statement Submitted to the Platform Committee of the Democratic National Convention,” (Washington D.C.: June 13, 1980), 1-5, FFLA, Box 1, Folder 9. 11 Reid, “Reagan is Favored,” First Section.

Amendment Political Action Committee (LAPAC) switch tactics, from opposing pro-choice

politicians to launching “heavily pro-Reagan campaigns.”12

When Americans went to the polls on November 4, 1980, they delivered Ronald

Reagan a landslide victory. Reagan and his running mate George H.W. Bush carried 40 states

with 462 electoral votes.13 Although Reagan’s margin of victory reflected his personal

appeal, a cluster of crises such as the Iranian hostage debacle and domestic inflation had also

undermined the Carter administration’s public image in the lead up to the election.14 Political

commentators nevertheless credited moral conservatives for the margin of Reagan’s victory.

Certainly, the president elect’s emphasis on “family and moral values” had won over

significant tracts of traditional Democrat voters including Evangelical Protestants and blue

collar Catholics.15 An unlikely coalition of Catholics, Protestants and some Orthodox Jews

had cooperated throughout the campaign to install the “pro-life President” in the White

House.16 Pro-life groups had been politicized through their participation in the cultural

realignment of the 1970s and their presence now became visible on the national stage because

of their contribution to Reagan’s election win.

Subsequent studies have questioned whether moral conservatives’ votes clinched

Reagan’s victory, but the incoming administration openly acknowledged that the president

owed his pro-life supporters a debt.17 For their part, moral conservatives expected Reagan to

12 Reid, “Reagan is Favored,” First Section. 13 Jack Nelson, “Reagan Wins Landslide Victory,” The Los Angeles Times, (November 5, 1980). http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_761593934/reagan_wins_landslide_victory.html, Accessed: 12/01/2009. 14 Nelson, “Reagan Wins”; Dallek, The Politics of Symbolism, 56-57. 15 Elizabeth H. Dole, “Memorandum: Proposed Action Plan for Ethnics,” (November 2, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12450. 16 Reagan’s aides later concluded that “abortion” was “the number one reason for the Catholic crossover.” Elizabeth H. Dole, “General Plan of Appeal to Catholics,” (c. 1981), 4, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12450, “Catholic Strategy (1 of 3).” 17 This assumption parallels Dallek’s suggestion that “matters of substance” were “less important than rhetoric and appearances in the Reagan White House.” Dallek, The Politics of Symbolism, 73.

initiate a “national renewal” and return to traditional family values.18 The president’s advisors, particularly those sympathetic to the cause were determined to repay pro-life leaders for their support. White House Public Liaison Assistant Elizabeth H. Dole made this point in a 1982 memo that outlined the Republican Party’s prospects for maintaining the new

voter alliance. “It is politically axiomatic,” she noted,

that those who consider themselves in a minority place a disproportionately greater level of importance on the recognition that devolves from high-level appointments, meetings at the White House, Presidential acknowledgements and the way…elected leaders are treated.19 Pro-life activists who had been shunned by previous presidents proved particularly receptive

to recognition from the Reagan White House, and Dole evidently hoped that the largely

symbolic measures mentioned above would suffice to repay them for their support during the

election. Elizabeth Dole also intimated that it would be prudent for the administration to

make an effort to publicly recognize key pro-life leaders. Consequently, within a matter of

months of his inauguration Reagan appointed a number of social and moral conservatives to

prominent positions in the administration. American Citizens Concerned for Life’s (ACCL)

President Majory Mecklenburg was picked to head the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy

Programs, and Richard Scheweiker, a prominent supporter of the proposed Human Life

Amendment (HLA), was made Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).20

18 See Lee Edwards, “The Other Sixties: A Flag Waver’s Memoir,” Policy Review, 46, (1988, Fall), 58-65. Also see Ronald Reagan, “Letter to Charles E. Rice,” (March 13, 1981), 1, WHORM, FG-Federal Government Organizations, FG 001-04, Case File: 012546, Ronald Reagan Presidential Archives. “Reducing spending on social programs and lowering taxes” were key tenets of “Reaganomics” or supply side economics. Dallek suggests that this too was a form of symbolic politics, promising to liberate “middle-class Americans from government tyranny.” In any case, Reaganomics had important implications for later pro-life strategy. See Dallek, 64, and Philip Jenkins, Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 19 Dole, “Plan for Ethnics,” 3. Evidently Reagan’s advisors shared columnist Robert J. Samuelson’s belief that “politics” was “not only the art of the possible, but…the science of symbolism.” Samuelson, quoted in Dallek, 108. 20 Bill Peterson, “Abortion Foes Gain Key Federal Posts; Abortion Foes Launching Effort to Alter U.S. Policies, Programs,” The Washington Post, (March 6, 1981), First Section. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/lnacademic/delivery. Accessed 27/11/2007.

The press portrayed the appointments as proof that pro-lifers had infiltrated the White

House and were preparing to mount a full scale assault on federal “abortion…sex education,

family planning and world population control” policies.21 Liberals’ fears reached a new fever

pitch when Evangelical Christian and pro-life ‘hero’ C. Everett Koop became surgeon

general after an acrimonious confirmation process.22 Koop’s career as a pioneering paediatric

surgeon and his Evangelical Christian faith had propelled him into a leadership role in the

pro-life movement after 1973.23 In addition to dozens of articles, he produced two key pro-

life tracts, The Right to Live, The Right to Die in 1976, and Whatever Happened to the

Human Race? two years later in collaboration with theologian Francis Schaeffer.24 “A large

number of us look forward to a very positive effect from President Reagan and his appointed

miracle men,” one of Koop’s pro-life supporters wrote shortly after his candidacy had been

announced.25

Pro-life leaders interpreted the appointments as the first steps toward effecting real

political change. Many activists flocked to the capital, confident of gaining access to ‘their’

pro-life president.26 Initially, it seemed that their hopes would be realized, especially when

Reagan initiated annual pro-life leadership meetings at the White House, and granted some

21 Peterson, “Abortion Foes,” First Section, A1. 22 See Paul Glastris, “Warning: The Surgeon General May be Good for your Health,” The Washington Monthly, (March 1987), 14, Matt Clark and Mary Hager, “The Koop Controversy,” Newsweek, (June 8, 1981), 101, and Sandra G. Boodman, “How C. Everett Koop shook up his former allies on the right and surprised his new friends on the left,” The Washington Post Magazine, (November 15, 1987), 30. Also see Martin, With God on Our Side, 238-240. 23 Profiles in Science, National Library of Medicine, “The C. Everett Koop Papers: Biographical Information,” US National Library of Medicine, http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/Views/Exhibit/narrative/biographical.html, Accessed: 12/11/2009. 24 Profiles in Science, National Library of Medicine, “The C. Everett Koop Papers: Biographical Information,” US National Library of Medicine, http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/Views/Exhibit/narrative/biographical.html, Accessed: 12/11/2009. 25 Peter V. Moulder M.D. (Professor of Surgery, Tulane University, New Orleans), “Congratulations letter to Koop,” (April 23, 1981), 1, National Library of Medicine/National Institute of Health, C. Everett Koop Papers, Box 68, Folder 5 (hereafter Koop Papers). 26 Virginia Evers, Note on Ronald Reagan, “Letter re: ‘Precious Feet,’” (May 12, 1980), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Mariam Bell Files, Box 5, OA 17964, “Abortion: General (8).”

key leaders further access to his administration.27 Beyond symbolic measures, however,

passing the HLA to invalidate Roe v. Wade remained foremost in the minds of many pro-life

leaders.28

Father Paul Marx was among the first activists to enjoy the newly conservative

political climate in Washington D.C. He arrived in 1980 after having been ousted from the

Human Life Center (HLC). St. John’s University had initially portrayed Father Marx’s

departure as a “sabbatical” for the benefit of his health: “Paul’s oldest and dearest friends

made this decision in his best interests and the…interests of the center and…the pro-life

movement.”29 Father Marx, however, viewed the action as akin to a hostile takeover of the

HLC. He claimed that the Center’s board of directors had become “dominated by liberals”

who wanted to censor HLC s “pro-life publications.”30 But once the decision had been made,

philanthropist Harry John and Marx’s close friend and colleague Father Anthony Zimmerman

suggested that God was calling him “out for better work,” and encouraged him to establish a

new organization in Washington D.C.31

Father Marx heeded their advice and soon resolved to use his five year leave of

absence to expand his worldwide “pro-life/pro-family apostolate.”32 His ‘sabbatical’ would in

fact last for nearly twenty years, until he retired to St John’s Abbey in 1999.33 Father

Zimmerman suggested that his friend name the new group Human Life International (HLI) to

27 In fact, the first “citizen’s group” President Reagan met with in the Oval Office, just two days after his inauguration was a “group of right-to-life advocates.” See Martin, With God on Our Side, 226. 28 Khagram, Riker and Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle,” in Khagram, Riker and Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 17. 29 Paul Brown suggested that Father Marx had been “the victim of a Saturday coup,” and condemned the forced sabbatical “an unbelievable outrage.” Liz Svetchuk, “Father Marx’s Leave from the Human Life Center Prompts Controversy,” The Catholic Sentinel, Vol. 111, No. 45, (Friday November 21, 1981), 1, CMRX 53/19. Also see “Pro-Life Group Splits,” National Catholic Bulletin, (5 December 1980), CMRX 53/19. 30 Andrew Scholberg, “Form Letter Responding to Mary Joyce’s comments on Marx’s departure from HLC,” (no date), 2, CMRX 53/150. 31 Father Anthony Zimmerman, “Letter to Father Marx re: sabbatical,” (December 2, 1980), 1, CMRX 53/19. 32 Father Paul Marx, “Dear Friend Letter,” (December 1981), 1, CMRX 53/22. 33 PRI, “PRI Board of Directors Mourns Passing of Pro-Life Pioneer, Fr. Paul Marx,” (22 March, 2010), http://pop.org/201003221194/pri-board-of-directors-mourns-passing-of-pro-life-pioneer-fr-paul-marx, Accessed: 23/3/2010.

reflect its global ambitions. HLI should be “small but very professional” and relocate only the

most loyal and necessary staff to Washington.34 The new organization would then focus on

persuading “key members of government health services” in developing nations to adopt pro-

life policies by sponsoring international symposia and translating anti-abortion propaganda

into multiple languages.35 In one of his first fundraising letters for HLI, Father Marx outlined

his plans to “do what no one else [was] doing” by devoting “two or three months a year to

spreading the pro-life/pro-family gospel” around the world.36

In December of 1981, Father Marx made HLI a reality with a substantial De Rance

grant authorized by Harry John, and practical support from fellow Catholic pro-life leaders

Paul and Judie Brown.37 Relationships such as those between the Browns and Father Marx

were a crucial component of pro-life organizations’ survival: such connections facilitated

information exchange and helped activists form coalitions and coordinate strategies. With

HLI’s help, similar patterns would soon emerge in international pro-life networking. The

organization began to publish Loveline soon its founding, but in 1983 changed the

newsletter’s name to HLI Reports.38 Both publications displayed a distinctly international

focus from the start and served as important conduits for information and encouragement

between international pro-life activists.39 Loveline and HLI Reports were initially modelled

34 Zimmerman, “Letter to Marx,” 1. 35 Zimmerman, “Letter to Marx,” 1. 36 Marx, “Dear Friend Letter,” (December 1981), 1. In part, this meant promoting Natural Family Planning (NFP) as an alternative to other contraceptive methods international family planning NGOs offered. See Father Paul Marx, “Contraception – The Gateway to Abortion,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 11, (November 1983), 21. 37 See “In Memoriam: Harry John,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 3, (February 1993), 11, and Zimmerman, “Letter to Marx,” 1, CMRX 53/19. The Browns, who headed the Life Amendment Political Action Committee (LAPAC) and American Life Lobby (ALL) helped Father Marx secure office space in Washington D.C., and allowed him to channel “founding” donations through Paul Brown’s non-profit “LAPAC fund” until HLI qualified for its own tax exemption. See Marx, “Dear Friend Letter,” (December 1981), 1. 38 See Loveline, Vol. 1, No. 1, (February 1983). 39 See for example Loveline, Vol. 1, No. 1, (February 1983), which discussed the prevalence of government “motivators” promoting contraceptive use in the Philippines, and documented Father Marx’s travels observing the expansion of the “contraceptive mentality” throughout Europe.

on the HLC’s International Review of Natural Family Planning, but transcended its medical and moral focus by assuming a distinctly political cast.

Legislation and frustration: domestic pro-life initiatives, 1980-1983

On the eve of the eighth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Republican North Carolina

Senator Jesse Helms introduced a new HLA to the 97th Congress.40 Senate Judiciary

Resolution 19 (S.J. Res. 19) sought to invest “each human being” with the “paramount right

to life” from “the moment of fertilization,” thereby restoring “personhood” to “unborn”

children.41 The following December, another Republican senator, Utah’s Orrin Hatch, offered

a more moderate amendment, which declared that the U.S. Constitution did not in fact

guarantee the “right to abortion.”42 In practice, Hatch’s amendment would have granted state

legislatures the authority “to ban or regulate abortion” if they passed more restrictive laws

than Congress.43 Pro-life leaders engaged in fierce debates over the relative merits of the two

proposals.44 When both measures stalled in Congress, disappointed activists agreed that

Reagan had not offered strong enough leadership on the issue.45 They knew that neither

amendment enjoyed good prospects without direct presidential intervention. Dismayed pro-

life lobbyists bombarded the White House with criticisms, prompting the president’s special

assistant and liaison with conservative groups Morton C. Blackwell to warn fellow White

40 Senator Jesse Helms, “S.J. Res. 19, 97th Congress, 1st Session,” (January 22 [legislative day January 5] 1981), x, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 8, OA 12450, “Pro-Life [cont’d #2] (3).” 41 Charles E. Rice, “The Human Life Amendment: No Compromise,” (Washington D.C.: American Life Lobby, 1980), 4. Wisconsin State Historical Society, Pamphlet 85-322. 42 “Anti-Abortion Bill Voted, 4-0,” The New York Times, (December 17, 1981), B16. 43 “Anti-Abortion Bill,” B16. 44 Bernard Weinraub, “Abortion Becoming a Top Issue in Congress,” The New York Times, (March 13, 1981), Section A, Page 18, Column 3. http://www.lexisnexis.com. Accessed: 27/11/2007. 45 Judie Brown, “Introducing…American Life Lobby, Inc.,” (c. 1983), 1, JCOK, Box 8, Folder 3; Doug Badger, Legislative Director Christian Action Council, “Memo to HLSC Members re: reintroduction of the HLB,” (October 23, 1981), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA12450, “Pro-Life [cont’d] (1).”

House aide Elizabeth Dole that national pro-life leaders might “be on the verge of a public

repudiation of the Administration.”46

Blackwell was right. In October of 1981, Father Marx joined the Human Life Statute

Coalition (HLSC), which united prominent representatives of eighty pro-life organizations

who demanded that the president endorse Senator Helms’ HLA.47 Randy Engel of the United

States Coalition for Life (USCL) had established the HLSC the previous month to represent

Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and secular pro-life groups who wanted to monitor legislative

developments on Capitol Hill and pressure politicians to support the HLA.48 The Coalition

encouraged Senators and Congressman to provide “sufficient support” to ensure that Senator

Helms’ HLA would pass.49 Most notably, the HLSC put the White House on notice when it

urged President Reagan to make good on his campaign promise to pro-life groups and to push

Congress to pass the amendment.50

Pro-life dissatisfaction with the White House was equally evident at a national

meeting that HLI and Judie Brown’s American Life Lobby (ALL) co-hosted in 1981. ALL

promoted the Unity ‘81 Conference as a “‘how-to-do-it’ workshop program” and opportunity

for activists to meet and strategize.51 Judie Brown invited several recent Reagan appointees to

address the conference, offering the White House an opportunity to reopen the “lines of

46 Morton C. Blackwell, “Memo to Elizabeth Dole: Uproar Among Pro-life Leaders Against Perceived RR Policy,” (May 15, 1981), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 8, OA 12450, “Pro- Life [cont’d #2] (3).” 47 Human Life Statute Coalition, “Letter to President Reagan,” (October 30, 1981), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, OA 12450, Box 8, “Pro-Life [cont’d] (1).” The Statute Coalition favoured Helms’ proposal because it seemed to have fewer loopholes that might permit ongoing access to legal abortions. 48 HLSC, “Letter to Reagan,” (October 30, 1981), 1-2; Human life Statute Coalition, “Briefing Book on the Human life Statute – Status Report,” (c. 1981-1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, OA 12450, Box 8, “Pro-Life [cont’d] (1).”. 49 HLSC, “Letter to Reagan,” (October 30, 1981), 1. 50 HLSC, “Letter to Reagan,” (October 30, 1981), 2. 51 ALL, “Press Release: ‘Unity ‘81’ to Bring Together the Five Points of the Pro-Life, Pro-family organizational Activity,” (September 11, 1981), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12449, “American Life Lobby (3).”

communication and…mutual trust” between the Reagan administration and pro-life leaders.52

Presidential aide Morton Blackwell agreed to speak on behalf of the president and shared top

billing on the conference program with direct mail fundraising pioneer Richard Viguerie, the

Conservative Caucus’s Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich of the Coalition for the Survival of a

Free Congress, Congressman Henry Hyde, and the Republican Study Committee’s Chair

Dick Dingman.53 The meeting also brought together a plethora of right-to-life organizers

representing an ecumenical grass roots base.54

Three hundred pro-life activists attended Unity ’81, where they heard some of the

Christian Right’s most successful leaders explain their goals and strategies.55 Although

speakers stressed the relationships between the “five major points of pro-life, pro-family

organizational activity: Service, Education, Legal, Politics and Lobbying,” most continued to

prioritize political approaches.56 Howard Phillips’ three part plan to defund “anti-life, anti-

family organizations” seemed to have the greatest impact after the conference. “First,”

Phillips advised participants, “you must learn how they get their money…then…monitor

legislative and executive decision points when…funding…is renewed,” before building

“popular opinion and grassroots pressure to get the program eliminated.”57 Finally, he

stressed the importance of having a variety of pro-life organizations “working at every level

52 Judie Brown, “Letter to Senator James Buckley, Under-Secretary Designate,” (February 13, 1981), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12449, “American Life Lobby (3).” Also see ALL, “Press Release: Reagan Assistant to Address ‘Unity ‘81’ Conference on How to ‘Impact’ Presidential, Public Policy,” (September 11, 1981), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files,, Box 7, OA12449, “American Life Lobby (3).” 53 ALL, “PR: ‘Unity ‘81’ to Bring Together the Five Points,” 2. 54 Methodists’ for Life head Dr. Olga Fairfax chaired the meeting, for example, while Father Marx joined the Browns and Dr Robert Sassone on the Speakers Bureau. ALL, “PR: Reagan Assistant to Address ‘Unity ‘81,” (September 11, 1981), 1-2. 55 Judie Brown, “Letter to Morton C. Blackwell,” (June 2, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12449, “American Life Lobby (1).” 56 ALL, “PR: Unity ’81 to Bring Together the Five Points,” 1. 57 Howard Phillips quoted in ALL, “Press Release: ‘New Right’ Leader Howard Phillips to tell Unity ’81 How to Defund Anti-Life, Anti-Family Organizations,” (September 11, 1981), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA12449, “American Life Lobby (3).”

of Government” to monitor and coordinate “unified action.”58 Grass roots leaders left the

sessions run by these distinguished speakers with a variety of new tools to help them take

effective political action.59

Unity ’81 was not, however, as harmonious as its name would suggest. When Morton

Blackwell attempted to gloss over pro-lifers’ recent frustrations with the president regarding

the HLA, his speech was not well received. During question time, activists assailed

Blackwell, demanding to know when the president was “going to get some guts” and endorse

Human Life legislation.60 Larry Bush, a reporter for the left-wing Village Voice later wrote

that Blackwell seemed almost grateful to speak to him—a known opponent—after being

bailed up by so many supposed allies.61 The incident revealed the extent to which a widening

credibility gap threatened Republican candidates’ prospects with pro-life voters in upcoming

elections.62 The president’s single-minded focus on instituting his economic program during

his first year in office exacerbated the difficulties faced by White House aides.63

Few presidential advisors heeded these warnings at first, even though they knew that

Republican candidates might well suffer by association with the president’s inaction on the

HLA in the 1982 congressional elections.64 Soon, however, pro-life leaders made it clear that

Reagan’s 1980 election-winning alliance of moral and fiscal conservatives was in jeopardy:

“The loose-knit coalition we have with the White House may be destroyed,” Paul Brown

58 Phillips quoted in ALL, “PR: ‘New Right’ Leader Howard Phillips,” 1. 59 American Life Lobby, “Unity ’81 – A History Making Conference,” (1981), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12449, “American Life Lobby (3).” 60 Larry Bush, “Behind the Anti-Abortion Lines,” The Village Voice, (Nov. 25-Dec. 1, 1981), 18. 61 Bush, “Behind the Anti-Abortion Lines,” 18, 20. 62 A Harris Survey conducted on March 11, 1982, showed that 61 percent of Americans were actually opposed to “a constitutional amendment to ban legalized abortion” with 33 percent in favor and 6 percent unsure. Royce Crocker, Government Division, Congressional Research Service, “Abortion, 1981-1982: Public Opinion, Issue Brief # 1B81052,” (Washington D.C.: Library of Congress, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Dee Jepsen Files, Box 2, OA 10774, “Abortion Public Opinion.” 63 Dallek, The Politics of Symbolism, 123. 64 Gary Bauer concluded that abortion would likely play a decisive role in nine Senate races in 1982. Gary Bauer, “Memo to Edwin Harper: Impact of Abortion Issue on 1982 Senate Races,” (May 18, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Wendy Borcherdt Files, Box 6, OA 7115, “Abortion.”

conceded.65 As he continued, “I’m not at all adverse [sic] to making up a hit list for the 1982

elections made up entirely of Republicans.”66 White House staffer Gary Bauer later admitted

to Edwin Harper, the president’s assistant for policy development, that he “believe[d] all of

us…underestimated the expectations that existed for…action on abortion among the right-to-

lifers.”67 Bauer concluded that pro-lifer’s “dashed hopes” could well cause the Republican

Party “serious problems in November.”68 But on the March 10, 1982, the Senate Judiciary

Committee delivered the White House a minor reprieve when it passed the Hatch HLA by a

10 to 7 vote.69 The probability of one of the Human Life proposals “mak[ing] it to the Senate

floor” had increased, yet it remained unlikely that either measure would survive further

debates.70

White House advisors realized that it would be imprudent for the president to risk

alienating the supporters of either amendment, and so counselled Reagan to remain silent on

the HLA question.71 At the same time, the president’s aides were determined to ensure that

blame for the inevitable “defeat of anti-abortion legislation on Capitol Hill” would not be

“placed on the door step of the White House.”72 So as to distance the president from the

likely failure of both amendments, his aides not only advised Reagan to refuse to take sides

on the two proposals’ relative merits, but suggested he urge “opposing” pro-life factions “to

reach agreement.”73 Reagan employed this strategy in an April 5, 1982, letter to Senators,

65 Bill Peterson, “For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon is Over,” The Washington Post, (July 21, 1981): First Section. [Lexis Nexis, 27/11/07]. Page 3 of 3. 66 Peterson, “For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon is Over,” First Section. 67 Gary L. Bauer, “Memo to Edwin L. Harper: Abortion – Impact on our coalition – FYI,” (June 18, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Wendy Borcherdt Files, Box 6, OA 7115, “Abortion.” 68 Bauer, “Memo to Harper: Abortion - Impact,” 1. 69 Gary L. Bauer, “Memo to Edwin Harper: Abortion Constitutional Amendment Passed by Senate Judiciary,” (March 10, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Wendy Borcherdt Files, Box 6, OA 7115, “Abortion.” 70 Bauer, “Memo to Harper: Abortion Constitutional Amendment,” 1. 71 Gary L. Bauer, “Memo to Edwin Harper: Presidential Letter re: Abortion,” (March 11, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Wendy Borcherdt Files, Box 6, OA 7115, “Abortion.” 72 Bauer, “Memo: Presidential Letter,” 1. 73 Elizabeth Dole, “Memo to Edwin Meese III, James A. Baker, Michael Deaver re: Ethnic/Catholic Strategy,” (c. 1982), 6, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12450, “Catholic Strategy (1 of 3).”

100

Representatives, and key pro-life leaders. The President tacitly endorsed both proposed laws, and expressed his hope that legislators would “not miss this long delayed opportunity” to restore legal “protection to children before birth.”74 The NRLC heralded Reagan’s endorsement as “a major step toward reuniting the prolife movement,” while a separate coalition of right-to-life organizations quoted the president in a letter of support to Senator

Helms.75 However, the president’s piecemeal support for the pro-life cause frustrated more activists than it placated.76

From political activism to local gradualism As early as 1980, a small number of astute pro-life leaders had started to warn their

colleagues to “take some eggs back out of the overloaded political basket.”77 In an article

published by FFL’s Sisterlife, John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe conceded that President Reagan’s

election had provided “a great boost to efforts to obtain a Human Life Amendment,” but

cautioned against this becoming the “sole aim of the right to life movement.”78 Cavanaugh-

O’Keefe claimed that the NRLC’s strategy of seeking “consensus on winnable political

goals” had proven “bankrupt.”79 He urged his colleagues to take an “active and direct”

approach to the pro-life cause: “We should be willing to risk more than our votes.”80

Although an HLA remained a long term goal, nine years of “working for just laws” with little

effect convinced many pro-lifers to try new tactics.81 In a separate article, FFL’s Jo

74 Ronald Reagan, “Letter to Jesse Helms,” (April 5, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12449,“American Life Lobby (1).” 75 Reagan Supports Both Hatch and Helms Proposals,” National Right to Life News, (May 10, 1982), 4. Also see Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life et al, “Letter to Senator Helms re: S. 2148,” (April 19, 1982), 1-3, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12449, “American Life Lobby (3).” The latter coalition included ALL, HLI, and FFL, along with 35 other concerned organizations. 76 Reagan Supports Both Hatch and Helms Proposals,” 4, Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life et al, “Letter to Senator Helms re: S. 2148,” 1-3. 77 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “Dear Friend Letter,” (March 24, 1982), 1, JCOK, Box 1, Folder 1. 78 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “1980 Pro Life Victories [?],” Sisterlife, (March 1981), 1, FFLA, Box 2, Folder 3. 79 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “Dear Friend Letter,” (no date), 1, JCOK, Box 4, Folder 2. 80 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Dear Friend Letter,” (no date), 1, and John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “Human and Vulnerable, (1976-1981), 2, JCOK, Box 2, Folder 4. 81 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “What is the Prolife Nonviolent Action Project?” Alektor, Vol. 1, No. 1, (May 1982), 6.

101

McGowan asserted that the time had come for “people…to put their bodies on the line and really suffer” to achieve substantive change.82

Consequently, a small subsector of the right-to-life lobby, which included Cavanaugh-

O’Keefe, Joseph Scheidler and Juli Loesch, advocated a return to direct action tactics, especially after Human Life legislation had stalled in Congress.83 Charles E. Rice of Notre

Dame University described 1983 as a pivotal year for pro-life groups, because so many

“turn[ed] toward activism” at that time.84 A number of catalysts precipitated this strategic shift, foremost among them the growing realization that the Reagan administration had no intention of pushing either HLA through Congress. Several groups led the charge: Catholics

United for Life, the remnants of PNAP, ALL and the PLAL were all intimately tied to HLI by mutual board members and conference activities.85 Whereas the direct action movement on the East Coast had subsided at the end of the 1970s, PNAP renewed its efforts in response to growing frustration with the Reagan administration after 1982 and initiated a new round of abortion clinic sit-ins, picketing, and sidewalk counselling activities.86 By 1984, the Project

82 Mary Meehan, “Challenging the Stereotype: The Other Right to Lifers,” Commonweal, (18 January, 1980), 16, FFLA, Box 1, Folder 26. 83 See “Sidewalk Counselling Workshop Outline,” (no date), 1, JCOK, Box 6, Folder 3. Document refers to “urgency” of direct action, and acknowledges that “a Human Life Amendment is years off at best.” Many pro- life activists had become radicalized by their involvement in right-to-life social movements, while Cavanaugh- O’Keefe’s disillusionment with the NRLC had personal reasons as well, since the National Right to Life News had fired him in 1981 over his refusal to abandon controversial direct action protests. Cavanaugh-O’Keefe then joined fellow militant Father Marx at HLI in 1982. With his new employer’s support, he simultaneously edited HLI’s newsletter and participated in direct action initiatives. For a theoretical overview of this process, see Szymanski, Pathways to Prohibition, 4. Szymanski uses Douglas McAdam’s study of Freedom Summer participants who shifted leftward, while students who applied but didn’t go remained politically moderate as an example of this phenomenon. For details of Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s return to direct action protests, see John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “My Fleece Before the Lord ,” (March 5, 1982), 1, JCOK, Box 1 Folder 1, Marc Adams, “Activist refuses fine, gets 7-day jail term,” The Washington Times, (October 25, 1983), JCOK, Box 2, Folder 1, and “Going to Jail to Stop the Bloodbath,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 12, (December 1983), 5. 84 Charles E. Rice, quoted in Pro-Life Action League, Action News, Vol. 3, No. 2, (July 1983), 2, JCOK, Box 8, Folder 1. 85 In fact, Father Marx, Judie Brown, and Joe Scheidler of HLI, ALL and PLAL respectively all served on the World Council of Alternatives to Abortion International (AAI), together with Dr’s John and Lyn Billings and Rev Daniel Overduin (Australia), Dr. Patrick Dunn (NZ), and a plethora of HLI’s other international board members. See AAI, “United States Directory of Pro-Life Emergency Services,” (NY: AAI, 1983), III, JCOK, Box 3, Folder 3. 86 “Failure and Success in the Pro-Life Movement,” (no date), 1-3, JCOK Papers, Box 2, Folder 4; PNAP, “Practical Aspects of a Pro-Life Sit-In,” (no date), 1, JCOK Papers, Box 6, Folder 3; Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “What is the Prolife Nonviolent Action Project?” Alektor, (May 1982), 3.

102 claimed its members had succeeded in saving one child for every fifteen women who entered an abortion clinic at which they were protesting.87 Pro-life direct action tactics were not, however, without their critics. Even though PNAP was explicitly nonviolent, founder of the

NRLC, Dr. Jack Willke, still worried that direct action protests would project “an image of violence and fanaticism,” and turn public opinion against “the pro-life cause.”88

The pro-life direct action protests that erupted across the United States in the mid-

1980s were also part of a transnational nonviolent movement against abortion. The senior vice president of Victoria’s Right to Life, Catholic priest Father Eugene Ahern, initiated

“Fast for Life” in Australia in 1981 to demonstrate his solidarity with innocent victims of abortion and raise public awareness of the pro-life cause.89 Within three years, Father

Ahern’s annual nonviolent protest had spread to New Zealand, Italy, India and England, as well as the United States; in 1984, three HLI members staged a week long “Fast for Life” in

Washington D.C.90 Father Ahern claimed that he had been inspired to begin his annual pro- life fast when he heard French paediatrician and geneticist Dr. Jerome Le Jeune, a member of

87 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “No Cheap Solutions,” 28-29. The turn toward pro-life civil disobedience across the United States also seemed to heal some of the rifts between organizations caused by the acrimonious amendment debates. For example, PNAP’s newsletter Alektor applauded FFL’s Rachel MacNair when her involvement in a Kansas City sit-in saw her jailed for a week. Similarly, PNAP crossed progressive and conservative lines by receiving favourable coverage in ALL About Issues. In Chicago, PLAL leader Joe Scheidler earned the nickname, the “Green Beret of the pro-life movement” due to his confrontational tactics at abortion clinics. “Pro-Lifer Calls her Sit-In Civil Disobedience,” Alektor, Vol. 1, No. 1, (May 1982), 8. Portions of Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s “No Cheap Solutions” first appeared In the June 1983 edition of ALL About Issues. Also see Paul Galloway, “Pro-Life Strategist,” Chicago Tribune, (August 20, 1986), 7, JCOK Papers, Box 2, Folder 1. Thousands of right to life activists who embraced the new strategies were arrested over the coming decades, which generated enormous publicity for the movement at large. In one week of 1988 alone, 2000 anti- abortion demonstrators in 26 US cities were arrested for attempting to close abortion clinics. See Robert Di Veroli, “Abortion Foes Look to 1960s for strategy: Militancy, sit-ins are tactics to upset high court ruling,” San Diego Tribune, (November, 1988), JCOK, Box 2, Folder 1. 88 Dr. John C. Willke, quoted in Galloway, “Pro-Life Strategist,” 7. Willke’s fears were realized over the coming decade, as direct action protests gave way to a wave of anti-abortion violence across the US characterized by attacks on doctors and nurses, and clinic bombings. The Army of God’s repertoire of harassment, violence and kidnapping are particularly notable examples of the aggressive face of direct action. See Alesha E. Doan, Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007), especially Chapter 4: 105-129. 89 See Father Eugene Ahern, “Fellowship Through Fasting,” Right to Life News, (East Brunswick, Vic: March- April 1981), 4-5, JCOK, Box 7 Folder 11. 90 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe of Human Life International, “Nonviolent Activists Fast for Life,” (March 21, 1984), 1, CMRX 53/27.

103

HLI’s advisory board, speak at an international conference—this further attests to the growing importance of transnational dialogues.91 Much like their contemporaries in the human rights movement, pro-life leaders were beginning to act on “shared principled moral

beliefs” that they transmitted across global networks.92

The local is global: “What American money is doing to these poor people…is truly shameful.”93 Father Marx’s keynote address at the 1980 Let’s All Protect A Child conference bore

a striking resemblance to John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s earlier Sisterlife editorial. Father Marx

also told his audience that the pro-life movement should continue to push for

uncompromising human life legislation that guaranteed the “right to life from the moment of

fertilization.”94 He also reminded his audience that the problem was not limited to the United

States. According to Marx, “pill companies” had responded to “declining use of the pill and

IUD in the USA” by conspiring with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities

(UNFPA) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) “to ‘dump’”

contraceptives “in the poor countries.”95 Pro-life leaders therefore had to conceive of their

mission in similarly global terms. Father Marx’s conclusions resonated particularly strongly

with those right-to-life leaders most disappointed with their inability to translate electoral

gains into an HLA within the United States.

As discussed above, pro-life groups sought out a range of new political opportunities

in the early 1980s; some turned to local gradualism or direct action protests at abortion

clinics. Others, including Father Marx, intensified their commitment to global networking.

91 Ahern, “Fellowship Through Fasting,” 4. 92 Darren Hawkins, “Human Rights Norms and Networks in Authoritarian Chile,” in Khagram, Riker and Sikknink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 59. 93 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Sister Anne Doherty,” (August 31, 1981), 1, CMRX 52/14. 94 Father Paul Marx, “Human Life Amendment: What Will it be Worth?” (January 19, 1980), 10, 14, CMRX 51/134. 95 Marx, “Human Life Amendment,” 4. Father Marx singled out “Depo Provera,” an injectable contraceptive the United States’ Foods and Drugs Administration (FDA) had outlawed because of safety concerns for particular criticism, because it was still “widely used” in the Third World “despite its serious side effects.”

104

The shape this alternative vision of pro-life activism would take began to crystallize in 1981;

HLI used international symposia and meetings, which often paralleled domestic conferences,

to strengthen existing relationships between international pro-life leaders and make new contacts.

The brochure for one of HLI’s first international meetings featured an illustration of a woman dressed in nineteenth-century fashion clutching an infant to her breast. An unflattering caricature of Uncle Sam leered menacingly over her shoulder, representing the unwanted presence of the “Ugly American” in the “bedrooms of the world.” Alongside stood

HLI’s promise to “expose the massive U.S.-based aid programs that [were] destroying the family in the third world.”96 The image deliberately ascribed neo-colonialist overtones to programs funded by U.S. dollars so as to challenge the implicit altruism of international family planning NGOs. More broadly, these meetings built upon the new form of political activism the HLC had initiated in the 1970s by gathering representatives of pro-life groups from developed and developing nations to discuss their problems and formulate shared goals.

International symposia were a vital component of HLI’s success. Chief benefactor

Harry John realized their importance and donated around $50,000 to its conferences on sexuality, chastity, and Natural Family Planning during HLI’s first year.97 The De Rance

Foundation’s support allowed HLI conferences to fulfil provide generous scholarships to

“worthy candidates” from developing nations so that they could attend the conferences in the

United States, regularly featured influential international speakers at their symposia, and produced literature and Audio Visual materials for participants to take back to their home

96 ALL, HLI, LAPAC, “Official Program of the 1981 Joint International Symposia,” (June 19-27, 1981), 1. CMRX 67/24. 97 Father Marx, “Letter to Harry John,” (June 1, 1982), 1, CMRX 69/41.

105 countries.98 By establishing outposts in developing nations and bringing their leaders to the

United States, HLI not only shared its resources, but gave representatives of developing nations a chance to object to population control programs, and in so doing introduced their voices into global pro-life discourse.

Father Marx’s push to inoculate developing nations against population control rhetoric paid rapid dividends as HLI’s international network expanded quickly, especially in countries with significant or growing Catholic populations.99 HLI benefitted from the

“homogeneous” global pool of potential participants, who the organization was able to access through existing Church networks: millions of Catholics worldwide shared the groups’ values and concerns.100 Father Marx rightly viewed fellow conservative Catholics as potential pro- life allies in HLI’s early days, because Catholics had formed a self-consciously global community long before the “new globalization” of the 1970s.101 HLI’s work in two countries during the early 1980s, the Philippines and Ireland, showcased the organization’s dedication to ‘saving’ Catholic countries from the contraceptive mentality, demonstrates the very practical approach Father Marx took to his global apostolate, and the consequences of both.

“The hope of Asia”? HLI in the Philippines

98 Marx, “Letter to Harry John,” (June 1, 1982), 1, CMRX 69/41. Karen Brown Thompson argues that global women’s meetings that attracted delegates from the USA, Africa, Asia, Australia and the Americas had the dual effect of “disseminating human rights norms and drawing geographically underrepresented voices into the discussion of women’s rights as human rights.” Clearly, HLI’s conferences fulfilled a similar function for advocates of the unborn and family rights. See Brown Thompson, “Women’s Rights,” in Khagram, Riker and Sikkink, Restructuring World Politics, 106. 99 See Mark Jamel, “Marx: New Spirit for old cause in new location,” Daily Times, St. Cloud Minnesota, (November 7, 1981), 1A, CMRX 53/13, and Marx, “Letter to Sister Doherty,” 1, CMRX 52/14. 100 HLI’s expansion mirrored the growth of domestic social movements which often emerge from friendship and family networks, or from religious associations Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle,” in Khagram, Riker and Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 13. The African American civil rights movement utilized established Black Church networks, while conservative women’s organizing in California was founded on friendship networks. See Charles M. Payne, I’ve Got the Light of Freedom: the organizing tradition and the Mississippi Freedom Struggle, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), and Lisa McGirr, Suburban Warriors: The origins of the new American Right, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001). 101 See previous chapter on the contraceptive mentality.

106

Pope John Paul II reportedly described the Philippines—a Catholic archipelago amidst predominantly Buddhist, Shinto, and Confucian nations—as “the hope of Asia.”102 Its long, tangled colonial history with the United States meant that the Philippines had also

become a testing ground for population control programs in the 1970s. Father Marx’s first

speaking tour of the Philippines in 1964 yielded an important contact; Catholic nun Sister

Pilar Versoza attended one of his talks, and later wrote him to request advice and materials to

help her establish the nation’s first pro-life group.103 In 1970, President Ferdinand Marcos had signed Executive Order 233, officially launching the Philippine Population Program.104

The Commission on Population, more commonly known as POPCOM, assumed responsibility for enacting and monitoring the nation’s population program the next year. By

the mid-1970s, POPCOM was officially authorized to provide any contraceptive method to

Filipinos, excepting abortion, which remained illegal.105

In 1981, the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres, a French-founded Filipino order,

sponsored Father Marx’s travels to and throughout the Philippines. He followed Catholic

missionary trails across the country, “loaded down with seventeen films, fifty slides, and as

much pro-life/pro-family literature as could be carried.”106 For nearly a month, Father Marx

stayed at seminaries and convents, speaking to groups of Catholic clergy and laypeople about

contraception and abortion “at least three and four times per day.”107 After his talks, locals

often approached Marx to confirm his suspicion that USAID and President Marcos had been

102 Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary: the Orient,” (May 6 and 20, 1981), 90, CMRX 79/01. 103 Sister Mary Pilar Versoza, quoted in Human Life International, A Tribute to the Apostle of Life Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., (Gaithersburg, MD: HLI, 1994), 18. 104 Commission on Population, Republic of the Philippines, “POPCOM: About US,” http://www.popcom.gov.ph/about_us/index.html, Date Accessed: 9/12/2009; Ruth Dixon-Mueller and Adrienne Germain, “Population Policy and Feminist Action in Three Developing Countries,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning (1994), 208. 105 Commission on Population, Republic of the Philippines, “POPCOM: About US.” Dixon-Mueller and Germain, 208. 106 Father Paul Marx, “Dear Friend of Human Life International; Report No. 3 to Our Valued Supporters,” (1982), 1, CMRX 53/22. 107 Marx, “Human Life International Report No. 3,” (1982), 1.

107 pouring funds into family planning programs.108 Worse still, the IPPF’s Filipino affiliate

POPCOM was reportedly using U.S. taxpayer dollars to apply “fierce...pressure” to local communities to lower population growth.109 “Is there a worse imperialism than to destroy the family and corrupt the young of another nation?” he asked HLI Special Reports subscribers after he detailed POPCOM’s alleged activities.110

Father Marx’s itinerary included significant blocks of time dedicated to training doctors in the latest Natural Family Planning techniques and warning them about the evils of

abortion.111 Toward the end of the lecture tour, HLI sponsored a three day symposium in

Bukidnon, a large agricultural province south of Manila, at which Marx warned participants

that development aid was often premised on government acceptance of population control

targets.112 He asserted that the “World Bank offer[ed] money and loans to developing nations…ONLY IF THEY CONTROL THEIR POPULATION.”113 This unequal relationship between donor and borrower countries enabled the United States as the strongest voting member of the World Bank to “reinforce” former “colonial ties” over the Philippines in the realm of fertility control during Marcos’ rule.114

A group of doctors in Cebu, the country’s second largest city, heeded Father Marx’s warnings and requested permission to form HLI’s first international branch to fight “anti- lifers all over the Philippines.”115 Although Marx claimed that he had not planned to establish

HLI branches in developing countries, he accepted the group’s request as a “sign of Divine

108 Marx, “Travel Diary: the Orient,” 90. 109 Marx, “HLI Report # 3,” 2. 110 Marx, “HLI Report # 3,” 2. 111 See Fr. Vincente San Juan, SJ, “Overview of the First National Convention on Family Planning, (May 22-24, 1981), 1, CMRX 78/4. 112 “Summary of Fr. Paul Marx’s Talk, First National Convention on Natural Family Planning, Camp Phillips, Bukidnon,” (May 22, 1981), 2., CMRX 78/4. 113 “Summary of Fr. Paul Marx’s Talk,” 2. 114What Father Marx did not yet realize was that the same voting patterns at the World Bank would eventually succumb to pro-life influence. See Ngaire Woods, The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006) 153 and Chapter five of this thesis, pages 22-30. 115 Marx, “HLI, Report # 3,”, 2.

108

Providence” that he should.116 He left half of his films with the Filipino leaders, and promised

them that HLI would be a conduit for literature and financial support for their cause.117 When

pro-life leader Sister Pilar Versoza was placed under house arrest by “Dictator Marcos” in

1982, Father Marx extended his condolences, visited the nun, and lobbied U.S. Congressmen

to pressure Marcos to release her.118 During this visit, three hundred and fifty delegates,

including powerful Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin, met to hear Marx speak at another national

pro-life conference. Sr. Versoza claimed that Marx inspired the clergy, as well as ordinary

Filipinos, “to get better organized.”119

HLI, which drew financial support from several countries at this point, was clearly

starting to evolve from the hub of an international advocacy network into a transnational

NGO by incorporating its first international branches.120 As HLI grew, its leaders also perfected the art of mobilizing support for the pro-life cause by making emotive appeals on behalf of “unborn children.” Father Marx and his colleagues regularly described foetuses as

“innocent and defenceless” individuals, whose legal “right to life” should be guaranteed from

“the moment of fertilization.”121 Global pro-life networks became increasingly savvy,

politically aware participants in transnational civil society throughout the 1980s and the staff

at HLI’s Washington D.C. headquarters proved especially adept at deploying funds,

information and political pressure.

116 Marx, “HLI Report # 3,” 2. 117 Marx, “HLI Report # 3,” 2, and Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary – The Philippines and South Africa,” (February 2, 1982), 1, CMRX 79/03. 118 Versoza, quoted in HLI, A Tribute to the Apostle of Life Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., 18. Also see correspondence between Father Marx and Sister Versoza, in CMRX 5/15 – Versoza, Sr. Mary Pilar, 1982-1984. 119 Versoza, quoted in HLI, A Tribute to the Apostle of Life, 18 120 Marx, “HLI Report # 3,” 2. HLI’s development fits within Louis Kriesberg’s definition of a Transnational Social Movement (TSMO), which is described as having membership that is active in “two or more states.” See Louis Kriesberg, “Social Movements and Global Transformation,” in Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfied and Ron Pagnucco (editors), Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State, (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997), 3. 121 See Father Paul Marx, “The Third World War,” (no date), 1, CMRX 51/118, The Third World War, and Marx, “The Human Life Amendment,” 14, CMRX 51/134.

109

Global Campaigning: “The Irish will shine as a beacon for all of us…”122

HLI’s expansion into the Philippines demonstrated the global resonance of the right- to-life movement, but in Ireland’s pro-life amendment campaign international activists found an ideal issue around which to rally support. Transnational advocacy networks, like domestic social movements, thrive when group leaders identify a “good” issue around which to focus their efforts.123 During his first trips to Ireland in 1973 and 1976, Father Marx had urged

Catholic clergy to “get ready for abortion.”124 His warnings had been timely: Britain passed its Abortion Act in 1967. This new provision for abortion set a potentially dangerous precedent since Irish law was modelled on English jurisprudence. For Ireland, abortion was therefore an inherently transnational issue. After 1967, Irish women who wished to terminate their pregnancies simply travelled to England to do so.125 By the mid-1970s, the Well Woman and Rape Crisis Centers across Ireland were offering clients referrals to abortion clinics in

England in addition to their other services.126

A second, related factor added urgency to Father Marx’s appeals. Ireland’s laws prohibited contraception as well as abortion until the 1970s, yet in 1973 the Irish Supreme

Court revised the prohibition on importing contraceptives in its landmark McGee case.127

Notably, presiding justices referred to the two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that had

122 “Hail to the Irish!” ALL About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 10, (October 1983), 11. 123 See Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998) 27. 124 Father Paul Marx, “Ireland – Trip Diary,” (November 30 & December 4, 1982), 15, 10: CMRX 79/07. 125 Jennifer Sprang describes this as “exporting its [abortion’s] consequences to other European countries where abortion is legal.” See Jennifer E. Sprang, Abortion and Divorce Law in Ireland, (London: McFarland and Company Inc, 2004)10, 16. 126 Thomas Hesketh, The Second Partitioning of Ireland? the abortion referendum of 1983, (Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin: Brandsma Books, 1990), 5. 127 The importation of contraceptives had been illegal since 1935. Mrs. Mary McGee was twenty-seven years old when she gave birth to her third and fourth children, twin daughters in November of 1970. Following the birth, McGee’s doctor advised her that another pregnancy could endanger her life because her latest pregnancies had been “complicated by serious attacks of cerebral thrombosis.” Mrs McGee attempted to follow her doctor’s orders by ordering contraceptive jelly from the United Kingdom to stop her conceiving again. Yet customs officials, citing the 1935 statute, seized McGee’s contraceptives when they arrived in Ireland, which prompted her to challenge the restrictive law. On December 19, 1973, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the McGee’s right to privacy within their marriage trumped legal prohibitions on the importation of contraceptives. See Sprang, 77-78.

110 legalized contraception in the United States, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, as the practical basis for their decision. The Irish Supreme Court’s reasoning worried conservatives because it seemed to set a troubling precedent; they saw striking “parallels between” the way in which contraception was “legalized in Ireland,” and “how abortion had

come in one fell swoop in the United States.”128 Yet even when Father Marx described the

United States as a worst case scenario, and told Irish Catholics that contraceptives,

sterilization and abortion could easily be legalized if they were not vigilant, he found that

Irish audiences did not believe Ireland would legalize abortion.129

For a time, it seemed that Father Marx’s Irish audiences were right: due to its Catholic

majority and prohibitive laws that had been “intact and virtually unchallenged for over one

hundred years,” Ireland was one of the few European countries to not have legalized abortion

by the 1980s.130 Nevertheless, debates among leading Irish legal scholars over the relative

rights of the mother and foetus soon filtered into public discourse, raising the unwelcome

spectre of legislative change.131 Irish conservatives realized that they would have to act

quickly to prevent the legalization of abortion.132 Engineer and veteran conservative

organizer John O’Reilly was one of the pioneers of the Irish Pro Life Amendment Campaign

(PLAC) and believed that Ireland was likely to legalize abortion soon, whether through

“parliamentary…or court action.”133 In his frequent correspondence with Father Marx at HLI,

128 Sprang, 10. 129 Marx, “Ireland – Trip Diary,” (November 30 & December 4, 1982), 15, 10. 130 In fact, five years after Father Marx’s last visit to Ireland, any woman who deliberately terminated her pregnancy could still be charged with a felony under Irish law, and her “accomplices” were also subject to prosecution. See Hesketh, 1-2, and Sprang, 40-57. Also see Jon Nordheimer, “Abortion Battle Catches Dublin Leader Unawares,” New York Times, April 27, 1983, A2 Proquest.com, (accessed 4/12/08). 131 Sprang, 86. 132 Hesketh, 5. 133 At the time, O’Reilly was Vice Chairman of the Council for Social Concern (COSC), and had previously co- founded the Responsible Society’s Irish branch. See reference 6, in Hesketh, 32.

111

O’Reilly said the McGee case had initiated “a period of judicial activism” in Ireland that he

feared echoed developments in the United States prior to Roe v. Wade.134

For O’Reilly the final straw came in November 1980, when the Irish parliament

approved a family planning bill that permitted retail pharmacists to dispense contraceptives to

anyone who had a medical prescription.135 Alarmed conservatives viewed the bill as another

slide down the slippery slope to abortion and sprang into action. The Society for the

Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), an English organization formed to oppose Britain’s

1967 Abortion Act, dispatched a number of activists to Ireland, and staged its first large-scale

anti-abortion demonstration in Dublin that December.136 Six thousand people attended the

protest calling for “action against abortion,” including Dublin’s Lord Mayor who “made a

very good pro-life speech.”137 The number of demonstrators convinced O’Reilly that the time

was right to mount a vigorous anti-abortion campaign, and he broached the subject at a 1981

meeting of the conservative Council for Social Concern (COSC).138 He suggested that Irish

activists should begin to push for a pro-life constitutional amendment.139 On January 24,

1981, the Pro Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC), an amalgamation of twenty “catholic

organizations,” was born.140 In direct contrast to the U.S. pro-life movement, which arose as a

largely reactive response to Roe v. Wade, PLAC’s proactive agenda aimed to prevent a

similar outcome in Ireland.

The failure of human life legislation in the United States coupled with the fact that

Ireland was the “last bastion” of Catholic resistance to abortion in the developed world

134 Hesketh, 3, 32. 135 D. Nowlan, “The Irish Solution,” Populi Vol. 7, No. 2, (1980), 9-14. 136 John O’Reilly, “Letter to Marx,” (31 January, 1981), 1, CMRX 5/2. 137 O’Reilly, “Letter to Marx,” (31 January, 1981), 1. 138 Hesketh, 7-9; 12. 139 Hesketh, 7-9; 12. 140 O’Reilly, “Letter to Marx,” (January 31, 1981), 1. Founding members of PLAC included the COSC, SPUC, and the National Association of the Ovulation Method, Ireland (NAOMI). A full list can be found in Hesketh, 12. Also see Ursula Barry, “Abortion in the Republic of Ireland,” Feminist Review No. 29, (Summer 1988), 57- 58.

112 inspired many American pro-life leaders to take a keen interest in the Irish pro-life amendment campaign. Father Marx thought that an Irish victory could prove to be a “turning

point” for the global pro-life cause.141 American activists’ determination to ensure that Irish

pro-life leaders did not repeat their mistakes was apparent in the ongoing correspondence

between Father Marx and John O’Reilly. The Irish Campaign, O’Reilly wrote to Father

Marx, would take “a positive stand to pre-empt abortionists” and if successful, stop them

from declaring “open season on the unborn child.”142 Marx replied that it was imperative that

they “pass a Human Life Amendment as soon as possible” and advised O’Reilly to take great

care with the wording of any proposed legislation.143 He admitted that American pro-life

leaders had weakened their own HLA campaign by haggling over terminology, something he

recommended the Irish avoid at all costs.144 Nevertheless, he urged O’Reilly to campaign for

“a paramount human life amendment” that guaranteed “the right to life” from “the moment of

fertilization” with no exceptions.145 As he told O’Reilly: “If the Irish could declare life

beginning at conception, it would be a great thing for Ireland, the world and…pro-lifers

everywhere.”146

From the outset, the prospects for success of an Irish pro-life amendment were far

higher than those of its contemporaries in the United States. Firstly, Irish pro-lifers were not

attempting to repeal existing legislation, but instead launched a pre-emptive attack. Secondly,

any American HLA would have had to survive votes in the Senate and House before it could

be sent to the states for ratification; by contrast, the Irish pro-life amendment only required a

simple majority of the referendum votes to become law. It was therefore essential that PLAC

garner as much grass roots support for the amendment as possible. Dr. Julia Vaughan headed

141 Father Paul Marx, “The Death Industry is Gaining Ground And Fight Heats Up as Referendum Nears,” LoveLine, (April 1983), 6. 142 John O’Reilly, quoted in Hesketh, 4, 5. 143 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to O’Reilly,” (February 20, 1981), 2, CMRX 5/2. 144 Marx, “Letter to O’Reilly,” (February 20, 1981), 2. 145 Marx, “Letter to O’Reilly,” (February 20, 1981), 2. 146 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to O’Reilly,” (April 23, 1982), 2, CMRX 5/2.

113 the Amendment Campaign’s Executive Committee, while PLAC’s more experienced activists, including O’Reilly and Patsy Buckley, ran the Finance Committee.147 PLAC’s leaders resolved to convince the Irish Parliament (Dail) to schedule a referendum, but disagreed on the best way to pressure the government to accept their proposal.148

Within a matter of months, the Campaign’s Executive and Finance Committees were at loggerheads over goals and tactics.149 O’Reilly and his supporters wanted to promote the amendment by circulating a petition that they could then present to the Dail to show that the initiative had popular support.150 The parliament would have to act, O’Reilly argued, if PLAC could gather “one million signatures.”151 The petition would also have raised public awareness of the pro-life cause and helped PLAC reach potential supporters across Ireland,

giving the campaign a grass roots fund raising and voter participation base.152 But PLAC’s

director disagreed with O’Reilly, and instead decided to lobby politicians directly.153 Dr.

Vaughan’s strategy paid off in the short term: the leaders of Ireland’s three major political

parties each promised to hold a referendum on the pro-life amendment if they were elected in

1982.154 Vaughan’s manoeuvring also enabled the Amendment Campaign to place the

referendum on Ireland’s political agenda without attracting much opposition. Experienced activists within PLAC worried, however, that the same low grass roots profile across the

nation would ultimately undermine their campaign.155

As politicians contemplated the merits of a referendum, the Irish public remained

largely ignorant of the push for a pro-life amendment. In June of 1982, COSC members

147 Hesketh, 13-14. 148 John O’Reilly, quoted in Hesketh, 6, 18. 149 Hesketh, 13-14. 150 Hesketh, 9-10. 151 Hesketh, 9-10. 152 John O’Reilly, “Lecture at 1983 PLAN Conference, Rome” (September 1983), quoted in Hesketh, 11. 153 Hesketh, 16-17. 154 Hesketh, 16-17. 155 Hesketh, 77.

114 warned Vaughan that even if a referendum was announced, Irish voters would be highly susceptible to “intensive brain washing” campaigns by the “the international abortion movement” unless PLAC came prepared with its own pro-life propaganda.156 O’Reilly suggested that PLAC use educational techniques pioneered in the United States to pre-empt the anticipated pro-choice onslaught. The campaign needed to produce and distribute

“coloured literature on…pre-birth life” and saturate the media with pro-life propaganda.157

O’Reilly also recommended PLAC invite “well-trained speakers and people able to conduct meetings” to Ireland to train local pro-life activists.158 American activists in particular had proven most adept in several key fields: education, fund raising, and accessing political power. “We are new at fighting the propaganda and organizations…you have fought for years,” Irish SPUC Secretary Mary Kelly wrote in an appeal to her American contemporaries,

“we need your expertise, your advice, and your speakers.”159

John O’Reilly also understood the international implications of the Irish campaign: the pro-life “struggle is not a national one, nor one for the Western world, but a truly global conflict” he argued, echoing Father Marx.160 It would therefore “be criminally foolish,”

O’Reilly said, to reject assistance from international experts.161 A group comprising one of

Marx’s protégés, Bill Sherwin, members of the Irish SPUC, and O’Reilly himself were in fact

requesting financial and technical support from U.S. pro-life organizations by 1982.162 HLI,

the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Life, and Americans United for Life (AUL)

heeded their calls, and immediately made plans to support the Irish campaign.163 On March 3,

156 Hesketh, 19. 157 John O’Reilly, “COSC letter to Dr Julia Vaughan,” quoted in Hesketh, 20-21. 158 O’Reilly, “COSC letter,” quoted in Hesketh, 20-21. 159 Mary Kelly, Secretary, Irish SPUC, “Dear Pro-Lifer,” (June 1982), 2, JCOK, Box 1, Folder 1. 160 John O’Reilly, quoted in Hesketh, 21. 161 John O’Reilly, quoted in Hesketh, 21. 162 J.P. Wall, Pro-life Coalition of Pennsylvania, “Press Release: Abortion in Ireland,” (August 1982), 1, JCOK, Box 1, Folder 1, and Kelly, “Dear Pro-Lifer,” (June 1982), 1-3. 163 See Patsy Buckley (SPUC Dublin), “Correspondence with Marx,” (1983), CMRX 11/5, and Hilary Tovey and Perry Share, A Sociology of Ireland, (Dublin: Gill & MacMillan Ltd, 2003) 463.

115

1982 the three organizations announced “the beginning of an intensive prolife educational campaign to help Irish pro-lifers prevent legalized abortion coming to Ireland.”164 Four months later, British and American pro-life leaders toured Ireland for ten days, giving forty lectures to curious audiences around the country.165 In July, the international experts assembled at a COSC-sponsored meeting to advise Irish leaders.166 In an attempt to impress the importance of the pro-life cause on their audiences, speakers emphasized the relative ease with which abortion had been legalized in the United States and Great Britain.167

The week-long seminar was reminiscent of the Doctors Who Respect Life’s Swiss meeting five years earlier, and gave Irish activists the chance to learn from some of the most prominent English and American pro-life leaders. Speakers included Carl Anderson, U.S.

Senator Jesse Helms’ former aide and Special Assistant to President, Father Marx, Phyllis

Bowman of the English SPUC, NRLC founder Dr. Jack Willke, and Paul and Judie Brown of

ALL and LAPAC, respectively.168 The international faculty and PLAC activists schooled fifty leaders in “the political, legal, educational, ethical, medical, and religious aspects” of the

“pro-life fight.”169 Workshops emphasized the importance of stimulating grass roots activism, fund raising, and lobbying politicians.170 They also aimed to “give the Irish the prolife tools and information” that had been “effective in the United States.”171 On the final day of the meeting, the proposed amendment’s wording—a sticking point for Irish pro-lifers—came up for debate. The session concluded with the acknowledgement that no single amendment could “cover all the loopholes,” but that the Irish amendment should endeavour to protect the

164 Americans United for Life, “Press Release,” (March 3, 1982), 1, CMRX 11/09. 165 Americans United for Life, “Abortion Threat Grows in Ireland: Referendum Sought,” (April 14, 1982): 1, CMRX 11/09. 166 Hesketh, 22. 167 AUL, “Abortion Threat Grows in Ireland,” 1. 168 See Marx, “Trip Diary – Ireland,” (March 17-21, 1982), 30, CMRX 79/03, and “Pro-Life Seminar: List of Participants,” (March 19-21, 1982): 1-2, CMRX 11/08. 169 Americans United for Life, “Press Release,” (March 3, 1982), 1. 170 Marx, “Trip Diary – Ireland,” (March 17-21, 1982), 30, “Pro-Life Seminar: List of Participants,” 1-2. 171 Americans United for Life, “Press Release,” (March 3, 1982), 2.

116 right to life, all the way from the point of fertilisation.172 When he returned from the meeting,

Congressman Henry Hyde remarked that he was confident that an Irish pro-life victory would

“exert enormous influence” over the future trajectory of pro-life activism worldwide.173

Newly elected Taoiseach Charles Haughey made good on his earlier promises to

Vaughan by setting the referendum process in motion after the 1982 election.174 Organized

opposition to the amendment soon materialized. A motley coalition of liberal politicians,

feminists, trade unionists, secular interest groups and Protestants established the Anti-

Amendment Campaign (AAC), which strenuously objected to PLAC’s overtly Catholic

logic.175 The AAC also condemned the referendum as costly and unnecessary, but at the same

time refused to be drawn into a discussion of its members’ stances on abortion.176 Vaughan’s

earlier focus on securing political endorsements to the exclusion of grass roots organizing

rendered PLAC quite weak in the face of the AAC’s attacks. In September, a series of

surveys revealed that just fifty percent of the Irish population knew that a referendum to

decide the fate of the pro-life amendment was imminent.177 A Catholic Standard editorial

urged PLAC to realize that it had little hope of attracting sufficient public support to

guarantee the fifty percent endorsement needed to pass the amendment unless pro-lifers

mounted “a more professional public relations campaign.”178 PLAC should distribute

“simple, well produced leaflets” to the Irish people to explain why “a massive ‘Yes’ vote”

was vital.179

172 Marx, “Trip Diary: Ireland,” (March 21, 1982), 31. 173 “Hail to the Irish!” 11. 174 Hesketh, 57. 175 Hesketh, 57-59. 176 Hesketh, 57-83. 177 The poll which was conducted by the Irish Marketing Survey was published in September of 1982, had queried 1,300 people on the issue at 50 centres throughout the state. See Hesketh, 103-4. 178 Catholic Standard editorial, quoted in Hesketh, 106. 179 Catholic Standard editorial, quoted in Hesketh, 106.

117

The Catholic Standard’s suggestions resonated with pro-life activists who had participated in the public relations workshops run by U.S. leaders. Not long after the editorial

appeared, Patsy Buckley voiced her opinions at a PLAC meeting. She blamed low public

awareness of their campaign on a “lack of literature,” a point John O’Reilly supported.180

Julia Vaughan initially quashed Buckley and O’Reilly’s criticisms, but a month later

members again complained that “campaign literature” was not being published on

schedule.181 In June of 1983, O’Reilly and Bill Sherwin deposed Vaughan and seized control

of PLAC’s finances and decision-making processes by forming the Referendum Campaign

Committee (RCC).182 Through a combination of international donations and savvy

fundraising, Sherwin and O’Reilly were able to refinance the PLAC, which had descended

into insolvency under Vaughan’s leadership.183 Although some critics alleged that HLI and

other American organizations were fighting “a foreign battle on Irish soil” by channelling

funds into the PLAC, the RCC did succeed in identifying a number of local benefactors

through its emergency fundraising appeals.184

Father Marx had anticipated PLAC’s fundraising woes, and launched a “Save the

Irish Babies!” drive as soon as he returned home from the international meeting in 1982. He

told supporters that the Irish pro-life movement’s “number one need” included “more

educational resource tools,” because “only a small portion of the Irish population” had so far

“been touched by prolife educational efforts.”185 The “Save the Irish Babies” appeal

deliberately targeted Americans of Irish Catholic descent because Marx hoped they would be

180 See “PLAC Records,” (September 23 and October 7, 1982) referenced in Hesketh 112. 181 See “PLAC Records,” (September 23 and October 7, 1982) referenced in Hesketh, 112. 182 Hesketh, 289. 183 Budget information suggests that PLAC was operating with a shortfall in excess of 20,000 pounds in 1983. See Hesketh, 291. 184 See Hesketh, 291, 292. Records show that the American National Right to Life Committee contributed $5, 000 to PLAC during this period, but the remaining funds, in excess of 100, 000 pounds were raised in Ireland. 185 Father Paul Marx, quoted in AUL, “Abortion Threat Grows in Ireland,” (April 14, 1982), 2.

118 moved to donate by emotional ties to their “home country.”186 Donations averaging $200-

$250 flowed in from American Irish Catholics in Illinois, California and New York, even though their families had emigrated to the United States over a hundred years earlier.187

“Save the Irish Babies!” also attracted support from as far away as Hawaii. Honolulu’s retired

Bishop John J. Scanlan sent a cheque for “five hundred dollars to aid” HLI’s “vital work in

stemming the tide of abortion in Ireland.”188 In total, HLI’s appeal raised enough money to

send “over $40,000 worth of films, slides, and literature” to Ireland to bolster PLAC’s PR

effort.189 As the referendum drew nearer, O’Reilly asked HLI to send even more literature,

especially pamphlets, because PLAC was now focusing exclusively on “leaflets and

advertising.”190

With Sherwin and O’Reilly at the helm, PLAC launched a publicity campaign to

convince the Irish population to vote for the pro-life amendment in the forthcoming

referendum: within a matter of months, activists had distributed pro-life literature to some

850,000 homes.191 PLAC activists utilized Catholic Church networks to gain access to local

journalists and further promote the pro-life amendment, and with U.S. support eventually

began to produce their own “educational materials.”192 The Amendment Campaign’s

pamphlets focused on the “beginning of life” and appealed to the public to recognize and

defend the human rights of unborn children.193 In both instances, U.S. dollars and

publications provided the means and model for PLAC’s activities. The Campaign’s leaflets

referenced Father Marx’s warnings that Ireland’s Supreme Court was just as likely to legalize

186 “Fr. Marx Announces Emergency Fund to Save Ireland from Legalized Abortion,” The Wanderer, (6 August 1982), 1, CMRX 11/04. 187 See correspondence between donors and Father Marx in CMRX 11/06. 188 John J. Scanlan, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (11 March, 1983), 1. CMRX 11/03. 189 Father Paul Marx, “Thank you letter to John Scanlan,” (March 25, 1983), 1, CMRX 11/03. 190 John O’Reilly, “Confidential letter to Father Paul Marx,” (2nd August 1982), 1, CMRX 77/19. Also see Mark and Pauline Mottola, “Help Save Ireland’s Babies: Irish Pro-Life Benefit Dinner,” (August 1982), 1, CMRX 11/4. 191 See O’Reilly, “Confidential letter,” (2nd August 1982), 1, and Mottolas, “Help Save Ireland’s Babies,”, 1.. 192 Hesketh, 292-296; O’Reilly, “Confidential letter,” (2nd August 1982), 1. 193 John O’Reilly, “Letter to Marx,” (6 September 1982), 1, CMRX 5/2.

119 abortion as its American contemporary had in 1973 if the proposed amendment failed.194

American and English pro-life groups also continued to contribute information and material

support in the final stages of PLAC’s campaign. Their transnational exchanges closely

resembled the workings of human rights networks: “international organizations provided

financial aid and international recognition to struggling domestic groups,” in turn improving

their allies’ prospects for success and facilitating the rapid “transfer of information, money

and ideas.”195

Debates over the amendment’s wording during the campaign’s final months seemed

to have wearied the electorate, but voters also began to realize that the consequences of their

referendum’s outcome extended far beyond Irish borders.196 The “battle to amend the Irish

Constitution” had become “an integral part” of a growing “international movement”

according to one observer.197 By referendum day, the Irish people understood the global

symbolic value of their decision. Speaking to a New York Times reporter, mother of three

Catherine O’Keefe promised that Ireland would “stand up and show there’s one place in the

world with the moral backbone to keep the abortionists out.”198 When Ireland turned out to

vote on September 7, 1983, the Human Life Amendment passed by a two to one majority and

was signed into law a month later.199 The Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution

stipulated that “the State acknowledge[s] the right to life of the unborn,” and with “due regard

194 Niall O’Dowd, “U.S. Cash boost for pro-life,” Sunday Press, (1/8/82), 1, CMRX 77/19. 195 Hawkins, “Human Rights Norms,” 55, in Khagram, Riker and Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics. 196Opinion polls recorded falls in the percentage of the population who planned to vote “yes” between February and August of 1983. As a percentage of the total electorate (as opposed to the voter turnout), the 66.99% “yes” vote represented just 35.79% of the population. See opinion polls and Brian Girvin, quoted in Hesketh, 253- 254, 364-365. 197 Barry, 60. 198 Nordheimer, “Irish to vote tomorrow on Anti-abortion measure,” New York Times, (Sept. 6, 1983): A13. [Proquest, Accessed 4/4/08]. 199 See opinion polls and Girvin, quoted in Hesketh, 253-254, 364-365.

120 to the equal right to life of the mother” would endeavour to “respect, and as far as practicable…vindicate that right.”200

In a September article published in the National Right to Life News, John O’Reilly described the March 1982 leadership meeting co-sponsored by AUL and HLI as a “crucial factor” in PLAC’s organizational development.201 Irish pro-life leaders had received “vital”

training from their English and American counterparts, and Father Marx’s “money, literature and advice” had proven invaluable according to O’Reilly.202 Retrospective analyses of the

Irish campaign generally attribute PLAC’s victory to a combination of international funding, the “insidious political literature” pro-lifers had distributed to sway undecided voters, and the campaign’s use of “sophisticated public relations techniques.”203 U.S. pro-lifers' sharing their

political, educational, and public relations techniques with their Irish contemporaries had

helped PLAC become “the most powerful campaigning group” in modern Irish history.204

Consequently, U.S. pro-life leaders also participated vicariously in the Irish victory.

”We…are now in their debt!” Jack Willke commented, “perhaps – someday – we’ll follow

their example.”205

The transfer of information and the development of mutual trust between activists

across the globe united pro-lifers in increasingly dense networks that would soon become

visible in international political forums.206 HLI’s unique —and successful—pro-life work

attracted much interest from the Vatican as well as Propagation of the Faith, a charitable arm

200 “Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, September 1983,” quoted in Barry, 59. 201 J.C. Willke, “Irish HLA is World’s First,” National Right to Life News, Vol. 10, No. 17, (September 29, 1983): 1&11. CMRX 11/8. 202 John O’Reilly, “Letter to Father Marx,” (9 October, 1982), 1, CMRX 5/2. 203 Barry, 58. HLI made smaller contributions to PLAC’s efforts throughout 1982 and 1983, while Father Marx offered suggestions to O’Reilly regarding possible funding sources in the USA including the De Rance Corporation. See John O’Reilly, “Letter to Marx,” (June 19, 1983), 1, and Father Marx, “Letter to O’Reilly,” (July 23, 1983), 1, CMRX 5/2. 204 Barry, 59. 205 Willke, “Irish HLA is World’s First,”11. 206 Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, “Introduction,” in Rudolph and Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion, 2.

121 of the Church that supported missionary endeavours, which donated $35,000 to the group between 1981 and 1984.207 While the Reagan administration gave no indication that it planned to alter its stance on population control, Propagation of the Faith’s support gave HLI the wherewithal to mount independent international campaigns.208 The Irish campaign also provided a workable template for other Catholic nations where conservative activists wished to secure anti-abortion amendments, as was the case in the Philippines in the mid-1980s.

Following Ireland’s lead: Human life legislation in the Philippines

After the 1986 People Power Revolution had toppled Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorship and installed Corazon Aquino as president, the Philippines became one of the first nations to follow Ireland’s lead by passing a pro-life amendment to their constitution.209 HLI’s response to the new political opportunities that opened up in the Philippines under Aquino, meanwhile,

again showcased the organization’s pragmatism, opportunism, and strong emphasis on international organizing.210 President Aquino readily acknowledged the vital role the Catholic

Church had played in the revolution, and her rule instituted a new era of “church state

relations” in the Philippines, characterized by its “positive atmosphere.”211 Aquino was herself a devout Catholic with close ties to the Catholic Bishops Conference of the

Philippines, especially Manila’s conservative Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin, with whom she shared a strong pro-natalist sensibility.212 Soon after Aquino assumed the presidency, one of

HLI’s two Filipino affiliates alerted U.S. leaders to their plans to mount a public “campaign

207 Father Marx, “Letter to John O’Reilly,” (November 26, 1984), 1, CMRX 5/2. 208 Daniel C. Thomas, “Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy,” in Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 71. 209 See “New Filipino Bill of Rights May Protect Unborn,” HLI Reports, Vol, 4, No. 10, (September 1986), 1, 3, Sr. Pilar Versoza, “Appeal from Pro-Life Philippines,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 10, (September 1986), 3, and Robert L. Youngblood, “President Ramos, the Church, and Population Policy in the Philippines,” Asian Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), 4. 210 See “New Filipino Bill of Rights May Protect Unborn,” HLI Reports, Vol, 4, No. 10, (September 1986), 1, 3, Sr. Pilar Versoza, “Appeal from Pro-Life Philippines,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 10, (September 1986), 3, and Robert L. Youngblood, “President Ramos, the Church, and Population Policy in the Philippines,” Asian Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), 4. 211 Youngblood, 4. 212 Youngblood, 8.

122 to build up public support for the prolife provisions” in a new Bill of Rights.213 HLI immediately pledged $1,000 to the cause, which HLI-Manila’s director Sister Pilar Versoza

promised would be used to “educate the public before the referendum.”214 The following

month, HLI began to advertise a “Save the Filipino Babies!” campaign that closely resembled

previous appeals on behalf of Irish pro-life lobbyists in 1982 and 1983.215 The campaign

reflected HLI’s renewed emphasis on resisting population control outside of the United

States, as well as lobbying against U.S. funding of international family planning programs.216

In 1987, the government of the Philippines extended “full constitutional protection” to

“unborn children,” and in the process became one of the few in the world, after Ireland, to

formally prohibit legal abortion in this way.217 Article II, Section 12 of the Philippines’

Constitution asserted that “the State” recognized “the sanctity of family life,” and pledged to

“equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”218 HLI-

Manila credited U.S. supporters with providing essential educational materials that had

helped secure the pro-life amendment, in much the same way that U.S. funds and support had

helped the Irish PLAC.219 Pro-life leaders in the Philippines subsequently resolved to refocus

their efforts on “getting the Population Commission reoriented from population control to

population care (welfare).”220

213 See “New Filipino Bill of Rights May Protect Unborn,” 1,3 and Versoza, “Appeal from Pro-Life Philippines,” 3. 214 “New Filipino Bill of Rights May Protect Unborn,” 1, 3, Versoza, “Appeal from Pro-Life Philippines,” 3. 215 See “Save the Filipino Babies!” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 11, (October 1986), 11. 216 Also see Sr. Pilar Versoza, “Crucial Time in the Philippines,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 11, (October 1986), 12. 217 Father Marx, “Filipino Constitution Protects Unborn,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 3, (March 1987), 1-2. 218 Article II, Section 12, of the Philippines Constitution, adopted 1987, cited in Marx, “Filipino Constitution Protects Unborn,” 1. 219 Sr. Pilar Versoza, “News from HLI-Manila,” HLI Reports Vol. 5, No. 3, (March 1987), 8. Also see Bishop Jesus Varela, quoted in Father Paul Marx, “Victories and Further Struggles in the Philippines,” Special Report, No. 29, 5. 220 Versoza, “News from HLI-Manila,” 8. This paralleled U.S. pro-life leaders’ push to compel the Reagan administration to enforce the Mexico City policy in the United States. The formulation and ramifications of the United States’ Mexico City Policy, introduced at the UN’s Second World Conference on Population in 1984, will be discussed Chapters four and five of this thesis.

123

According to Bishop Jesus Varela, a member of the Philippines’ Episcopal

Commission on Family Life, pro-life leaders quickly made inroads in the government.

President Aquino reportedly caved to pressure from Catholic officials and activists across the

Philippines and redirected funds from population control programs into “family support/welfare programs.”221 Aquino’s decision saw “the number of personnel promoting family planning [drop] from ten thousand during the Marcos years to two hundred under” her rule, a change that HLI’s local and U.S.-based activists perceived as a significant victory.222

HLI’s plans to stimulate grass roots pro-life activism outside of the United States were partially satisfied by the pressure HLI-Manila placed on the Filipino government to enforce its pro-life constitution.223

Conclusion

Pro-life leaders sampled from a smorgasbord of strategies including political lobbying, direct action, and transnational networking in response to fluctuating political opportunity structures during Ronald Reagan’s first presidential term.224 HLI opposed the contraceptive mentality on an increasingly transnational scale throughout the 1980s, benefitting from an existing collective Catholic identity. Its activities had an important, if unintended consequence: HLI and its affiliates furthered “globalization” by “opposing its effects.”225 These developments clearly illustrated the relationship between political patronage and pro-life activism; by granting or withdrawing political access, President

Reagan had the capacity to shape pro-life organizing. Yet whereas pro-life frustrations with

221 Marx, “Victories and Further Struggles in the Philippines,” 5. 222 Horacio Severino, “PopCom Removed from Tavera,” Manila Chronicle, 19 June 1990, pp. 1,9, and Anna Viray, “Church, Malacanang on Collision Course,” Philippine News, 4-10 August 1993, pp. 1, 18, both quoted in Youngblood, 8. 223 Sr. Pilar Versoza, quoted in “Opposition to Population Control,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 1- 2. Also see “Filipinos Fight Marcos’ Population Legacy,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 1, (January 1988), 3. 224 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “Why Has the Pro-life Movement Failed to Stop Abortion?” (April 17, 1986), 3, JCOK, Box 2, Folder 5. 225 Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization, (London: Sage, 1994), 3.

124 the government’s stasis on legislative reform often boiled over into direct action protests, HLI pioneered another approach that looked outward for new political opportunities. Toward the end of Reagan’s first term in office, a fourth strategy also gained popularity: pro-lifers

attempted to halt the flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars into family planning and population

control programs. The Reagan administration provided a new political opportunity structure

for pro-lifers armed with global knowledge in 1984, again shaping the movement’s

subsequent trajectory.

125

Chapter Four ‘New’ international norms, transnational pro-life networks, feminists, economists and the Reagan administration At the annual White House pro-life leadership meeting in 1984, President Ronald

Reagan admitted that it was unlikely that Congress would “pass any prohibition on abortion” in the near future.1 But there were “still a variety of ways to make progress for the right to life” cause.2 When the president encouraged the group not to neglect any of the alternatives, he inadvertently encouraged those activists who had already grown tired of working toward seemingly futile “domestic objectives” to continue seeking out international political opportunities in the transnational arena.3 Human Life International (HLI), the American Life

Lobby (ALL) and the United States Coalition for Life (USCL) spearheaded the pro-life push against U.S. funding for international family planning programs in the 1980s.4 In fact, at the previous year’s pro-life leadership meeting, the USCL’s Randy Engel had demanded that the president withdraw the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) funding for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).5 Pro-life leaders felt that they were due “some substantive victories,” and population control funding was one area

1 “Meeting with National Leaders of Pro-Life Movement,” (January 23, 1984), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12448, “Pro-Life.” 2 “Meeting with National Leaders of Pro-Life Movement,” (January 23, 1984), 1-2. 3 “Meeting with National Leaders of Pro-Life Movement,” (January 23, 1984), 1-2. Also see Barbara B. Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” Population and Development Review Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994), 248. For examples of HLI’s response to closed political opportunity structures in the U.S., see chapter three of this thesis, which details their involvement in the Irish and Filipino Human Life Amendment Campaign. Also see Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational Advocacy Groups Restructuring World Politics,” Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, (eds), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 19. 4 “Meeting with National Leaders of Pro-Life Movement,” (January 23, 1984), 1-2. 5 USCL, “Press Release: Defund and Dismantle U.S.A.I.D. Population Control Empire Reagan Advised,” (21 January 1983), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 7, OA 12448, “Pro-life.” In fact, the legislative infrastructure for Engel’s request was already in place. Senator Jesse Helms moved quickly after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to introduce an amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Act governing population control funding. The Helms amendment, which became Section 104 of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act in 1973, stipulated that U.S. funds could not be used “for abortion related purposes other than research.” USAID was, however, allowed to support “organizations in the developing world” that “were involved in abortion related activities, provided that they did not use US funds.” See Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 245. 126 in which the White House could “bestow a favour” on its supporters without arousing a

“storm of criticism.”6

Soon after Reagan’s inauguration, a combination of internal and external pressures

forced USAID to change its population control policies which resulted in new political

opportunities for pro-life leaders. Few pro-life groups were in a position to exploit the

agency’s policy shifts at first, however, because most were still “learning about the structure

and activities of international population control programs.”7 Yet HLI’s global activities had

given Father Paul Marx and John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe invaluable experience and

information. Combined with unprecedented access to population control policymakers in the

United States, this knowledge enabled them to influence the agency’s funding decisions.8

This chapter will review the normative shifts that precipitated the Reagan administration’s

decision to turn its back on nearly twenty years of bipartisan support for population control

programs at the United Nations’ Second International Conference on World Population, held

in Mexico City in 1984. HLI not only contributed to the emergence of these new world

population control norms, but was prepared to ensure that U.S. funded international family

planning projects conformed to the standards articulated in the Mexico City policy.

President Reagan had given no indication that he planned to depart from the

population control course charted by his predecessors when he became President. Indeed,

there was little reason to expect that he would; most senators and congressmen still viewed

6 Stephen Engleberg, “Conservatives Hope to Link Abortion With Overseas Aid,” New York Times, (1923- Current file), June 24, 1984, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 3, 2009), and Constance Holden, “A ‘prolife’ population delegation?” Science, Vol. 224, 132, 22 June, 1984, Factiva.com, (accessed 5/3/2009). 7 Barbara B. Crane and Jason L. Finkle, “The United States, China, and the United Nations Population Fund: Dynamics of US Policymaking,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, (March 1989), 27-28. 8 This pattern is also described by Ann Florini, who refers to activists employing a combination of “moral authority and credible information” to “shape…terms of…debate.” Florini, quoted in Kathryn Sikkink, “Restructuring World Politics: the Limits and Asymmetries of Soft Power,” in Sanjeev Khagram, James R. Riker and Kathryn Sikkink (editors), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 303. Susan Burgerman refers to this as the “mobilization of shame” in Moral Victories: How Activists Provoke Multilateral Action, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), especially Part One.

127

U.S. funded family planning as the most “cost effective” means of stimulating economic development in poorer nations by easing the burden of population growth.9 Moreover,

Reagan’s attitude toward population control had been distinctly ambivalent before he became president. During his time as governor of California, he had addressed an open letter to the state’s citizens challenging those who favoured “blanket population control” to consider

“who might they be doing away with?”10 As he asked in 1970, “Who shall play God?”11 Yet

only four years later Reagan encouraged Californians to support World Population Day so

that the United States might “credibly lead other parts of the world toward population

stabilization.”12 Once installed in the White House, the Reagan administration embarked on a

vigorous campaign to promote supply side economics, or “Reaganomics,” in the United

States, prompting moral conservatives to ask why the same economic philosophies were not

being applied to domestic family planning programs and U.S. foreign aid.13

The American Life Lobby, HLI and USCL were among the first organizations to urge

the White House to apply the principles of Reaganomics to the Foreign Assistance Act. To

make their point, ALL juxtaposed the President’s emphasis on economic rationalism against

the United States’ vast expenditures on world population control programs. Within months of

assuming office, Reagan responded to allegations of “policy schizophrenia” by pressuring

USAID to close the gap between the president’s domestic economic agenda and its funding

appropriations for international family planning programs.14 On October 19, 1981, the agency

9 Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, “A.I.D. Policy Paper: Population Assistance,” (Washington D.C.: USAID, September 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Danny Boggs Files, Box 20, OA 11481, “Global: Population II (4).” 10 Ronald Reagan, quoted in Matthew Sittman, “The Conscience of a President,” from Paul Kengor and Peter Schwiezer (eds), The Reagan Presidency: Assessing the Man and His Legacy, (New York: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 76. 11 Reagan, quoted in Sittman, “The Conscience of a President,” in Kengor and Schwiezer, 76. 12 Ronald Reagan, “Statement on World Population Day,” (October 24, 1974), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, National Security Affairs, Assistant to the President: Chronological Files, Box 1, 8403775. 13 Carl A. Anderson and William J. Gribbin, “The Family and American Foreign Policy,” 74, NIH/NLM, Koop Papers, MSC 489, Container 32, File 7. 14 Anderson and Gribbin, “The Family and American Foreign Policy,” 74.

128 therefore announced its plans to mobilize the U.S. private sector to generate resources by transferring “technology, skills, know-how, and capital to poorer countries,” instead of throwing taxpayer dollars at problems in the developing world.15 USAID’s new

determination to involve the private sector in foreign aid efforts reflected the basic

assumptions of “Reaganomics,” namely that “the ingenuity of labor and creative interaction

of people” would promote economic development.16 It was no accident that the this idea of

promoting economic development while cutting U.S. funding to aid programs became a

common motif during the Reagan years: reports about “exasperated” pro-lifers “planning

legal action” against domestic family planning programs in 1982 prompted one consultant to

urge the Reagan administration to “review” all relevant “regulations and guidelines” and

target expenditures on “abortion-related services” for immediate elimination.17

Congress also tabled its “toughest” ever “pro-life amendments” to the foreign

appropriation bills governing population assistance in January of 1982.18 Had they been

enacted, the proposed amendments would have jeopardized funding appropriations for

numerous population control projects by withdrawing U.S. funding from any program that

lobbied for, promoted, recommended or trained individuals to perform abortions.19 In

practice, pro-choice politicians managed to abrogate the restrictions, but USAID

administrator M. Peter McPherson promised to “comply completely” with the spirit of the

original proposals.20 The agency would not “lobby for or promote abortion,” nor would it

15 M. Peter McPherson, “Role of the Private Sector in Developing Countries,” (Washington D.C.: US Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs, October 19, 1981), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, White House Records, Box 1, OA 14235, “The Trip of President Reagan to France, the Vatican, Italy, and the UK and the Federal Republic of Germany, June 1982 – Press [2].” 16 Anderson and Gribbin, “The Family and American Foreign Policy,” 74. 17 Dick Dingman, “Memo for Ed Meese re: Reform of Family Planning Program,” (October 28, 1982), 1, 12, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 8, OA12450, “Pro-life [cont’d] (1).” 18 “Anti-abortion Amendments to Foreign Aid Bills,” (January 25, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Dee Jepsen Files, Box 1, OA 10770, “Abortion (7).” 19 Rep. Mark Silijander, “amendment to AID appropriations bill Dec. 11, 1981,” in “Anti-abortion Amendments to Foreign Aid Bills,” (January 25, 1982), 1. 20 USCL, “Legislative Pin-Up Sheet: Update on Title X – Foreign Assistance Act, Funding,: (26th April 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Morton C. Blackwell Files, Box 8, OA 12450, “Pro-Life [cont’d] (1).” M. Peter

129 offer any training in the United States “or abroad, for the purpose of performing abortion.”21

For the first time USAID also “discontinued all funding” for “research on…abortion as a

means of family planning.”22 In order to maintain its credibility, USAID was thereafter bound

to honour McPherson’s implicit promises to pro-life groups.23

Pro-life leaders and sympathizers on Capitol Hill knew, however, that it was

exceptionally difficult to prevent U.S. funds from flowing, directly or otherwise, into

programs that pressured target governments or populations into accepting population

stabilization targets or birth control, and vowed to scrutinize all of USAID’s subsequent

expenditures.24 Politicians and pro-life leaders were especially sceptical of USAID’s claims

that it stringently monitored U.S.-funded programs to ensure they complied with

congressional requirements.25 Even at this early stage, pro-life leaders realized that there was

a significant disparity between U.S. policies and their enforcement, and their organizations

were preparing to play a role in shifting this balance.

Consequently, ALL continued to call on the Reagan administration to stop funding

Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which financed domestic family planning programs

to stem what ALL President Judie Brown called “the budget deficit hemorrhage [sic].”26 By

1983, White House aides were seriously considering ways to cut family planning

McPherson, “Letter to Rep. Silijander,” submitted to the Congressional Record December 16, 1981 (Page H9762), in “Anti-abortion Amendments to Foreign Aid Bills,” (January 25, 1982), 3. 21 McPherson, “Letter to Rep. Silijander,” 3. 22 Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, “A.I.D. Policy Paper: Population Assistance,” (Washington D.C.: USAID, September 1982), 6. 23 The agency’s situation was similar to that of the Chilean government after it endorsed human rights norms in the 1980s, making it vulnerable to attacks from activists monitoring and exposing abuses. See Darren Hawkins, “Human Rights Norms and Networks in Authoritarian Chile,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 67. 24 See for example Donald P. Warwick, Bitter Pills: Population policies and their implementation in eight developing countries, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 63, and “Saluting – Senator Kasten of Wisconsin,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 7, (July 1983), 11. 25 See “Death, Your Dollars and the Pathfinder Fund,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1984), 44-45. Originally published in the Washington Times on March 16, 1984 as a letter to the editor, Judie Brown evinced this sentiment regarding USAID’s investigation of alleged abuse in El Salvador. Judie Brown, “USAID Participation in Foreign Population Control,” ALL About Issues Vol. 6, No. 5, (May 1984), 20. 26 Judie Brown, “Letter to President Reagan re: Title X funds,” (January 11, 1983), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, White House Office of Records Management (hereafter WHORM), FI-004, 119474.

130 appropriations.27 As the Reagan administration buckled and began to re-evaluate its

commitment to federally funding family planning in the United States, the president’s

advisors realized that it might also be politically expedient to reconsider U.S. population

control expenditures.

Population Control under fire: studies, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy

Two studies commissioned by Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance,

Science and Technology James Buckley sparked further debate over the place of population

control in U.S. foreign aid programs during 1982. In Population Control and the Wealth of

Nations: the Implications for American Policy, Nick Eberstadt, then a visiting fellow at

Harvard’s Center for Population Studies, criticized the Malthusian underpinnings of U.S.

population policy, concluding that there was no direct correlation between population

stabilization and economic development.28 Eberstadt also argued that congressional

restrictions on population assistance, like those to which McPherson had agreed,

compromised the ability of several programs to deliver essential health care services.29

Jacqueline Kasun’s A Consideration of the Cost Effectiveness of Population Assistance in

United States Foreign Aid Programs was submitted alongside the Eberstadt study, and shared

its anti-Malthusian stance while simultaneously reassessing population control funding from

a pro-life perspective.30 Kasun, a professor of economics, was already well-known among

27 Michael M. Uhlmann and Stephen M. Galeback, “Memo for Edwin L. Harper re: American Life Lobby Letter Concerning Title X Budget for FY 1984,” (February 7, 1983), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM, WE 003, 114141. 28 Hal Burdett, “Press release: Reagan Administration Consultant Urges Lifting of Abortion Ban,” (World Population News Service, January 1982), 2, Reagan Presidential Library, Dee Jepsen Files, Box 1, OA 10770, “Abortion (7).” 29 Burdett, “Consultant Urges Lifting of Abortion Ban,” 2. 30 USCL, “Legislative Pin-Up Sheet,” (26th April 1982), 2. Jacqueline Kasun completed her undergraduate degree at UCLA and earned a doctorate in “the male dominated field of economics” at Columbia University in 1956. She began to speak out for the pro-life cause in the 1970s while teaching economics at Humboldt State University, and later became known for linking arguments against abortion and population control with a “conservative, free market model of economics.” Her study echoed Eberstadt’s criticisms of the inherent flaws in population control rationales and argued that stimulating economic development would be a far more effective way to improve conditions in developing nations. See John Jalsevac, “Jacqueline Kasun, Pro-life and

131 moral conservatives for her regular articles in pro-life publications on the politics surrounding

USAID population policy.31 Her erudite denunciation of the pitfalls of population control funding added academic weight to pro-life arguments against U.S. funded international family planning programs.32 Pro-life leaders therefore welcomed Kasun’s arguments, even as

Nick Eberstadt’s findings proved more contentious.

On the one hand, Father Marx, Judie Brown and Randy Engel seized upon Eberstadt’s claim that population control providers circumvented existing restrictions on U.S. funds by transferring contributions “through a complex network of inter-donor ties to pay for abortion services” as proof that USAID-funded projects routinely violated congressional bans.33 On the other hand, Brown in particular was outraged by Eberstadt’s recommendation that the

U.S. government relax funding restrictions for such programs in order to reduce the “toll of unsafe abortions” in developing nations, in order to fund programs that would address pressing issues such as reproductive rights, healthcare, and human development programs.34

ALL’s president expressed her anger in a letter to Reagan, in which she reminded him that her supporters were vehemently opposed to “the exportation of an abortion psychology” and

Anti-Population Control Activist, Passes Away,” LifeSiteNews.com (Wednesday, January 9, 2009), http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010713.html, Accessed: 12/11/2009. Also see Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). 31 Kasun contributed to both ALL About Issues and HLI Reports, in addition to speaking at pro-life meetings throughout the 1980s and 1990s. See Jacqueline Kasun, “Population Control is Behind the Purge at AID,” ALL About Issues, (June 1983), 20-21, CMRX 73/11. Also see Human Life International, “Ad for 1988 Conference,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 10, (October, 1987), 11, and Jacqueline Kasun, “Fear of the Foreigner,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 7, (July 1987), 8. 32 See for example Jacqueline Kasun, “Refuting the Bombers: Review of Julian L. Simon’s The Ultimate Resource,” New Oxford Review (July/August 1982), 26-28; Jacqueline Kasun, “Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, March 22, 1984), ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1984), 24-25. 33 Burdett, “Consultant Urges Lifting of Abortion Ban,” 2. Also see Father Paul Marx, HLI Special Report, (October 1981), 1, PMRX, and Robert G. Marshall, “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 10, (October 1983), 6-8. Marshall echoes many arguments Brown, Marx and Engel had used previously. 34Burdett, “Consultant Urges Lifting of Abortion Ban,” 2-3, and USCL, “Legislative Pin-Up Sheet,” (26th April 1982), 2.

132 urged him to stand firm on his pro-life principles.35 Brown also offered to provide Buckley with a panel of experts willing to support Dr. Kasun’s anti-population control conclusions.36

Even after the White House director of correspondence, Anne Higgins, assured Judie Brown

that the administration had no intention of acting on Eberstadt’s recommendations, pro-life

publications maintained a close watch on USAID’s population control appropriations,

looking for any contraventions of the agency’s stated commitment to the principles of

voluntarism.37 More broadly, ALL’s swift reaction to the Eberstadt study demonstrates that

pro-lifers were interested in, and indeed participating in, federal population control politics

well before the Mexico City policy.

Two more indictments of U.S.-supported international family planning programs set

the stage for a major shift in U.S. population control policy, and saw HLI refocus its efforts

on exposing NGOs that endorsed or facilitated coercion. In 1973, UNFPA and the Hastings

Center, a bioethics research institute founded in 1969, had commissioned Donald P. Warwick

to undertake a multi-year “cross-national study of the formulation and implementation of

population policies” in eight developing nations: Egypt, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, the

Dominican Republic, Haiti, India and the Lebanon.38 Eight years later, Warwick revealed that

U.S. funded programs in developing nations often violated USAID’s commitment to

voluntarism and individual freedom.39 Published over UNFPA’s objections in 1982, Bitter

Pills alleged that population control programs in several countries were rife with coercive

practices that undermined men and women’s reproductive freedom and rights.40 This was not

35 Judie Brown, “Letter to President Reagan,” (January 18, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Dee Jepsen Files, Box 1, OA 10770, “Abortion (7).” 36 See Judie Brown, “Letter to James L. Buckley,” (January 18, 1982), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Dee Jepsen Files, Box 1, OA 10770, “Abortion (7).” 37 Anne Higgins, “Letter to Judie Brown,” (March 11, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM, WE 003, 061373, and Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, “A.I.D. Policy Paper: Population Assistance,” 1. 38 Warwick, Bitter Pills, ix. 39 Warwick, Bitter Pills, ix. 40 See Warwick, Bitter Pills, ix-xvi, 191-205.

133 the finding Warwick had expected when he set out to his answer his three guiding questions: why governments chose to adopt population control policies, how such policies were carried out, and what accounted for differences between programs that were successfully implemented and those that were not.41 In confidence, Warwick admitted to HLI’s John

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe that his conclusions had also contradicted UNFPA’s expectations.

“When it became clear that the results would be controversial,” Warwick told O’Keefe,

UNFPA had abruptly terminated his study.42 In the same letter, Warwick confirmed that

O’Keefe was “essentially correct” when he suggested that USAID and UNFPA were

implicated in the coercive practices detailed in Bitter Pills.43

Steven Mosher, then a doctoral candidate in anthropology at Stanford University, had

unearthed even more disturbing examples of coercion and abuse during a ten month research

trip to China’s Guandong province between 1979 and 1980.44 At the time, China already had

a population of around one billion people, roughly one fifth of the world’s population. The

government of the People’s Republic had resisted pressure to institute population

stabilization targets at the UN’s 1974 World Conference on Population in Bucharest, but five

years later then Vice Premier Chen Muhua announced a new “one-child policy,” which

prohibited married couples from having more than one child.45 At several village family

planning meetings Mosher witnessed Communist party officials pressuring women heavily

41 Warwick appealed for a reconsideration of the “ethics of respect” in population control programs, arguing that the ends do not justify the means, particularly if the means in question were coercive. Programs should, Warwick believed, focus more explicitly on human rights instead of “social engineering.” Warwick, Bitter Pills, ix, 191-205. 42 Donald P. Warwick, “Letter to John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe,” (October 11, 1983): 1, CMRX 73/09. 43 Warwick, “Letter to O’Keefe,” 1. Writing about the politics of fertility control research, Warwick later published accusations to this effect n Donald P. Warwick, “The Politics of Research on Fertility Control,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994), 179-193. 44 “And so it goes in China,” Bulletin of the Natural Family Planning Council of Victoria, Australia, (November 1983), 1, CMRX 51/21. 45 See Stanley P. Johnson, World population and the United Nations: Challenge and Response, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 96-101, Chinese Vice Premier Chen Muhua, quoted in Steven Mosher, Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese, (New York: The Free Press, 1983), 224, and Cecilia Nathansen Milwertz, Accepting Population Control: Urban Chinese Women and the One-Child Policy, (Padstow, Cornwall: TJ Press, 1997), 1.

134 pregnant with their second or third child to terminate their pregnancies, and concluded that family “planning” was a misnomer in the case of the Chinese program.46 To him, “restricting

births” was a far more appropriate description.47

The young scholar became embroiled in an international controversy after he returned

to the United States and published his allegations that China’s “one child policy” relied

heavily upon coercion, involuntary sterilization and forced abortion to limit population

growth.48 The Chinese government even threatened to terminate Stanford University’s

visiting scholar program on the basis of Mosher’s allegations.49 Soon after, Stanford expelled

him from its graduate program for “unprofessional conduct,” but the move was widely

understood as an attempt to placate irate Chinese officials.50 Reports from as far away as

Australia criticized Stanford’s decision, while American pro-life publications including ALL

About Issues and HLI Reports defied the university by broadcasting Mosher’s accusations.51

A year after Mosher went public Father Marx travelled to China to investigate his claims

personally and reached similar conclusions.52

The media firestorm Mosher’s story had ignited swiftly spread from pro-life

publications to mainstream newspapers.53 A series of New York Times articles by Christopher

Wren, published between November 1981 and July 1984 alerted the wider public to the

46 Mosher, Broken Earth, 224-229. 47 Mosher, Broken Earth, 224-229, 261. 48 His allegations appeared in numerous pro-life newsletters and mainstream newspapers, before they were published in total in 1983. For a complete account, see Mosher, Broken Earth, especially 182-183, and 224-261. 49 Wallace Turner, “Stanford Ousts PhD Student Over His Use of Data on China,” The New York Times, February 26, 1983, 7, http://www.proquest.com (accessed: 13/11/2008). 50 Turner, “Stanford Ousts PhD Student Over His Use of Data on China,” 7. 51 See Jacqueline Kasun, “U.S. Is Involved in Chinese Population Control,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 10, (October 1983), 5-6, Natural Family Planning Council of Victoria, Australia, “China Censors American Scholar,” Bulletin of the Natural Family Planning Council of Victoria, (November 1983), quoted in HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 2, (February 1984), 4-6, and Father Paul Marx, “Population Control in China,” HLI Reports Vol. 2, No. 3, (March 1984), 1-2, 8. 52 See “Father Paul Marx visits Marxist China,” HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 2, (February 1984), 1-2, 8, and Marx, “Population Control in China,” 1-2, 8. 53 See Father Paul Marx, “World Bank Funds Forced Abortion in China,” HLI Reports Vol. 3, No. 3, (March 1985), 1; Kasun, “Testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, March 22, 1984,” 24.

135 brutality Mosher had uncovered, including the Chinese government’s practice of “badgering” women to agree to be sterilized or to terminate their pregnancies.54 For pro-life leaders, the most troubling, yet potentially politically advantageous aspect of Mosher’s account involved the United States’ role in the program. In 1984, USAID still allocated $38 million to the

United Nations Fund for Population Activities, even though the Fund continued to provide financial support to the embattled Chinese population program.55 The United States’ apparent

complicity in the abuses meted out by China’s one child policy gave pro-life leaders an

opportunity to pressure the agency to adhere to its official anti-coercion policy. If Mosher’s

accusations were to be verified, the agency would be obliged to withhold grants from

UNFPA. If USAID refused, it would validate pro-life claims that the agency circumvented

congressional prohibitions on coercion and U.S. taxpayers funding for abortion.

In the meantime, public opinion in the capital and throughout the United States had

turned against China’s one child policy. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)

joined the anti-population control chorus in 1984, as did Senator Jesse Helms and five other

Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.56 Yet at the same time, two

years after the story had first become public, U.S. funding for UNFPA remained in place.57

Politicians and pro-life groups seemed unable to force USAID to abide by its own principles.

The publicity surrounding China’s population policy did, however, make coercion a

contentious issue in the United States and taught pro-life leaders that internationally, the

54 Christopher S. Wren, Special to The New York Times, “China Adds Compassion to Its Birth Control Drive,” New York Times (1923-Current file), May 18, 1984, A2, http://www.proquest.com, (accessed November 27, 2007) Also see for Marx, “World Bank Funds Forced Abortion in China,” 1, Christopher S. Wren, Special to The New York Times, “ASIA URGED TO END POPULATION SURGE: U.N. Parley in China Proposes Goal of 1% Annual Growth by Close of the Century Asia's Population Is 2.6 Billion,” New York Times (1923-Current file), November 2, 1981, A13, http://www.proquest.com, (accessed November 11, 2007), and Christopher Wren, “China Defends Abortion in Birth Control Efforts,” The New York Times, (1923-Current File), July 4, 1984, A2, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed November 11, 2007). 55 T.R. Reid, “Anti-Abortionists Focusing Fire on President’s Foreign Aid Bill,” The Washington Post, (6 May 1984), A2, Proquest, Accessed: 27/11/2007. 56 Crane and Finkle, “The United States, China, and the United Nations Population Fund,” 31-32. 57 Kasun, “U.S. Is Involved in Chinese Population Control,” 5-6.

136

“major issue in population control funding” was not the “right to life,” but “coercion.”58 On a political, as well as a personal level, coercion was far less defensible than a “woman’s right to choose,” the popular catch cry of pro-choice activists. Given the United States’ historical insistence on freedom as a core American value, any suggestion that U.S. funds were tied up with programs that permitted or even promoted coercion resonated negatively with lawmakers and citizens alike.59

Coercion therefore became the principal issue in debates over population control funding in the United States; simply defined, “coercion deprives people of free choice and thus makes what they do, to some extent, nonvoluntary.”60 Advocates of international family planning programs, disagreed on what constituted coercion, however: “the mere existence of external pressure or influence,” for example, was not necessarily enough to “establish coercion.”61 Yet if “influence or pressure” exerted on target populations or governments,

including offers as well as threats, was such that it “diminishe[d] free choice,” then it could

be defined as coercion.62 Shortly after establishing HLI, Father Marx had identified

“American money funnelled through” USAID to the “International Planned Parenthood

Federation, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and…Pathfinder Fund” as the

number one enemy of the international pro-life cause and Mosher’s revelations about China’s

one child policy raised the possibility of striking a severe blow at these NGOs.63

58 “International Briefs: Impact of Election Limited,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 13, (December 1986), 3. 59 Eric Foner is perhaps the foremost contemporary historian of “American freedom.” For a succinct overview of the centrality of this idea of “freedom” throughout U.S. history, see Eric Foner, “AHA Presidential Address: American Freedom in a Global Age,” (American Historical Association, 2001), http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_History/Efoner.htm, Accessed: 3/5/2009. 60 Bonnie Steinbock, “The Concept of Coercion and Long-Term Contraceptives,” in Ellen H. Moskowitz and Bruce Jennings (editors), Coerced Contraception? Moral and Policy Challenges of Long-Acting Birth Control, (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996), 55. 61 Steinbock in Moskowitz and Jennings, 55. 62 Steinbock in Moskowitz and Jennings, 55-56. 63 “Benedictine Father Marx forms international pro-life center in Washington D.C.,” St Cloud Visitor, (c. 1981), CMRX 53/22.

137

With public opinion swaying in their favour, pro-life leaders realized that they might actually be able to arouse “bipartisan opposition” to population control programs by identifying and exposing instances of coercion.64 It did not help international family planning

advocates that USAID was well known for its heavy-handed tactics. In the past, the agency’s

administrators had forced poor governments facing widespread famine to institute “massive

birth control” programs before USAID would release development or food aid.65 Although

USAID no longer endorsed such tactics, the Chinese case suggested that the agency might

still be indirectly involved in coercive practices.

Moreover, USAID’s contemporary tactics still displayed a degree of ambiguity that

made them vulnerable to accusations of coercion. The fine line was apparent at a 1984

meeting of the National Council on International Health Conferences. During one session,

USAID employee Elizabeth Maguire detailed new initiatives in Colombia and Haiti that

linked health care to family planning by introducing home visits to supply contraceptives.66

Haitians and Colombians may have welcomed USAID’s family planning aid, but the visits

were also, as ALL About Issues’ executive editor Robert Marshall argued, “social exchanges

between unequals…ripe for exploitation and subtle coercion.”67 Although the agency

attempted to “remain above suspicion,” Marshall concluded that there was still a distinct gap

between USAID’s policies and practices because grant recipients continued to spend “U.S.

tax money on abortion or forced sterilization.”68 In order to force USAID to withdraw

funding from international family planning providers, pro-life organizations needed tighter

government restrictions, access to USAID, and proof that programs were coercive.

64 “International Briefs: Impact of Election Limited,” 3. 65 Robert G. Marshall, “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick,” A.L.L. About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 9, (September 1984), 6. According to Marshall, President Lyndon Johnson made aid contingent acceptance of population control targets during a widespread famine in India the 1960s. 66 Marshall, “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick,” 7. 67 Marshall had been Republican Representative Robert K Dornan’s senior legislative assistant, gaining insights into the House Committee on Foreign Affairs of which Dornan was a member. Marshall, “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick,” 7, 9. 68 Marshall, “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick,” 8.

138

Taken at face value, USAID policy should have made it impossible for pro-life groups to uncover any such evidence. Despite criticisms from leaders of developing nations and

American pro-lifers, USAID claimed it never pressured host governments to institute population targets in exchange for development assistance.69 The agency did not, however, apologize for “nudging” them in that direction.70 USAID’s administrator M. Peter McPherson

clearly stated that U.S.-funded projects were instructed not to employ “any element of coercion” to induce target populations to “practice family planning or…accept any particular method of contraception.”71 In particular, population programs should not offer financial incentives for “voluntary sterilization.”72 Yet dissatisfaction with USAID’s policies and

practices was not limited to U.S.-based pro-life groups.

There was considerable concern among Latin America’s predominantly Catholic

leaders, for example, despite President Reagan’s attempts to reassure them that the United

States was committed to respecting their people’s “cultural and religious values” during a

1982 state visit to Brazil; he stated that U.S.-funded programs were in actuality hoping to

enhance “the stability of the family and society” by slowing population growth.73 Reagan also

promised that USAID was working “to correct past problems in U.S. assistance programs

abroad with regard to abortion,” and “moving ahead” with “efforts to increase support for

natural family planning.”74 The president’s guarantees evidently did not convince many Latin

American leaders, however, because they regularly renewed their calls for him to make good

69 Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. AID, “A.I.D. Policy Paper,” 1. 70 M. Peter McPherson quoted in Marshall, “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick,” 6. 71 Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. AID, “A.I.D. Policy Paper,” 5, 7. 72 Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. AID, “A.I.D. Policy Paper,” 5, 7. 73 Ronald Reagan, “Greeting to the Western Hemisphere Conference of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, Brazil,” (November 30, 1982), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, National Security Affairs, Assistant to the President for: Records, Chronological, Box 1, 8403775. 74 Robert R. Reilly, “Memorandum for Faith R. Whittlesey re: Catholic Articles,” (January 6, 1984): 1. Reagan Presidential Library, Faith Whittlesey Files, , Box 10F, “Catholics. “

139 on his rhetoric.75 Bishop Antonio Quarracino of Argentina, who led the Latin American

Episcopal Conference, wrote to Reagan in 1984 to denounce USAID’s apparent lack of sensitivity toward Catholic values in his region.76 Reagan responded that he “strongly agree[d]” that U.S.-supported programs should “be guided by the religious traditions, cultural heritage, and moral convictions of the citizens” they claimed to serve.77 His answer carefully

avoided any concrete guarantee that the agency would do so in practice.

While the Reagan administration seemed relatively untroubled by external criticisms

in comparison with domestic protests, the two were closely linked. HLI Reports and ALL

About Issues regularly featured Latin American complaints about international family

planning programs to show that target nations resented population control, and in so doing

hoped to stimulate opposition to such programs within the United States.78 For a time, the

president maintained his public defence of USAID, assuring critics that the agency was

upholding “the principles of voluntarism and respect for the value and dignity of human life,”

which were “the cornerstones” of U.S.-funded international “family planning programs.”79

Somewhat ironically, Reagan’s repeated promises and the agency’s own public policy

statements rendered USAID even more vulnerable to attacks by pro-life lobbyists. Father

Marx and several of his colleagues launched independent investigations into USAID’s

internal audits and quickly concluded that what they had uncovered was an “accounting

charade.”80

75 James Allen Flannery, “Latin Americans At Odds Battle Waged over Birth Control,” Omaha World-Herald, (23 February 1986). Factiva.com, Accessed: 15/03/2009. 76 Ronald Reagan, “letter to Bishop Quarracino,” (February 13, 1984), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Edwin Meese III Files, Box 29, OA 118833, “Population Control.” 77 Reagan, “letter to Bishop Quarracino,” 1. 78 Msgr. Dr. Prospero Penados, Archbishop of Guatemala, President of the Episcopal Conference, “An Open Letter to President Reagan,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 8, No. 1, (February 1986), 1-2; also see Magaly Llaguno, “Assault on Latin America,” HLI Reprint # 18, 1-2. PMRX. 79 Reagan, “letter to Bishop Quarrancino,” 1. 80 William M. O’Reilly, “The Shell Game,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 4, (April 1984), 18.

140

By the end of Reagan’s first term in office, it became increasingly apparent that federal aid for population control programs was more vulnerable to pro-life attacks than was

legalized abortion within the United States.81 U.S.-funded international family planning

programs therefore became an attractive target for disgruntled pro-life leaders. At the same

time, Reagan’s promotion of supply-side economics influenced USAID, which began to

award more grants to the private sector. The president’s rhetorical support for the pro-life

cause also gave a small number of organizations such as HLI access to USAID. Anti-

population control lobbyists drew their inspiration from Kasun, Warwick and Mosher’s

studies and attempted to prove that U.S.-funded population control programs violated

congressional prohibitions by engaging in coercive practices, or providing or promoting

abortions.

HLI and the privatization of U.S. foreign policy

USAID embarked on a vigorous campaign to privatize foreign assistance during

Ronald Reagan’s first term in office. The agency’s new approach benefited a range of NGOs,

including several affiliated with the Christian Right. In fact, Christian Right NGOs operating

in developing nations became especially adept at exploiting USAID’s policy shift.82 As a

consequence, the relationship between the Christian Right and U.S. foreign policy in the

1980s propelled debates over morality and social conservatism—the domestic culture wars—

far beyond U.S. borders.83 Equally importantly, this trend shows that the U.S. government

was able to appease domestic constituents via a number of foreign policy concessions. U.S.

aid for population control programs had, of course, been channelled through intermediaries

81 The Helms amendment had, after all, remained in place for over a decade, as numerous proposed Human Life Amendments to the US constitution failed. See Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 245. 82 See the groundbreaking study by Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right, (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1989). 83 New York Times journalist Marvine Howe remarked on this trend in a 1984 article Father Paul Marx clipped and kept. See Marvine Howe, “Volunteer Agencies Playing Larger Role in U.S. Foreign Aid,” The New York Times, (March 12, 1984), A1, A8.

141 for over two decades already. The Johnson administration, for example, self-consciously attempted to shield the United States from “charges of imperialism, racism and genocide” by filtering grants to population control NGOs through the UN system.84 But whereas the

Johnson administration’s efforts had been calculated to put targeted populations in developing nations off guard, USAID’s sudden emphasis on Natural Family Planning (NFP) after 1981 was first and foremost a domestic public relations strategy.

Between 1980 and 1983, USAID launched “an aggressive effort on behalf” of the

Reagan administration “to involve NFP as a component” of international “family planning

assistance programs.”85 Previously, USAID had focused almost exclusively on birth control

methods such as IUDs and the pill, which were not culturally acceptable in many developing

nations – especially those with substantial Catholic or Muslim populations. The agency

offered generous grants to international NFP providers with pro-life leanings in return for

their compliance with and silence on U.S. population control policies. In this way, Reagan’s

rhetorical endorsement of pro-life issues opened a range of new “resources for leverage,” and

spaces for activists to access and lobby the government.86

Since NFP teaching formed a key component of HLI’s global work, USAID contacted

the organization early in 1984. By this time, Father Marx’s detailed correspondence with

colleagues in Asia, Africa and Latin America had accrued him and HLI considerable “social

capital” with pro-lifers worldwide.87 The organization’s growing global presence and vocal

84 Finkle and McIntosh, “The New Politics of Population,” 9. 85 Richard Derham, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (August 28, 1984), 2, CMRX 73/06. 86 Khagram, Riker, Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 17. 87 For an overview of the importance of “social capital” to transnational organizing, see Daniel H. Levine and David Stoll, “Bridging the Gap between Empowerment and Power in Latin America,” in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and James Piscatori (eds), Transnational Religion and Fading States, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 65. In 1984 alone, HLI welcomed four new affiliates in Yugoslavia, Austria, Canada and Mexico into its network, and was preparing to expand further into Latin America. See John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “Press release: Human Life International Opens Four New Offices Overseas,” (c. 1984), CMRX 53/27. HLI’s growing social capital was evident in 1985 when Magaly Llaguno, who edited HLI’s Spanish-language publication Escoge la Vida, appealed to supporters to “Help Save Latin America” in a manner reminiscent of previous campaigns in

142 opposition to U.S. population control policies, combined with Marx’s history of teaching

NFP internationally, brought HLI to USAID administrator M. Peter McPherson’s attention.

He most likely acted on White House instructions to reach out to pro-life organizations when he initiated discussions with HLI.88 The agency’s assistant administrator, Richard Derham,

agreed to speak with HLI Reports’ editor in chief John Cavanaugh O’Keefe after learning that

Marx was lecturing in Mexico.89 Ahead of the meeting, ALL staffer Gary Curran urged

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe to be wary of Derham’s intentions. Despite his record of awarding

USAID grants to NFP providers, Curran insisted that Derham was “not a strong” prolifer.90

Initially, Derham seemed content to discuss USAID policy, UNFPA and the upcoming UN

conference in Mexico City with Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, but the latter soon realized that

McPherson’s assistant had ulterior motives.91 As he told Marx afterward, “It seems clear that

what he was really doing was feeling out Human Life International to see whether it was

reasonable to think about a grant for us.”92 NFP educator Mercedes Wilson had already

received significant financial support from the agency for her teacher training project, so

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s conclusions were not without basis.93

Ireland and the Philippines. Llaguno was able to cooperate with existing pro-life organizations like Venezuela’s PROVIVE to spread the pro-life message throughout the region. See Magaly Llaguno, “Help Save Latin America,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 11, (December 1985), 3, 4. By 1986, HLI established had offices in Argentina, Canada, Germany, India, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, the United States and Yugoslavia, and three years later had expanded into Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru. See “Second International Symposium on Human Sexuality Brings Experts to Montreal,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 5, Special Symposium Issue (1986), 1, and Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Christine De Vollmer,” (December 11, 1989), 1, CMRX 15/9. 88 John Cavanaugh O’Keefe, “Report on meeting with Dick Durham and John White of USAID,” (March, 1984), 1, CMRX 51/124. Also see Connie Paige, The Right to Lifers: Who They Are, How They Operate, Where They Get Their Money, (New York: Summit Books, 1983), 230. 89 The NFP programs in question were run by Mercedes Wilson and HLI advisor Claude Lanctot. See Gary Curran, “Letter to JCOK,” (March 20, 1984), 1, CMRX 73/13. Also see Paige, 230, and Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Report on meeting with Dick Durham,” 1. 90 Curran, “Letter to JCOK,” 1. 91 O’Keefe, “meeting with Derham,” 1. 92 O’Keefe, “meeting with Derham,” 2. 93 O’Keefe, “meeting with Derham,” 2.

143

During his conversation with Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, Derham intimated that up to $5 million had been earmarked for NFP projects.94 However, successful applicants had to be willing to refer clients seeking other birth control methods to alternative providers and agree not to “criticize” artificial contraceptives.95 These caveats would prove to be a major stumbling block for HLI. Cavanaugh-O’Keefe had maintained an uncompromising stance on birth control throughout the discussion. As he told Derham, the worldwide abortion

“holocaust” that killed “one person in three” had started with sliding standards of morality and propriety after artificial contraceptives broke the link between sex and procreation.96

Although Cavanaugh-O’Keefe took care “not to commit” HLI to USAID’s agenda, he

seemed pleased that Derham had promised to read “any material” HLI could provide that

documented Planned Parenthood’s statements on “sex education…preparing the way

for…contraception and...abortion.”97 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe was more ambivalent about the

fact that HLI would not be able to continue its vehement public opposition to the

“contraceptive mentality” if the organization won a USAID grant.98 “I think we can go back

to talk to him if we wish,” O’Keefe wrote Father Marx, “but I believe he wants to buy our

silence, and think he is as dangerous as hell.”99 After the meeting, HLI entered a new phase

of development characterized by increasing political awareness and activism. Despite his

initial concerns, Cavanaugh-O’Keefe maintained a steady, genial correspondence with

Richard Derham for several years.100 When he requested information on the annual

expenditure on abortion of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Derham

94 O’Keefe, “meeting with Derham,” 2. 95 O’Keefe, “meeting with Derham,” 2. 96 This line of reasoning reflected HLI’s official point of view. O’Keefe, “meeting with Derham,” 2. 97 O’Keefe, “meeting with Derham,” 2. 98 See Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Randy Engel,” (April 12, 1984), 1. CMRX 73/13. Marx intimated that Mercedes Wilson, a previous USAID grant recipient had been “bought…off.” 99 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Report on Talk with Richard Derham,” (March 22, 1984), 2, CMRX 73/07. 100 Their correspondence continued after Derham left USAID, indicating that he was more committed to the pro- life agenda than O’Keefe had initially supposed. See Richard Derham, “Letter to JCOK with NYU Law School Speech,” (May 18, 1987), 1-17, JCOK, Box 1, Folder 4.

144 sent him a copy of the federation’s 1982 budget.101 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s inquiries into the

IPPF’s accounting practices suggest that HLI was contemplating launching an investigation

into the federation’s segregated accounts, but more importantly, they illustrate the

organization’s entry into policymaking circles. In Richard Derham, HLI had found an ally

within USAID who was willing to help Cavanaugh-O’Keefe with his investigations. Since

successful NGOs often manipulate their relationships with elite allies and patrons to effect

change, this development was vital.102 Derham later assured Father Marx that his meetings with Cavanaugh-O’Keefe had already influenced USAID “policy positions.”103 Although the relationship between HLI and USAID appeared to be dynamic and mutually beneficial,

Father Marx was determined to maintain HLI’s freedom to pursue its own agenda, however.

USAID’s strategic plan for the fiscal year 1984-1985 clearly reflected the Reagan

administration’s changing stance on population control. According to the draft, the agency

was determined to eradicate “any coercion implicit in government distribution” of birth

control in developing countries by broadening access to NFP and through stimulating their

economies.104 As part of this process, Derham invited O’Keefe and Father Marx to critique a

confidential draft of USAID’s proposed NFP initiatives.105 Marx wrote extensive comments

in the margins, which reveal a deep scepticism of the agency’s plan. As Marx bluntly

commented, USAID’s commitment to respecting religious and cultural values when

delivering family planning programs was “a sham.”106 Furthermore, he complained that the

plan placed far too little “emphasis on the importance of socioeconomic growth and

101 Richard A. Derham, “Letter to John Cavanaugh O’Keefe of HLI,” (received March 28, 1984): 1, CMRX 73/07. 102 See Khagram, Riker and Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 20. 103 Richard A. Derham, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (August 28, 1984), 1-2, CMRX 73/06. 104 USAID, “Blueprint for Development: A Strategic Plan for the Agency for International Development (Discussion Draft),” (1984), 36-37, CMRX 16. 105 Richard A. Derham, “Letter to John Cavanaugh O’Keefe of HLI,” (received March 28, 1984), 1-2, CMRX 73/07. 106 See USAID, “Blueprint for Development,” 35.

145 development as factors in reducing population.”107 Finally, he accused USAID of engaging

“in tokenism in the promotion of NFP” since the agency remained silent on “surgical abortion, medical abortion, menstrual abortion, to say nothing, of other euphemisms to cover up the reality of early abortion.”108

He advised that USAID should consider distributing funding for family planning through “the social agencies of the Catholic Church without strings attached” to prove that it

was serious about respecting “religious freedom, human rights, and the moral

systems…churches embrace.”109 He also thought that NFP providers funded by USAID

should not have to refer clients to alternative clinics that offered artificial contraceptive

methods. For Catholic organizations such as HLI, such referrals violated the very same

religious and cultural traditions USAID had promised to uphold.

Father Marx, like other conservative Christian leaders, was already using private

donations to mobilize HLI’s “troops…on the battlefield of foreign affairs,” and federal

funding would facilitate an even more rapid expansion of the organization’s programs and

allow it to pursue increasingly ambitious ventures in the developing world.110 Under Reagan,

allocations for the agency’s NFP programs had already sky-rocketed from less than half a

million dollars in 1980 to nearly $7 million four years later.111 Father Marx’s suggestions

were therefore intended to push USAID to relax restrictions that hampered HLI’s ability to

access government grants. Although USAID refused to alter its conditions for NFP grant

107 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Richard A. Derham, Acting Assistant Director of USAID,” (August 21, 1984), 1, CMRX 73/07. 108 Marx, “Letter to Derham,” (August 21, 1984), 1-4. 109 Marx, “Letter to Derham,” (August 21, 1984), 2. 110 Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, v. 111 Derham, “Letter to Marx,” (August 28, 1984), 2.

146 recipients, the Reagan administration was already formulating a new approach to population control that would enable pro-life activists to translate information into political leverage.112

Preparing for Mexico City

Two preparatory sessions held in New York City in January and March of 1984 yielded “no indication of the stunning volte face” the United States planned to announce at the UN’s International Conference on Population, scheduled for August 6-14, in Mexico

City.113 Within the White House, however, Reagan’s advisors were already embroiled in

heated debates over draft statements that needed to appeal to pro-lifers without alienating the

rest of the U.S. electorate.114 The new U.S. position also had to remain distinct from that of

the Soviet Union, which had long attributed problems in developing nations to “unsound

economic principles” rather than population growth.115 Prior to a meeting with White House

chief of staff James Baker, Richard Levine, who served in the National Security’s Defense

Policy Planning department, asked the president’s national security advisor Robert

MacFarlane whether “the paper should contend that...population equilibrium in the Third

World [could] be brought about by solely economic reform to a free market,” or by a more

moderate “combination of market-based economic reforms” and “prudent population

measures.”116 Office of Policy Development drafts, meanwhile, argued that while

humanitarian aid had reduced mortality rates in developing nations, the ensuing “population

112 Creating political opportunities, particularly by framing and advocating international norms, is another key role of transnational NGOs. Pro-life organizations’ role in the formulation of the Mexico City Policy is a case in point. Khagram, Riker and Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 17. 113 Johnson, World Population and the United Nations, 254. 114 Carl A. Anderson, “Memorandum for Jack A. Svahn re: Presidential Message for the International Conference on Population,” (May 16, 1984), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Executive Secretariat of the National Security Council (NSC), Subject Files, Box 82, “Population (2).” 115Richard A. Levine, “Memorandum for Robert C. MacFarlane, re: Population; Talking Points for Baker Meeting: Population Issues Paper,” (July 11, 1984), 2, Reagan Presidential Library, Executive Secretariat of the National Security Council, Subject Files, Box 82, “Population (1).” 116 Levine, “Memorandum for Robert C. McFarlane re: Population,” 1-2.

147 boom” should be understood as a challenge rather than a crisis.117 The same draft statement inverted traditional assumptions about the relationship between population growth and economic development, closely paralleling the president’s emphasis on the self-regulating economy: “Economic freedom, has led to economically rational behavior. As opportunities and the standard of living rise, the birth rate falls.”118

Julian L. Simon’s The Ultimate Resource is often cited as a seminal influence on the policymakers who formulated the U.S. statement.119 Simon, a professor of business administration at the University of Maryland, was a long-standing critic of population explosion “alarmists” like Paul Ehrlich, and argued that “in the long run” population growth actually contributed positively to economic development by encouraging innovation and creating “business opportunities.”120 Although many commentators believed that the U.S. position was designed to placate restive pro-lifers in advance of the 1984 presidential election, Simon’s mark is certainly evident in the statement the United States presented at the

Mexico City Conference.121 According to Carl Anderson, a conservative Catholic with close ties to pro-life groups including HLI and special assistant to the president, Reagan was

117 See White House Office of Policy Development with National Security Council, “Draft Statement, International Conference on Population,” (May 30, 1984), 3, Reagan Presidential Library, NSA, Box 1, 8403775, and “Draft Statement, International Conference on Population,” (3 July 1984), 2, Reagan Presidential Library, Executive Secretariat, NSC, Subject File, Box 82, “Population (1).” In fact, Dixie Cup tycoon Hugh Moore had mounted a nationwide media campaign in the 1960s to convince politicians and the public of the perils of unchecked population growth. See Lawrence Lader, Breeding Ourselves to Death, (NY: Ballantine Books, 1971), for details. 118 White House Office of Policy Development with National Security Council, “Draft Statement, International Conference on Population,” (May 30, 1984), 4. 119 Peter J. Donaldson and Charles B. Keeley, “Population and Family Planning: An International Perspective,” Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 6, (Nov-Dec 1988), 309. 120 See Eric Eckholm, “Population Growth: How U.S. Policy Evolved,” New York Times (1923-Current file), August 11, 1984, http://www.proquest.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009. 121 Simon approved of what he saw as a more measured assessment of the relationship between population growth and economic development. See Julian Simon, “Myths of Overpopulation,” The Wall Street Journal, (3 August, 1984), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009. Also see “U.S. to cut funds for planning group,” The New York Times, (1923-Current file), 14 July 1984, 13, http://www.proquest.com, Accessed 5/3/2009, Phillip J. Hilts, “U.S. to Stop Funding Groups that ‘Actively Promote’ Abortion,” The Washington Post, (14 July, 1984), Factiva.com (accessed 5/3/2009), Jason Finkle, quoted in Paul Goodsell and James Allen Flannery, “Abortion Policy Stirs Controversy,” The Omaha World-Herald, (29 September 1984), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009, and Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 241-262.

148 determined that the final statement should reflect his own belief that “individual freedom and economic expansion” were the keys “to prosperity and stability.”122

Anderson was, in fact, widely rumoured to have authored several early drafts of the new policy.123 At an international pro-life conference in 1983, Anderson had hinted to Father

Marx that the Reagan administration was moving closer to the pro-life position on population control.124 Given Anderson’s links to pro-life organizations and alleged involvement in the drafting process, it is hardly surprising that the evolving policy strongly resembled pro-life attitudes toward international family planning. It is difficult to prove such assertions conclusively, but at the time activists on both sides of the debate believed this was the case.

The Population Crisis Committee’s Sharon Camp, for example, condemned the policy shift as

“an election-year ploy,” while ALL spokesman Gary Curran applauded the draft, stating that it “contained ‘90 per cent of what we would have written.”125 The Reagan administration publicly implied that reasons for its policy shift were purely economic, but there is significant reason to believe that serious concerns over pro-life dissatisfaction with the president’s inaction leading up to the 1984 election also precipitated the change.

The eventual composition of the U.S. delegation also suggested that Reagan was preoccupied with appeasing pro-lifers as the Mexico City conference approached. “Intense infighting” on Capitol Hill characterized the selection of the United States’ representatives for the upcoming UN meeting, but pro-life groups welcomed Reagan’s decision to nominate

Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to lead the U.S. delegation. Although Koop’s candidacy faltered in the face of insurmountable opposition from the State Department, privately the

122 Anderson, “Memo for John A. Svahn,” 1. Also see Holden, “A ‘prolife’ population delegation?” 1321, and Father Paul Marx, “Trip Diary, Ireland,” (March 18, 1982), 28-30, CMRX 79/03. 123 Holden, “A ‘prolife’ population delegation?” 1321. 124 Marx, “Trip Diary, Ireland,” (March 18, 1982), 28-30. 125 “U.S. to cut funds for planning group,” The New York Times, (14 July 1984), 13.

149 surgeon general speculated that “a combination of planned parenthood and other forces” in the White House had forced Reagan to retract his nomination.126

Presidential advisors eventually chose James L. Buckley, the head of Radio Free

Europe in Munich, to lead the U.S. delegation, “largely on the basis of his personal views” on

abortion and “acceptability to right-to-life groups.”127 According to insiders, Buckley had

“devoted considerable effort to undermining the population office” of USAID during his time

as undersecretary of state for security affairs, science and technology, a point well-illustrated

by the Eberstadt and Kasun studies, which he had commissioned.128 The two studies differed

markedly with each other, but united in their criticisms of USAID. Further manoeuvring

ensured that the pro-lifers or their public sympathizers dominated the U.S. delegation.129

Sending so many “pro-life” representatives to the UN meeting made a clear statement to

activists: the Reagan administration was heeding their calls for change. For their part, pro-life

leaders welcomed the development. Father Marx wrote to the president to thank him for

“appointing a pro-life group in the majority to the...Conference.”130 Meanwhile, Judie Brown

commended the president’s “courage and conviction” on behalf of “pro-lifers worldwide,”

and ALL representative Gary Curran lauded the U.S. delegation as a first step toward

translating “anti-abortion statements into action.”131

126 C. Everett Koop, “Letter to Dr. Peggy Norris,” (June 7, 1984), 1, NIH/NLM, Koop Papers, Box 74, File 3, “Correspondence (2), 6/1984.” Also see Holden, “A ‘prolife’ population delegation?” 1321.The skirmish was symptomatic of the broader power struggles between supporters and opponents of population control occurring on Capitol Hill at that time. 127 Babara B. Crane and Jason L. Finkle, “Ideology and Politics at Mexico City: The United States at the 1984 International Conference on Population,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, (March 1984): 13. 128 Holden, “A ‘prolife’ population delegation?” Science, 1321. 129 The notable exception was long time population control advocate William Draper III, but he was in the minority. See Phillip J. Hilts, “Population Delegates Alter Course,” The Washington Post, (25 July 1984), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009. 130 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Ronald Reagan,” (August 17, 1984), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM Subject File, FO 006, 235191. 131 Judie Brown, “Letter to Ronald Reagan,” (July 20, 1984), 1. Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM, FO 006, 233370, and Gary Curran, quoted in Hilts, “Population Delegates Alter Course,” The Washington Post, (25 July 1984).

150

The Second United Nations World Population Conference opened on August 6, 1984 in Mexico City. The juxtaposition of the population conference against the backdrop of one of the world’s most densely populated Catholic cities was emblematic of tensions simmering below the meeting’s surface.132 World Bank President A.W. Clausen spoke for the majority of official participants when he observed that poor countries were trapped in a “vicious circle” characterized by “high mortality and even higher fertility.”133 He argued that “rapid population growth” made “the elimination of poverty increasingly difficult.”134 Delegates had, however, revised earlier assumptions that population stabilization alone would encourage economic progress.135 The broad consensus in Mexico City was that “an active population policy” together with “rapid development progress” would ease socio-economic pressures on developing nations.136 The United States, however, departed markedly from the majority opinion led by claiming that population growth was “of itself” a “neutral phenomenon.”137 The statement also summarily dismissed “demographic overreactions” from the 1960s and 1970s that had warned that the “population explosion” would have dire consequences for humanity.138

While the United States had been one of the primary architects of the World

Population Plan of Action at the 1974 Bucharest conference, the Reagan administration’s

132 The location of the conference was deliberate: Mexico was viewed by UN officials as “an example for other countries…at earlier stages of population policy development,” particularly for its neighbours in Latin America. See Finkle and Crane, “Ideology and Politics at Mexico City,” 1-28. Also see “Overcrowded Mexico City offers a grim warning to the world,” Time: The Weekly Magazine, Vol. 124, No. 6, (August 6, 1984). 133 A.W. Clausen, “Foreword,” in “Quotes from World Bank President Clausen’s World Development Report 1984,” 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Executive Secretariat of the NSC Records, Box 82,“Population (1).” Also see Deidre Wulf and Peters D. Willson, “Mexico City: Consensus Amidst Controversies,” International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 10, No. 3, (September 1984), 81-15. 134 Clausen, “Foreword,” 1. 135 Department of Public Information, Press Section, UN New York, “Secretary General’s Statement to International Conference on Population,” (13 August, 1984), 1-4, United Nations Archives and Records Management (hereafter UNARM), Mexico City – International Conference on Population, 12-14 Aug. 1984, S- 1022-0076-02. 136 See for example Federal Republic of Germany, “Statement for the 1984 International Population Conference in Mexico,” (1984), 2, Reagan Presidential Library, NSA, Box 1, 8403775. 137 White House Office of Policy Development, “US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population and Development, July 13, 1984,” in Population and Development Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, (September 1984), 576. 138 White House Office of Policy Development, “US Policy Statement,” 577.

151 new policy prioritized economic development above population control.139 Pro-life leaders took particular note of several points made in the U.S. statement. Although phrased in secular terms, the U.S. position in many ways echoed the Holy See’s insistence that population control programs respect “the dignity and value” of all individuals by eschewing “coercive policies or the promotion of contraception or sterilization.”140 The statement asserted that no part of the U.S. “contribution to…UNFPA” could “be used for abortion” or for programs that employed coercion and involuntary sterilization as strategies to slow population growth.141 In light of the existing controversy over UNFPA’s support for China’s one-child policy, this

statement constituted a thinly veiled threat. For the first time, national governments as well as

NGOs were required to separate U.S. funds from those used to perform or promote

abortions.142 Finally, the statement distanced the United States from the USSR’s position by

claiming a free market economy, as opposed to “slowing population growth,” was the best

remedy to “problems of social and economic development.”143

Pro-life leaders present at the meeting welcomed the Reagan administration’s new

policy, but many representatives of developing nations were perplexed.144 In 1974, several

developing nations had condemned “population assistance as racist, genocidal,” and

“imperialistic.”145 A decade later, pro-life leaders from the developed world were more likely

to make those same claims. Before the conference, one U.S. government official had

observed that the mode of delivery would be a critical determinant of the international

139 See Jason L. Finkle and Barbara B. Crane, “The Politics of Bucharest: Population, Development, and the New International Economic Order,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, (September 1975), 87-114, and White House Office of Policy Development, “US Policy Statement,”577-578. 140 See “Vatican Statement for the International Conference on Population,” 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, National Security Affairs, Assistant to the President: Chronological Files, Box 1, 8403775. 141 White House Office of Policy Development, “US Policy Statement,”578. 142 White House Office of Policy Development, “US Policy Statement,” 578. 143 White House Office of Policy Development, “US Policy Statement,” 578. 144 Johnson, World Population and the United Nations, 254. 145 Finkle and Crane, “Ideology and Politics at Mexico City,” 1.

152 reaction to the policy.146 During the conference, the Mexico City policy debuted to mixed reviews. Private international family planning groups, fearful of losing millions of dollars of funding, condemned the policy.147 IPPF treasurer Emile Elias warned that the policy posed

“untold dangers” to population control programs and would devastate the federation if it resulted in cuts amounting to almost a quarter of the organization’s annual budget.148 At the conference, China and the Soviet Bloc also opposed the policy on principle.149 Yet the question remained: what impact would the Mexico City policy have in practice, and how rigorously would USAID enforce it?

James Buckley’s comments at a press briefing before the conference shed some light on to the Reagan administration’s expectations for the Mexico City policy. When Richard

Derham forwarded the briefing to HLI, he stressed Buckley’s “on the record” restatement of

“the Administration’s strong support for voluntary family planning and…equally strong opposition to forcible coercion, abortion, and a rejection of Malthusian pessimism.”150

However, in an apparent attempt to reassure developing nations and population control providers unnerved by the policy shift, Buckley claimed that the Mexico City policy did “not reflect any radical, new departures” from established U.S. population policy.151 Previous amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act already prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion overseas, and the new position simply represented a “tightening of existing

146 Norman D. Atkins, “U.S. Flips on Population…Growth and Progress Seen as Compatible,” The Washington Post, (5 August 1984), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009. 147 Richard J. Meislin, “UN Parley Urges Ban on Promoting Use of Abortion, US and Vatican Victory,” The New York Times, (August 12, 1984), 1, 8, Proquest, Accessed: 2/4/2009. 148 Stephen Engleberg, “Conservatives Hope to Link Abortion With Overseas Aid,” The New York Times, (June 24, 1984), E3, Proquest, Accessed: 2/4/2009. 149 Meislin, “UN Parley,” 1, 8. 150 Richard A. Derham, “Letter to John Cavanaugh O’Keefe re: Buckley Press Briefing,” (August 7, 1984), 1, CMRX 73/13. 151 Brian Carlson, “On the Record Briefing by Ambassador James L. Buckley on International Conference on Population,” (August 2, 1984), 1. CMRX 73/13 – USAID 1984. Also see Mark. J. Kurlansky, “World population meetings find message getting through,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, (19 August 1984), 1-2, Factiva.com, (accessed 2/4/2009). Kurlansky suggest that the US delegation made a concerted effort to “soften and redefine” the USA’s initial stance to curb “overwhelming disapproval."

153 policy.”152 Population control providers would be encouraged to distance themselves from programs that provided or promoted abortion and rigidly segregate U.S. funds from those used for such purposes or risk losing USAID support. Buckley concluded by reiterating the

Reagan administration’s confidence in free market capitalism: “[I]t therefore follows that the encouragement of economic reform should be an essential part of any strategy seeking to achieve ultimate population equilibrium.”153

A brief exchange between Buckley and a reporter during the ensuing question and answer session suggests that the administration expected that the Mexico City policy would result in little material change. One reporter asked, “Since money is fungible, what difference did “segregated funds make?”154 NGOs would surely “take something from that fund and move it over to the other abortion program?”155 Buckley replied frankly that the policy would satisfy “American taxpayers that their funds [were] not being used for these purposes.”156

“Let me simplify and paraphrase what you’re saying,” the reporter persisted: “It makes us feel good, but it doesn’t necessarily do the job.”157 “No,” Buckley admitted to general laughter, “and feeling good is very important...That’s one of the policy objectives of the

World Population Plan of Action.”158 If Buckley’s comments accurately reflected the administration’s expectations, then White House advisors who hoped the policy would subdue frustrated pro-lifers had badly misjudged organizations such as HLI, which were primed to exploit the shift.

152 Carlson, “Buckley Briefing,” 2-3. 153 Carlson, “Buckley Briefing,” 2. 154Carlson, “Buckley Briefing,” 3. In this instance, “fungibility” can be taken to mean that segregated funds might not technically finance abortion, but instead be used in such a way that allowed population control providers to perform abortions. Fungibility: “to serve in place of.” Bruce Moore (editor), The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 3rd Edition, (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1997), 536. 155 Carlson, “Buckley Briefing,” 3. 156 Carlson, “Buckley Briefing,” 3. 157 Carlson, “Buckley Briefing,” 3. 158 Carlson, “Buckley Briefing,” 3.

154

While the president and his advisors may not have anticipated significant changes in the distribution of U.S. assistance to population control programs, pro-life leaders viewed the policy differently. Like numerous other foreign policy shifts, the Mexico City declaration empowered “transnational network actors,” despite the US government’s apparent “absence of any initial intention” to “implement or monitor the norm in question.”159 Although the statement could, as London Times journalist Andrew Lycett remarked, “be viewed…as a nicely timed piece of electioneering…it would,” he warned “be wrong to characterise the US position purely as propaganda.”160 The policy was a powerful gesture, and in this case provided “reassurance” to pro-lifers that “society [was] indeed their society, its meanings and

morality their morality.”161 Yet more than that, for HLI it was also an opportunity to effect

changes to U.S. population policy. Father Marx spoke for many pro-life leaders when he

praised the policy because it promised that “no money” would be donated “to any groups that

push abortion.”162 The president reaffirmed Marx’s interpretation in a letter to Judie Brown

shortly after the conference: “We made it very clear that we will not participate in any

program that advocates abortion or even tolerates it as a part of population control.”163

The pro-life perspective: organizing to “Protect Life in All Nations” Over the course of the UN’s Mexico City Conference, pro-life groups engaged in a

range of activities that signalled that they were preparing to capitalize on the U.S.

delegation’s policy shift. In fact, in addition to providing U.S. pro-life groups with new

political opportunities, the UN’s Mexico City Conference on Population marked an important

milestone for the global pro-life movement. In 1982, president of More Agricultural

159 Thomas, “Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 71-72. 160 Andrew Lycett, “Population: Reagan’s Challenge,” The Times, (6 August 1984), CMRX 3/29. 161 Joseph S. Gusfield, The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order, (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), 182. 162 Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary – Mexico,” (3 August 1984), CMRX 79/14. 163 Ronald Reagan, “Letter to Judie Brown re: Mexico City Policy,” (August 15, 1984), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM FO 006, 233370.

155

Production (MAP) George Barmann wrote to Father Marx and Judie Brown suggesting that it

was “not too early…to be focusing” on the UN’s upcoming meeting.164 It was “imperative”

that “prolife people be represented at Mexico City” to offer “a more positive view of the

future,” because UN population conferences played “a significant role in influencing

population policies around the world.”165 Consequently, Father Marx proposed that ALL and

HLI cosponsor a “big international bash of pro-lifers” to coincide with the conference, and he

and Brown eventually decided to convene a meeting of Protect Life in All Nations (PLAN) in

Mexico City.166 They had established PLAN as a global umbrella organization for pro-life

groups several years before and served as vice president and executive secretary, while

Australian Dr. Daniel Overduin was PLAN’s president.167

At PLAN’s 1983 conference in Rome, one hundred participants from thirty-four

countries resolved to counter the UN’s “giant…meeting of the International Planned

Parenthood” movement in Mexico City.168 PLAN’s member organizations dispatched delegates to UN-hosted NGO preparatory meetings in Europe and the United States ahead of the conference. At one such gathering in Geneva, Switzerland, in September of 1983, PLAN

members affiliated with Italy’s Movimento per la Vita Italiano acquired vital information

they shared with their international allies.169 HLI Reports featured an article by one of the

Italian pro-lifers, Mario Paolo Rocchi, who claimed that “sessions on ‘fertility and the

family’” had been dominated by discussions of overpopulation; population control advocates

had blamed “every…problem and tragedy – from migrations to hunger to wars in Central

164 George M. Barmann, “Letter to Judie Brown,” (October 9, 1982), 1, CMRX 3/30 – Brown, Judie, 1981-1987. 165 Barmann, “Letter to Judie Brown,” 1. 166 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Judie Brown,” (November 22, 1982): 1, CMRX 3/30. 167 See Paul Brown, “Dear Friend of Life letter,” (no date), 1, CMRX 3/29. 168 Human Life International, “PLAN,” HLI Report, Vol. 1, No. 5, (November 1983), 3. Also see Paul A. Brown, “Dear Friend of Life Letter – PLAN,” (1983), 1, CMRX 3/29. 169 See Francesco Migliori, “The Italian Pro-Life Movement to the Pro-Life Movements of the other countries re: The U.N. International Conference on Population – Mexico, 1984,” (22 February, 1984), 1, CMRX 16, and Mario Paolo Rocchi, “Mass Abortion Has only One Purpose: “Block” the World Population,” HLI Reports, (January 1984), 6, 8.

156

America – exclusively to…the birth rate.”170 The Italian delegates did not go out of their way

to disrupt proceedings, but one activist did challenge the dominant neo-Malthusian

perspective by asking whether the fifty million annual abortions worldwide were “not proof

that the humanitarian proclamations” of the 1974 World Population Plan of Action had

failed.171 More importantly, the Italian pro-lifers learned how to apply for NGO observer

status for the August 1984 UN conference.172

David O. Poindexter, the NGO convenor for the Mexico City conference signalled the

UN’s recognition of the growing importance of NGOs in international politics by

encouraging national and international European NGOs to liaise closely with their

governmental representatives before the meeting.173 If possible, organizations should try to

“place qualified NGO leaders” on their country’s “official national delegations.”174

Poindexter’s suggestions were aimed at population control providers, but Italian pro-life

leader Francesco Migliori shared the information with PLAN’s secretary Judie Brown.175 As

Migliori and Brown’s exchange shows, in the decade between the UN’s Bucharest and

Mexico City meetings on world population, pro-life groups had strengthened their

transnational networks, developed considerable political nuance, and were preparing to stage

a concerted challenge to international family planning NGOs.

By 1984, PLAN had become an umbrella organization that represented “international,

national, regional and professional pro-life organizations and foundations” from twelve

170 Rocchi, “Mass Abortion Has only One Purpose,” 6. 171Rocchi, “Mass Abortion Has only One Purpose,” 6. 172 Migliori, “The Italian Pro-Life Movement,” 1. 173 David O. Poindexter, “Letter to NGO’s re: Mexico City Population Conference,” (January 20, 1984), 1-2, CMRX 16. 174 Poindexter, “Letter to NGO’s,” 1-2. 175 See Poindexter, “Letter to NGO’s,” 1-2, Migliori, “The Italian Pro-Life Movement,” 1, and Judie Brown, “PLAN mailout re: Mexico City Conference,” (1984), 1, CMRX 71/43.

157 countries, and was therefore eligible for NGO status with the UN.176 PLAN’s official NGO status allowed members to make an official joint statement against population control and nominate delegates to attend the conference.177 Brown encouraged PLAN’s international affiliates to apply for NGO status too, particularly if they could not influence their government’s position.178 Although most PLAN affiliates did not qualify after all, HLI did manage to secure observer status ahead of the conference.179

International pro-life leaders were better prepared for the Mexico City conference than they had been for the Bucharest one, largely due to transnational information exchanges prior to the meeting. In contrast to the fourteen-member pro-life delegation that had attended the Bucharest meeting, pro-life groups turned out in force for PLAN’s 1984 conference; one-

hundred and fifty activists from twenty countries converged on Mexico City to challenge population control advocates at the UN meeting.180 Many pro-life leaders arrived ahead of the

conference and managed to infiltrate closed sessions and distribute pro-life literature to

national delegates despite UN officials’ best efforts.181 PLAN members and supporters also

organized a March for Life during the conference, which paraded an estimated twenty to

twenty-five thousand people past “the hall where the abortionists” were meeting before

celebrating mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica.182 Although pro-life activists were still

very much in the minority and so essentially powerless in UN forums, Judie Brown

nevertheless described PLAN’s presence at the Mexico City conference as a “major advance

176 In fact, PLAN was a bona fide “world federation,” with members in Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, India, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland and the USA. See Paul A. Brown, “Dear Friend of Life Letter – PLAN,” (1983), 1, CMRX 3/29. For correspondence between Brown and UN representative see Virginia Saurwein, “Letter to Judie Brown re: NGO status requests,” (May 23, 1984), 1-2, and Judie Brown, “Letter to Virginia Saurwein,” (June 1, 1984), 1, both in CMRX 71/43. 177 See United Nations, Department of Technical Cooperation for Development, Report of the International Conference on Population, 1984, Mexico City, 6-14 August 1984, (New York: United Nations, 1984), 101. 178 Brown, “PLAN mailout,” 1. 179 See Saurwein, “Letter to Judie Brown re: NGO status requests,” 1-2, and Brown, “Letter to Virginia Saurwein,” 1. For Father Paul Marx’s confirmation that HLI had attained NGO status, see Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary: Mexico,” (2 August, 1984), 29, CMRX 79/14. 180 Marx, “Travel Diary – Mexico,” (14-15 August 1984), 38, 40. 181 Marx, “Travel Diary – Mexico,” (3 August 1984), 182 Marx, “Travel Diary – Mexico,” (11 August 1984), 35.

158 on behalf of human life and its protection...A stone has been laid upon which the worldwide

pro-life movement can build the wall needed to stem the tide of abortion in our world.”183 In

essence, pro-lifers used the UN’s 1984 population conference as “a platform from which to

gain global attention for anti-abortion perspectives and an opportunity to strengthen

transnational connections.”184 The importance of these transnational connections became

increasingly apparent after the Mexico City policy provided pro-life leaders with new

opportunities to influence the Reagan administration’s foreign policy.

Soon after the meeting, “New right, right-to-life, and Protestant fundamentalists”

concluded that they might well be able to compel USAID to abide by the new policy if they

could “secure” their position in U.S. politics.185 Reagan’s repeated condemnations of legal

abortion during his first three years in the White House had not resulted in any concrete gains

for the right-to-life movement, but the Mexico City policy gave pro-life leaders a new tool

with which to translate the Reagan administration’s symbolic support for their cause into

political power. The policy also institutionalized a new international anti-population control

norm. M. Peter McPherson suggested as much in a letter to the Jack Svahn, the president’s

assistant for policy development, when he described the UN conference as an opportunity to

“develop an understanding of, and begin to build an international consensus on, this

administration’s approach to population efforts.”186 Pro-life leaders subsequently held the

U.S. government accountable for enforcing the Mexico City policy by identifying instances

in which U.S.-funded population programs violated its provisions.187

183 Judie Brown, “Mexico City: Part II,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 11, (November 1984), 10. 184 As argued by Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 248. 185 See Finkle and Crane, “Ideology and Politics at Mexico City,” 20. 186 M. Peter McPherson, “Memo to Robert McFarlane, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Jack Svahn, Assistant to the President for Policy Development,” (June 14, 1984), 1, CMRX 73/13. 187 HLI’s aspirations mirrored those of numerous progressive transnational NGOs that also relied on flexing their moral muscle by providing persuasive information to force changes on institutional actors. See Khagram, Riker, Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle,” Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 11.

159

HLI developed two distinct strategies to combat contraception, abortion, and population control toward the end of 1984, both of which were influenced by the Reagan administration’s policy shifts. The first, attempting to inspire resistance to international family “propaganda” in countries targeted by population control NGOs, reflected the organization’s origins. The second strategy sought to cut family planning providers off from their largest financial supporter—the United States. It can be understood as a direct response to the changing political climate in Washington D.C.

Prior to the 1984 UN conference, HLI had attempted to secure funding for a program that demonstrated the first approach in Mexico.188 The lead article of HLI Reports’ January

1984 edition openly accused USAID of subsidising programs that taught doctors to perform

sterilizations and abortions, practises illegal in Mexico.189 An irate young Mexican doctor

reportedly told Father Marx: “You paid my way to your country to learn how to break our

law by sterilizing our women and aborting our babies!”190 After Cardinal Ernesto Corripio

Ahumada introduced Father Marx to Angelina Muniz in May of 1984, he decided to formalize HLI’s commitment to Mexico.191 Father Marx was impressed by Muniz’s efficiency and obvious pro-life sympathies and hired her to establish Vida Humana

Internacional (VHI), HLI’s first Mexican branch.192

188 In fact, USAID had been operating in Mexico, providing “low profile support” to local family planning programs since 1977. The agency had funded “training, research, and technical assistance,” and the expansion of contraceptive and medical training programs. See U.S.-Mexico Border Health Association, “Briefing Book – Mexico,” (no date), 1, Koop Papers, Box 12, Folder 2. 189 See Father Paul Marx, “Abortion in Mexico – A Threat Renewed,” HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 1, (January 1984), 1-2. 190 Marx, “Abortion in Mexico,” 1-2. Other Mexican sources hinted that public hospitals were already sterilizing women without their informed consent. Privately, Father Marx remarked that locals he had spoken to were deeply suspicious of “the World Bank,” which he believed was putting pressure on “the Mexican government to switch from their previous pro-natalist policy to the new alarmist stance.” Father Marx warned that “population control experts” about to converge on Mexico were certain to push “the Mexican government to…legaliz[e]…abortion.” See “Cardinal of Mexico Joins HLI Board,” HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 7, (September 1984), 3, and Father Paul Marx, “Return to Guadalupe,” (1983), 1, CMRX 51/100. 191 “HLI Branch Offices Flourish,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 1, (January 1985), 1. 192 The Mexican VHI should not, however, be confused with HLI’s Spanish language outreach center of the same name in Miami, which eventually coordinated all of HLI’s Latin American operations. See VHI, “How

160

HLI promised to send “thousands of dollars of equipment” including

“books…literature and… video aids” to help Muniz launch the project, and to pay her a salary of “eight hundred dollars a month.”193 VHI Mexico immediately set about raising public awareness by establishing a youth group, mounting pro-life campaigns, and collaborating with the World Organization of Ovulation Method, Billings (WOOMB) to formulate and run a NFP course.194 Three months after the UN conference, Father Marx and

John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe met with USAID administrator M. Peter McPherson to discuss funding for VHI.195 To Marx’s surprise, McPherson seemed willing to consider their project, and so Muniz, Marx and Cavanaugh-O’Keefe put together a funding proposal.196

The budget forecast for VHI’s activities—including provision of materials, instructor’s salaries, administrative, symposia and travel costs for American NFP instructors and pro-life leaders to visit Mexico—totalled $513,240 for fiscal year 1985-1986.197 The proposal stated: “Even a modest grant to Human Life International…to furnish…materials and know-how to the many NFP workers we know in the poor countries would do much to promote responsible family planning and thus cut the excess population that seems to worry you greatly, a legitimate one in some instances.”198 The request betrayed Father Marx’s pragmatism. Despite his personal pro-natalism and strident criticisms of USAID’s previous

and Why VHI Was Created,” and “Literature Fuels Growth of Hispanic Pro-Life Network,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 8, No. 6, (August-September 1986), 46. 193 Marx, “Travel Diary – Mexico,” (July 8, 1984), 1. 194 “HLI Branch Offices Flourish,” 1. 195 See John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to M. Peter McPherson,” (November 30, 1984), 1, and M. Peter McPherson, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (November 13, 1984), 1-2, both in CMRX 73/07. 196Father Paul Marx, “Daily Diary,” (3 March 1985), 38, CMRX 51/142. Their prospectus anticipated that within four years VHI could train “200 teachers,” in NFP education, “each of whom would be able to teach 100 couples annually.” By 1989, they hoped to have 2000 NFP instructors providing Catholic-approved fertility training in 800 family planning centres across Mexico. The project would respond to Mexico’s exponential population growth in three ways: by hosting international symposia for leaders to discuss strategies, and on a practical level, teaching couples Natural Family Planning as a means of birth control, and finally, producing NFP Teaching Manuals. Moreover, VHI would cooperate with Church hierarchy to access the estimated “90 percent” of the Mexican population who identified as Catholic. See Angelina Muniz/ Vida Humana Internacional (VHI), “Proposal: Natural Family Planning in Mexico,” (November 1984), 1-9, CMRX 73/07. 197 Muniz/ VHI, “Proposal,” 8-9. 198 Marx, “Letter to Derham,” (August 21, 1984), 4.

161 overtures toward NFP providers, he was willing to concede that some regions would benefit from slower population growth—so long as HLI was involved.

Although USAID had given grants to NFP providers before, and had even donated funds to a 1985 HLI symposium, the agency would not accept the organization’s unwillingness to refer clients to other providers for contraceptives. For this reason, HLI’s application was rejected in 1985.199 The agency’s refusal was a financial setback, but HLI’s continued independence from USAID meant that the organization was still free to monitor and expose alleged violations of restrictions on the use of U.S. funds by international population control providers. HLI continued to promote grass roots acceptance of NFP in the hope of preventing the spread of other contraceptive methods in developing nations, but the group simultaneously intensified its political lobbying efforts. VHI’s efforts in Mexico initiated a new phase of HLI’s campaign against Planned Parenthood, the World Bank,

USAID and the UN throughout South and Central America—an offensive that would eventually put population control providers on the defensive.200

Conclusion

Like population control advocates twenty years before, HLI’s leaders realized that

“pressure” could “be brought to bear indirectly through foreign donors as well as directly on policymakers and program officials at national, regional and local levels in developing countries.”201 Gaining access to USAID allowed HLI to participate in the privatization of

U.S. foreign policy, albeit differently to other NGOs affiliated with the Christian Right. HLI not only took the culture wars to the developing world, but attempted to alter USAID’s funding decisions by bringing information back from developing nations. Furthermore, the

199 See “USAID Grant to NFP Group Blocked by House Committee,” ALL News, Vol. 1, No. 28, (August 23, 1985), 6, and Father Paul Marx, “Letter to M. Peter McPherson,” (March 29, 1985), 1, CMRX 73/14. 200 James Allen Flannery, Phil Johnson, “Latin Americans at Odds – Battle Waged Over Birth Control,” The Omaha World Herald, (23 February 1986), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009. 201 Finkle and McIntosh, “The New Politics of Population,” 26.

162

Reagan administration’s policy shifts substantively altered HLI’s subsequent trajectory by promoting its professionalization and global expansion, enabling the organization to capitalize on its ties to USAID. Its participation in the emergence of new anti-population control norms prepared the organization to strengthen, implement, and monitor U.S. government compliance with those new norms.202

202 Transnational coalitions employed similar tactics to aid Indian activists opposing the construction of big dams. See Sanjeev Khagram, “Restructuring the Global Politics of Development: The Case of India’s Narmada Valley Dams,” Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 213, 228.

163

Chapter Five Principle and Pragmatism: USAID, HLI and Enforcing the Mexico City policy1 As the trouble began in one country after another, most pro-lifers tried to make sense of the new ideologies solely by reference to events within their own borders. This ignored the work of international organizations, especially Planned Parenthood, with their global agenda of abolishing family life and cleaning the human race of excess baggage… HLI blew the whistle on the activities of the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID).2 Human Life International (HLI) was one of the first pro-life groups to expose and

condemn the close ties between U.S. foreign policy makers and the “international anti-life”

movement fronted by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).3

Consequently, HLI differed markedly from most other U.S.-based pro-life organizations that

struggled “to make sense of new ideologies solely by reference to events within their own

borders.”4 By the mid-1980s, HLI was actively forming and sharing information across

transnational networks, and even attempted to coordinate international anti-population control

campaigns.5 Commentators may have interpreted the Reagan administration’s Mexico City

policy as a radical departure from the previous bipartisan political consensus on population

control, but in the context of changes that were already occurring in the United States Agency

for International Development (USAID) the policy appears far less radical.6 In fact, the

Mexico City policy probably would not have resulted in funding cuts to population control

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) without the active involvement of pro-life

1 Stephen Engleberg, “Conservatives Hope to Link Abortion With Overseas Aid,” New York Times, (1923- Current file), June 24, 1984, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 3, 2009). 2 “Second International Symposium on Sexuality Brings Experts to Montreal,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 5, Special Symposium Issue, (1986), 1. 3 This practise began as early as 1981, soon after Father Marx had established the organization. See “Father Marx: Man of the Year,” Life and Family news, (Vol. 1, No. 2, May 1981), 1, CMRX 78/9 Also see Father Paul Marx, The Death Peddlers, (Collegeville, MN: St John’s University Press, 1971). 4 “Second International Symposium on Sexuality Brings Experts to Montreal,” 1. 5 See “Father Marx: Man of the Year,” 1. Also see Marx, The Death Peddlers: War on the Unborn, (Collegeville, MN: St John’s University Press, 1971). 6 Barbara B. Crane and Jason L. Finkle, “The United States, China, and the United Nations Population Fund: Dynamics of U.S. Policymaking,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, (March 1989), 23. USAID Administrator M. Peter McPherson told a reporter in September 1984 that the “new” aspect of the Mexico City Policy was ‘the strength” of the “US commitment to…mutually reinforcing” economic, development, and family planning policies. See Bart Kull, “McPherson States Policy: AID Supports Family Planning,” FrontLines, (September 1984), 1-2, CMRX 73/06. 164 activists.7 The Mexico City policy did not propel pro-life organizations into transnational society, nor was it the catalyst for their opposition to U.S.-funded population control programs. It did, however, prompt HLI and its allies to intensify domestic anti-population control lobbying in addition to encouraging pro-life activism in developing nations.8

Population control programs that had weathered left- and right-wing attacks for over twenty years were besieged by a range of critics during Ronald Reagan’s two terms as president—women’s rights advocates attempting to inject a gender perspective into the dominant human rights discourse, and pro-life activists claiming to speak for disenfranchised populations of developing nations and unborn children threatened by abortion were just two of the interest groups that issued serious challenges to international family planning programs.9 A number of factors precipitated this opposition to population control.10 For one thing, such attacks became more ‘mainstream’ because they were tolerated under Reagan’s symbolically pro-life leadership.11 Secondly, feminists and pro-life activists alike also condemned U.S.-funded population programs in China and Bangladesh for subsidizing

7 Barbara B. Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” Population and Development Review Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994), 241-262; Jason L. Finkle and Alison C. McIntosh, “The New Politics of Population,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994): 3-34. 8 ALL About Issues published articles linking population control to domestic pro-life issues and advocating boycotts of products linked to population control NGOs as early as 1981, but their interest in population control expenditures certainly increased when the Reagan administration announced the Mexico City Policy. See Joe Garvey, “Bringing It All Back Home,” ALL About Issues, (September 1981), 7. 9 See Karen Brown Thompson, “Women’s Rights are Human Rights,” in Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, (editors), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002) 96-122. 10 See for example Colin Clark, “Do Population and Freedom Grow Together?” Fortune, LXII (1960): 136-139, 203-208, and “The Population Blessing: Interview with Colin Clark,” The Sign, (1960), in CMRX 58/07. Also see Barry Commoner, “How Poverty Breeds Overpopulation (and not the other way around),” Ramparts, (August-September 1975), 21-25; 58-59, Herman Kahn, William Brown and Leon Martel, The Next 200 Years: A scenario for America and the World, (London: Associated Business Programs, 1977), Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, Vol. 162, (1968):1243-1248, Robert L. Sassone, Population Handbook, (California, 1978), and Robert L. Sassone, “Population Explosion: More Baloney or Bang?” ALL About Issues, (June 1981), 6, CMRX 77/45. 11 See the Eberstadt and Kasun studies, discussed in the previous chapter.

165 coercion and pro-abortion policies.12 Such criticisms paved the way for sustained—and successful—attacks on U.S. funding appropriations for world population control initiatives.

Monitoring, Exposing, Enforcing: Pro-life groups and the Mexico City policy 1980-1984 Anti-abortion activists generally regarded the Mexico City policy as a “major pro-life

victory,” but they also knew that the U.S. government would have to be pressured to enforce

it. Some had already begun to undergird their arguments with “a large body of academic and

theoretical support.”13 Many of the same groups, including HLI, had also started to monitor

U.S.-funded population control programs in the hope of exposing breaches of the Mexico

City policy so as to ultimately pressure the government into enforcing its new, tougher

restrictions on foreign aid appropriations. Furthermore, HLI and the American Life Lobby

(ALL) used their relationships with sympathetic academics like Jacqueline Kasun, Steven

Mosher, and, to a lesser extent, Julian Simon, to legitimize their critiques of U.S. population

policy.14 HLI’s growing international profile had helped Father Marx and John Cavanaugh-

O’Keefe gain access to USAID, which distributed the majority of U.S. funding for

international population control programs; this access proved invaluable in their subsequent

efforts to “de-fund” international family planning projects.15

Widespread disenchantment with USAID’s policies coincided with a period of

professionalization and growth for many pro-life groups. Publications of leading pro-life

organizations featured increasingly strident critiques of U.S.-funded international family

planning programs, which suggest that population control was becoming a key concern for

12 See Betsy Hartmann, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control, (New York: Harper and Row, 1995). Hartmann’s research which began in the 1970s culminated in this seminal feminist critique of the impact of population control ideology and programs on Third World Women. 13 Pete Kelly, “Prefocus: Think Tanks are Essential,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 9, (September 1984), 4. 14 See for example the international speakers at the 1986 HLI International Symposium on Sexuality. HLI, “Flyer: International Symposium on Sexuality,” (c. April 1986), 1, JCOK, Box 7, File 4. 15 The political tenor of literature produced by advocacy organizations or networks is a significant hallmark of professionalization and expansion according to Darren Hawkins, “Human Rights Norms and Networks in Authoritarian Chile,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 61.full ref?

166 their supporters. HLI Reports consistently published more stories on population control programs than domestic politics.16 ALL About Issues, meanwhile, dealt almost exclusively with abortion-related issues in the United States until 1982, when it began to advertise anti- population control publications, such as Abortion and American Policy by Americans United for Life’s Patrick Trueman and Australian Dr. John Billing’s The Promotion of Birth Control by USAID.17 Such publications aimed to raise public awareness of and opposition to U.S.- funded population control programs and simultaneously incorporated opposition to international family planning expenditures into the pro-life agenda well before 1984.

Through its newsletter, ALL took the lead in educating the broader pro-life community on federal population control politics. ALL About Issues’ editor Robert Marshall had acquired extensive knowledge of federal grant making processes while employed as senior legislative assistant to Republican representative for California and House Committee on Foreign Affairs member Robert Dornan.18 Marshall’s insider knowledge helped him explain the mechanics of U.S. population control funding to other pro-life activists. One article, for example, provided an extensive overview of the loopholes exploited by population control researchers and providers to circumvent congressional restrictions on the Foreign

16 See for example Loveline, Vol. 1, No. 1, (February 1983), which discussed the prevalence of government “motivators” promoting contraceptive use in the Philippines, and documented Father Marx’s travels observing the expansion of the “contraceptive mentality” throughout Europe. 17 “Our Gross National Product,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 4, No. 9, (October 1982), 36, and “Our Tax Dollars do What?” ALL About Issues, Vol. 4, No. 9, (October 1982), 36. Dr Billings taught his ovulation method of Natural Family Planning (NFP) in many of the same developing nations that Father Marx visited, and shared his colleague’s concerns about the effects of USAID-funded programs. Furthermore, Billings believed that because the Agency supported population control NGOs that made the procedure “medically and culturally feasible” as well as “research aimed at cheaper abortions,” it was complicit in abortion. Billings’ interest in USAID’s approach to population control reveals that American pro-lifers were not alone in conceiving of population control as a global problem requiring a transnational response. Billings regularly spoke at international symposia, including one in Washington D.C. in 1981 where he discussed USAID’s role in promoting abortion abroad. See Dr John Billings, “The Promotion of Birth Control by the United States Agency for International Development,” Heartbeat, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Alternatives to Abortion International: Winter 1982), 8-10, CMRX 73/08. 18 See Robert G. Marshall, “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick,” A.L.L. About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 9, (September 1984), 7, 9.

167

Assistance Act of 1961.19 The restrictions in question included Senator Jesse Helms’ amendment to the act, which forced recipients of foreign assistance grants to segregate U.S. funds from those used to provide or promote abortions.20 In practice, the Helms prohibition

actually fostered the problems that Nick Eberstadt’s 1982 study had identified, leaving

population control NGOs vulnerable to charges of creative accounting. By “proposing, questioning, and publicizing” issues, Marshall was, in international relations terms, exercising “communicative power.”21

Pro-life groups therefore began to question whether USAID, as the largest single donor to several population control NGOs, was violating Section 104 of the Foreign

Assistance Act by indirectly facilitating abortions.22 Reflecting upon his experience as

USAID’s assistant administrator in a 1987 speech to New York University law students,

Richard Derham admitted that the agency had been well aware of the inconsistencies between its policies and praxis at the time.23 Because USAID regularly “contributed more than 90%”

of the budgets of abortion-providing NGOs in the developing world, the United States had

been “closely identified with abortion advocacy” in developing nations.24 Population control

critics including Marshall, Dr. Robert L. Sassone, Father Marx, Randy Engel and Jacqueline

Kasun repeatedly dared the Reagan administration to admit that USAID was flouting

congressional funding restrictions and to curb the agency’s spending.25 The president and his

advisors were leery of alienating the deeply entrenched international family planning lobby in

19 Robert G. Marshall, “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control,” Vol. 5, No. 10, (October 1983), 8. 20 Marshall, “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control,” 8. 21John S. Dryzek, “Transnational Democracy,” The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 1, (1999), 30- 51, especially pp. 45. 22 Marshall, “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control,” 8. 23 See Richard Derham, “Speech at NYU Law School,” (April 23, 1987), 14, JCOK, Box 1, Folder 4. 24 Derham, “Speech at NYU Law School,” 14. 25 Pete Kelly, “Act Now!” ALL About Issues, Vol. 5, No. 10, (October 1983), 45, and Marshall, “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control,” 8. Also see ALL About Issues, Vol. 4, No. 6, (June 1982), 2, for a list of regular population control correspondents.

168

Washington D.C., however.26 Therefore, pro-life leaders realized that they needed more

political leverage to elicit any changes in U.S. population policy.27

Dating back to 1983, a growing number of HLI Reports articles had begun to accuse

U.S.-funded population control programs of coercion; this clearly showed that HLI was determined to undermine USAID even before the Mexico City Policy. However, most of the stories international HLI affiliates submitted to HLI Reports did not contain enough evidence to trouble USAID. Over time, though, HLI sought out and mobilized information to more

overtly political ends.28 For example, one article by Kwang-ho Meng, associate professor of

epidemiology and biostatistics at the Catholic Medical College in Seoul, claimed that Korean

population control programs had coercive overtones.29

Meng reported that advertisements warning that the nation’s population problem was

second only to Bangladesh and Taiwan had recently aired on South Korean television. On the

basis of the advertisements, he believed that the government was preparing “to

launch…disincentive programs” that would penalize “couples who [had] three or more

children.”30 Because Koreans shared a traditional preference for male children with their

Chinese neighbours, Meng feared that “many couples” would “seek amniocentesis for sex

selection” if new limits on family size were introduced.31 A rise in “induced abortions” was

sure to ensue.32 Furthermore, the U.S. was implicated in Korea’s population control efforts:

in 1984, a National Security memo described the Korean program as one of Asia’s “success

26 Kelly, “Act Now!” 45, Marshall, “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control,” 8. 27 Kelly, “Act Now!” 45, Marshall, “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control,” 8. 28 This was particularly evident during the Irish pro-life amendment campaign. HLI devoted several editions to the upcoming referendum, entreating readers to donate generously to help HLI support its’ Irish colleagues. See for example Father Paul Marx, “The Death Industry is Gaining Ground and Fight Heats Up as the Referendum Nears,” Loveline Vol. 1, No. 2, (April 1983), 1-2, 6. 29 Kwang-ho Meng, “Korea: Sex Selection by Abortion,” HLI Reports, Vol. 1, No. 4, (September 1983), 10. 30 Meng, “Korea,” 10. 31 Meng, “Korea,” 10. In time, South Korea also began to report skewed sex ratios and “missing girls,” too. This was largely, as Meng had anticipated, attributable to the same son preference as China. See Elisabeth Croll, Endangered Daughters: Discrimination and Development in Asia, (London: Routledge, 2000), 40-45. 32 Meng, “Korea,” 10.

169 stories,” where population control initiatives and strong potential for economic growth had boosted citizens’ quality of life and international standing.33

Since Meng could not provide conclusive proof that U.S. taxpayer dollars were being

used in ways that violated congressional restrictions, however, his account gave HLI no

political leverage over USAID. Nevertheless, Meng’s information made HLI aware of the

situation in Korea and prompted the organization to monitor Korean programs for signs of

coercion.34 HLI also helped Meng’s Korean Happy Family Movement teach couples Natural

Family Planning (NFP) in the hope that they would embrace “a full sense of responsibility in

decisions about having children” instead of resorting to artificial contraceptives or abortion.35

Moreover, Meng’s report revealed HLI’s increasing determination to find and

publicize evidence of abuses in U.S.-funded international family planning programs. By

1984, each edition of HLI Reports featured a country study documenting the evolution of

population control and/or the legal status of abortion there.36 In 1984, meanwhile, Maryland

accountant William M. O’Reilly set out to prove that U.S. taxpayers were unwittingly

subsidizing abortion and coercive international family planning programs. His investigation

uncovered a complicated “shell game”; population control providers ostensibly segregated

U.S. grants from funds used to perform abortions, but in practice, the distinctions were

largely superficial.37 O’Reilly’s article further reinforced HLI’s new direction, but also

33 Richard Levine, “NSC Memo for Robert C. McFarlane: Talking Points for Baker Meeting Population Issue Paper,” (July 11, 1984), 2, Reagan Presidential Library, Executive Secretariat, NSC: Records: Subject Files, Box 82, “Population (1).” 34 Transnational women’s rights NGOs adopted a remarkably similar approach. See Brown Thompson, “Women’s Rights are Human Rights,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 100. 35 Meng, “Korea,” 10. 36HLI Reports also printed a growing number of letters from activists in developing countries, most of which thanked HLI for its support. See for example “Letters to the Editor,” HLI Reports Vol. 1, No. 3 (May 1983), 7, which featured correspondence from Kenya, Taiwan, and the Philippines. 37 William M. O’Reilly, “The Shell Game,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 4, (April 1984), 18. Here O’Reilly was referring to the famous “gambling” swindle in which street punters wagered money on the location of a “pea” under one of three shells, but were ultimately tricked out of their money by cagey “shell men.”

170 highlighted the importance of reliable information that could potentially force U.S. politicians to act.

HLI had anticipated such obstacles, and John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe had composed a

questionnaire designed to pinpoint regions where HLI might find proof that USAID was

involved in illicit activities in preparation for the UN’s Mexico City conference. HLI

directors viewed the UN meeting as an information-gathering “opportunity” that they “should

not miss,” which suggests that they were gearing up for a major anti-population control

offensive.38 Preparatory drafts of the questionnaire reveal that HLI was targeting a very

specific segment of experts and representatives from developing nations who were already

“dissatisfied with US policies concerning aid to developing countries.”39 By gauging official

delegates’ attitudes toward existing family planning initiatives, HLI hoped to identify those

developing nations most hostile to population control, and more especially, U.S.-funded

programs.40 HLI published the survey in the conference’s four official languages—English,

French, Spanish and Portuguese—to reach a diverse array of delegates.41 HLI leaders thought

that even a small number of “frank replies” from representatives of poorer countries could

help the organization focus its efforts on countries where they were most likely to “discover

USAID abuses.”42

Conference participants who received the questionnaire were misled by the innocuous

description of the “HLI Research Group” as a Washington D.C.-based “Non-Governmental

Data-Collection and Information Processing Organization,” but the final questions revealed

HLI’s pro-life agenda.43 One asked if developing nations relied on U.S. governmental or

NGO aid to “solve” population problems, “assure…economic development,” or “provide”

38 Human Life International (HLI), “USAID Questionnaire Project: Draft,” (c. 1983-1984), 2, CMRX 77/24. 39 HLI, “USAID Questionnaire Project,” 2. 40 HLI, “USAID Questionnaire Project,” 2. 41 HLI, “USAID Questionnaire Project,” 2. 42 HLI, “USAID Questionnaire Project,” 2. 43 HLI Research Group, “Questionnaire,” 1.

171 citizens “with adequate health care.”44 Another inquired whether the “delegate’s nation was familiar with Natural Family Planning,” and if so, did “foreign aid subsidise NFP programs?”45 The final question, meanwhile, sought information on the legal status of abortion in a participant’s countries and attempted to unearth evidence of coercive sterilization programs: Had any “US governmental body or NGO, required your country to:

A. Make population control an element of national policy? B. accept abortion as a means of fertility control? C. promote voluntary sterilization as a means of limiting family size?” as “a

condition of aid.”46 Here, HLI was alluding to ALL About Issues editor Bob Marshall’s earlier

allegations that USAID exerted pressure on developing nations to institute population control

targets as a precursor to receiving U.S. development assistance.47

Evidently, Father Marx and John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe had realized that USAID’s

population control expenditures were becoming more vulnerable to attack, so it is no surprise

that they intensified their efforts to solicit evidence of abuses from HLI’s contacts in

developing nations throughout 1984.48Marx’s established relationships with Filipino activists

made the Philippines a natural first choice, especially since HLI’s contacts there had long

claimed that the United States was funding unwanted, aggressively marketed population

control programs through local family planning provider POPCOM.49 Yet without definitive

proof that USAID-affiliated programs used coercion or provided abortions, the anecdotal

evidence was again of no use to HLI. In September of 1984, Father Marx asked director of

HLI-Manila, Sister Pilar Versoza, to forward any proof she could gather. Although Versoza

44 HLI Research Group, “Questionnaire,” 1. 45HLI Research Group, “Questionnaire,” 1. 46 HLI Research Group, “Questionnaire,” 1. 47 Marshall, “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick,” 6-9. 48 HLI’s experiences mirror those of Human Rights NGOs attempting to “monitor and expose” violations to mobilize public opinion and prompt governmental and intergovernmental action. Hawkins, “Human Rights Norms and Networks in Authoritarian Chile,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikknink (eds), Restructuring World Politics. 49 See Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary: Trip to the Orient,” (May 6 1981), 60, CMRX 79/01, and Father Paul Marx, “The Latest from the Philippines,” HLI Reports, Vol. 1, No. 3, (May 1983), 1-2. Filipino activists made similar claims during his 1981 visit too.

172 could not provide enough evidence for HLI to mount a serious challenge to USAID, Marx’s request again shows HLI’s determination to expose USAID’s accounting charades.50

The first signs that the Reagan administration was toughening its stance on population

control funding actually appeared shortly before the UN’s Mexico City conference on

population; in July of 1984, reports began to circulate in the U.S. media which suggested that

the IPPF stood to lose USAID funding because it had donated $400,000 to countries “for

work in legal abortion clinics.”51 At the time, the IPPF operated in over one hundred

countries, making it the “second largest voluntary organization in the world after the Red

Cross.”52 Officially, the federation encouraged its affiliates to abide by local abortion

legislation.53 Jill W. Sheffield, chair of the federation’s Western Hemisphere group, told a

reporter a month before the UN’s Mexico City meeting: “We don’t dictate policy to our

membership.”54 Father Marx disagreed. He often accused branches of IPPF of actively

agitating for the legalization of abortion in countries where it was illegal and offering

terminations even in regions where local laws explicitly prohibited the procedure.55 In the

changing political climate on Capitol Hill, these accusations had the potential of seriously

damaging the IPPF’s future chances of securing USAID funding.

Despite Sheffield’s claims to the contrary, a 1984 IPPF position paper titled “The

Human Right to Family Planning” seemed to support Father Marx’s allegations. It stated that

“[f]amily planning providers” should act “outside,” or even “in violation” of “unfavourable”

50 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Sr. Pilar Versoza,” (September 18, 1984), 1-2, CMRX 5/15. 51Phillip J. Hilts, “U.S. to Stop Funding Groups that ‘Actively Promote’ Abortion,” The Washington Post, (14 July, 1984), Factiva.com, (accessed 5/3/2009). 52 Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 244. 53 Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 244. 54 Bill Keller, “U.S. Policy on Abortion: A Likely Target Names,” The New York Times, (14 July, 1984), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009.double check 55 See Father Paul Marx, “PP Federation of Canada to Sue Father Paul Marx for Libel,” ALL News, Vol. 1, No. 16, (April 19, 1985), 6.

173 laws to stimulate change in abortion policy.56 While Father Marx acknowledged that USAID officials might have “made some efforts to get the U.S. out of the abortion industry,” the

IPPF continued to ignore funding restrictions. Furthermore, Marx criticized the agency for seeming “content with changes in bookkeeping so that other countries [paid] for actual abortions in the Third World,” while the United States funded “the rest of the abortionists’ work.”57 In Honduras, for example, he claimed that the Asociacion Hondurena de

Planificacion de Familia (ASHONPLAFA), which reportedly relied almost exclusively on donations from international funding bodies such as the IPPF and the Pathfinder Fund; this same organization was campaigning heavily for legalized abortion.58

Marx told supporters that the only way to ensure that the United States was not directly or inadvertently financing abortion overseas was to “stop the flow of American dollars” to providers that offered terminations or agitated for legal abortion.59 As he stated

baldly, “A relaxed AID policy will kill…children.”60 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe attempted to

persuade assistant USAID administrator Richard Derham to take action by giving him the

findings of Father Marx’s June 1984 research trip to Honduras. Derham promised to “look

into the history of the Honduras project,” but could not give Cavanaugh-O’Keefe any

guarantees that the agency would amend its existing Honduran policy.61 Faced with USAID’s

equivocal response, HLI sent films, literature and funding to Honduran activists to help them

56 IPPF, “The Human Right to Family Planning,” (1984), quoted in ACT Right to Life Association, “American Aid for Abortions Stopped – International Planned Parenthood Federation,” Right to Life, Vol. 13, No. 1, (South Australia: February 1985), 3. Although fostering “access to safe, legal abortion” did not become an official IPPF policy until 1992, the federation was already working to alter international norms and national laws in the 1980s. See Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 244. 57 Father Paul Marx, “Relaxed AID Policy Can Kill Honduran Children,” HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 6, (July 1984), 1. 58Marx, “Relaxed AID Policy Can Kill Honduran Children,” 1. Marx quotes Donald Warwick’s assertion that the Pathfinder Fund had previously established clinics and distributed equipment in countries where “abortion was illegal but tolerated.” Though Pathfinder was, by this time, “no longer in the abortion business,” but Father Marx suspected they had been instrumental in the original push for Honduras to relax its legal prohibitions. 59 Marx, “Relaxed AID Policy Can Kill Honduran Children,” 1. 60 Marx, “Relaxed AID Policy Can Kill Honduran Children,” 1. 61 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Richard Derham re: Honduras,” (June 22, 1984), 1, and Richard Derham, “Letter to John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe,” (June 14, 1984), 1, both CMRX 73/13.

174 foment a pro-life “public outcry” against legalized abortion.62 When Honduras introduced a

new penal code that declared abortion unconstitutional in 1985, HLI attributed the

development to the hard work of its local affiliate.63

The IPPF’s stance on abortion clearly conflicted with the Mexico City policy, but the

U.S. government’s commitment to enforcing the directive was less certain at first. Once the

new policy came into effect near the end of 1984, USAID administrator M. Peter McPherson

urged the IPPF to “reconsider its position,” but the federation maintained that it was

scrupulous in segregating funds used for abortion from U.S. donations and refused to

budge.64 The IPPF’s secretary general, Bradman K. Weerakoon, was eventually forced to

admit that the federation would not be able to comply with the new U.S. “policy in order

to…receive funds” for the 1985 fiscal year.65 USAID immediately reappropriated $17 million

intended for the IPPF to other population projects that complied with the restrictions.66 The

federation therefore became the first transnational family planning NGO to be denied U.S.

funding because of its refusal to comply with the Mexico City policy. Pro-life leaders

celebrated while shocked population control providers struggled to come to terms with the

serious financial setback.

The Mexico City policy also reinvigorated the ongoing campaign against the United

Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) because of the fund’s involvement in

China’s coercive one child policy. Although the UNFPA’s case was less straightforward than

the IPPF’s, it proved equally instructive for pro-life leaders. Between 1965 and 1984 USAID

had donated $1.3 billion to the UNFPA, and retained close ties to the fund even though U.S.

62 “Honduras Saved by Forceful Action,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 3, (March 1985), 4. 63 “Honduras Saved by Forceful Action,” 4. 64 “‘This is Our Victory!’ says A.L.L. Prez as USAID cuts of IPPF Funding,” ALL News, Vol. 1, No. 5, (December 1984), 2. 65 ACT Right to Life Association, “American Aid for Abortions Stopped,” Right to Life, Vol. 13, No. 1, (South Australia: February 1985), 3. Also see Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 245. 66 ACT Right to Life Association, “American Aid for Abortions Stopped,” 3. Also see Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 245.

175 dollars accounted for a smaller share of its budget under Reagan.67 At the same time, China

became UNPFA’s second largest beneficiary. China’s population control program was part of

a broader push to stabilize population growth in Asia, home to 56.5 percent of the world’s

population and to 90 percent of the world’s most impoverished people.68 After 1980, Chinese

population control programs received $10 million from the fund each year.69 Although

UNFPA operated in 140 countries, its alleged complicity in coercion and abortion in China

alone seriously jeopardized its chances of retaining U.S. financial support.70 The fund

maintained an unconcerned façade at first, even honouring the director of the Chinese one

child policy program with its 1983 population award, but came under increasing pressure to

cut its ties with China after the announcement of the Mexico City policy.71

In the end, renewed calls for action from pro-life leaders forced the Reagan

administration to act.72 USAID responded to pressure from the White House and pro-life

leaders by launching an investigation into the UN Fund’s involvement with China’s one child

policy.73 Despite the pro-life outcry, UNFPA convinced USAID administrator M. Peter

McPherson that it had nothing to do with the coercive aspects of China’s program, prompting

him to release $36 million to the fund. McPherson’s decision was quickly condemned by

67 The United Nations, “1979-1983 Report,” and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, “1980 Report,” (New York), both quoted in Peter R. Huessy, “The United Nations’ Flawed Population Policy,” Backgrounder, (The Heritage Foundation, August 27, 1984), 3-4, Reagan Presidential Library, Edwin Meese III Files, Box 28, OA 118844, “Population Control.” Also see Crane and Finkle, “The United States, China, and the United Nations Population Fund,” 23, 27. 68 Christopher Wren, “Asia Urged to End Population Surge,” The New York Times, (November 2, 1981), A13, Proquest, Accessed: 2/9/2009. 69 Christian Action Council (CAC), “Abortion Fight Rages Over Agency for International Development,” Action Line, Vol. IX, No. 3, (April 1985), 1, JCOK, Box 8, File 3. 70 CAC, “Abortion Fight Rages Over Agency for International Development,” 1. 71 Jacqueline R. Kasun, “Testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, March 22 1984,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1984), 24-15. Also see Judie Brown, “Tax Dollars Continue to Support Death,” ALL News, Vol. 1, No. 20, (May 17, 1985), 4. 72 See CAC, “Abortion Fight Rages Over Agency for International Development,” 2, and Brown, “Tax Dollars Continue to Support Death,” 4. 73 CAC, “Abortion Fight Rages Over Agency for International Development,” 1-2.

176

ALL President Judie Brown and a number of pro-life politicians.74 McPherson also faced

dissent within his own ranks; Richard Derham argued that UNFPA should not receive any

more U.S. grants because he believed that the fund could not “be disentangled from the

pervasive coercion of the (Chinese) system.”75 UNFPA Director Rafael Salas categorically

denied allegations that the fund was involved in the management of coercive or involuntary

programs in China: “this conclusion is itself…in error.”76 Nevertheless, to maintain the U.S.

commitment to opposing coercion, McPherson eventually agreed to withhold $10 million

from UNFPA—the same amount the fund had donated to the Chinese program during each of

the previous four years.77

Pro-life leaders welcomed the move. Father Marx wrote approvingly thar legislation

limiting “the use of American funds for abortion overseas” had “under the current

administration” finally begun to “have some effect.”78 When questioned about the decision in

1985, Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead explained the U.S. position to UN

Secretary General Javier Perez de Cueller: “We understand that UNFPA does not include

coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization in its own programs, however we have

concluded that UNFPA ‘participates in the management’ of the government of China,” which

endorsed “such abuses.”79 Backed by a coalition of pro-choice politicians in the United

States, Salas protested the decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals ultimately upheld

74 M. Peter McPherson, “Letter to Judie Brown re: UNFPA funding,” (September 1984), 1, and Judie Brown, “Letter to Father Marx, Jacqueline Kasun, Julian L. Simon and Randy Engel re: USAID,” (October 25, 1984), 1, both in CMRX 73/07. Also see “USAID Director Under Fire, Conservatives Demand Resignation,” ALL News, Vol. 1, No. 16, (April 19, 1985), 1. Senator Jesse Helms and Representative Jack Kemp shared Brown’s perspective. 75 Richard Derham, quoted in CAC, “Abortion Fight Rages Over Agency for International Development,” 2. 76 Department of Public Information, Press Section, United Nations, New York, “Population Fund Director ‘Distressed’ at Withdrawal of United States Pledge: Refutes Charges on Fund’s China Programme,” (26 September 1985), 1, UNARM, United Nations Fund for Population Activities, 6 Feb-5Dec, 1985, S-1051-0019- 04. 77 Linda Hossie, “A right hook U.S. anti-abortion policy jolts family planners,” The Globe and Mail, (27 June, 1987), D3, Factiva.com, Accessed 2/4/2009. UNFPA lost the remaining $35million the following year. 78 Marx, “World Bank Funds Abortion in China,” 1. 79 John C. Whitehead, Deputy Secretary of State, “Letter to UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar,” (November 5, 1985), 1, UNARM, United Nations Fund for Population Activities, 6 Feb-5Dec, 1985, S-1051- 0019-04.

177

USAID’s right to cut UNFPA’s funding in 1986.80 Funds earmarked for UNFPA were instead

awarded to the Family of the Americas organization, an NFP provider in Latin America with

links to HLI.81

Anti-abortion organizations were also instrumental in pressuring U.S. politicians to

monitor population control NGOs and enforce the Mexico City policy. Activists maintained a

strong presence in Congress and the media during and after the UNFPA controversy to ensure

that USAID maintained its embargo.82 In 1985, ALL News urged readers to “write or call the

President” to “demand that the requirements of current law be met: all funds should be

withheld from the UNFPA.”83 When Rafael Salas entreated the United States to resume

funding for UNFPA in 1986, the pro-life message remained the same.84 Even though Salas

claimed that the fund was operating in accordance with the Mexico City policy and described

the continued embargo as “manifestly unfair to the countries which receive[d] UNFPA aid,”

Steven Mosher told a 1987 Senate Foreign Relations hearing that it was “not consonant with

America’s commitment to human rights to support, directly or indirectly, a Chinese program

that” violated “the right of women to control their own bodies” and “couples to decide for

themselves the number and spacing of their children.”85 Mosher testified that if USAID

resumed funding for UNFPA, “it would send the message to the world that America cares

80 Carl A. Anderson and Mari Maseng, “Memo for Patrick J. Buchanan, Court of Appeals Decision on AID funding of UNFPA: Warning,” (August 21, 1986), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Mariam Bell Files, OA 17963-17964, “Abortion (2).” 81 See Ellen Goodman, “Ideology Exporting,” The Washington Post, (31 August 1985), A21, and Dolores Reuss, “Institutionalization of Natural Family Planning,” HLI Reports Vol. 5, No. 10, (October 1987), 9. 82 Judie Brown actually requested the President push USAID further to withhold “all funds” from UNFPA, not merely a portion of their allotment. See Judie Brown, Letter to President Reagan re: population control funding,” (April 12, 1985), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM, FO 004-02, 302561. 83 “USAID cuts off $10 million to UN but illegally pays out $36 million,” ALL News, Vol. 1, No. 15, (April 5, 1985), 1. 84 Rafael M. Salas, “Interoffice Memo to Mr. Virenda Dayal, Chef de Cabinet, re: United States Contribution to UNFPA,” (15 September 1986), 1, UNARM, UNFPA, 4 Apr-9Dec, 1986. 85 Salas, “Interoffice Memo to Mr. Virenda Dayal,” 1. Also see Steven Mosher, “Chinese Officials Invade Family Life, Excerpt from Senate Testimony on Chinese population programs,” in HLI Reports Vol. 5, No. 10, (October 1987), 3.

178 little about violations of human rights in population control programs.”86 Ultimately,

Congress accepted Mosher’s position and maintained its funding embargo on UNFPA.

USAID’s tougher stance on funding for international family planning NGOs elicited a

range of responses from pro-life leaders. “This is our victory!” Judie Brown told ALL’s

170,000 members, jubilantly describing the decision as “a shot heard ‘round the world.”87

HLI, meanwhile, was slightly more circumspect, terming the moves “a real but limited blow

to the population network.”88 HLI later argued that the United States needed to “remain the

leader in population control norms” set by the Mexico City policy, but warned that if

“prolifers in countries other than the United States” did not “mobilize effectively,” USAID’s

stand would become irrelevant.89 Their caution proved prescient; just one year after USAID

withdrew funds from the IPPF, the federation had made up the funding shortfall.90

The ease with which population control NGOs recouped their losses alarmed HLI’s

leaders, who subsequently resolved to expand their lobbying efforts and educational

initiatives in the developing world.91 HLI also realized that it needed to deliver on the

accusations it had been publishing for the past three years if it wanted to pose a real, ongoing

threat to population control NGOs by compelling the U.S. government to enforce the Mexico

City policy. HLI was eventually able to combine its reputation and information gathered from

international affiliates to “exercise a disproportionate influence on official US decision

making,” despite the organization’s small grass roots base.92 After several false starts,

including the South Korean case, Bangladesh provided the HLI with the example it had been

seeking.

86 Mosher, “Chinese Officials Invade Family Life,” 3. 87 James F. Kappus, “USAID Victory is the Best Anniversary Gift to A.L.L.,” ALL About News, Vol. 1, No. 5, (December 14, 1984), 4. 88 “Dismantling the Population Control Network,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 12, (November 1986), 1. 89 “Dismantling the Population Control Network,” 1. 90 “IPPF Fund Cuts by U.S. Replaced by Others,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 12 (November 1986), 4. 91 “Dismantling the Population Control Network,” 1. 92 Crane, “The Transnational Politics of Abortion,” 248.

179

Enforcing the Mexico City policy in Bangladesh

Two years after the UN’s Mexico City conference, Bangladesh became the subject of

conflicting reports. The poor nation of 97 million people had suffered natural disasters and

famine, and according to estimates released in 1986, was poised to double its population by

the year 2000.93 President Hussain Muhammad Ershad reportedly described the country’s

approach to population control as “like being in a war…[I]f we lose the population battle, we

may not survive.”94 Faced with environmental degradation, overcrowding, famine and ethnic

conflict, Bangladesh mounted a vigorous campaign to promote contraception. Sterilization,

financed to a considerable degree by USAID grants, was also a key component of the

Bangladeshi population control project.95 The spectre of coercion loomed large in these

programs, and allegations of abuse had begun to appear as early as 1983.96

In 1985, HLI reported on a study showing that family planning programs in

Bangladesh had not educated women on the correct use of the pill, and were covertly

performing abortions but disguising them as “menstrual regulations” in their records.97

William M. O’Reilly, who had previously written about the illicit transfer of funds between

population control programs, travelled to Bangladesh to investigate charges of coercion and

misuse of U.S. taxpayer dollars. He spent three months in the country interviewing

government officials, population control providers and visiting U.S.-funded clinics.98 His

results were first published in the June 1985 edition of HLI Reports under the title “Incentives

93 Olivia Ward, “Population control: life or death,” The Toronto Star, (21 December 1986), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009. 94 Ward, “Population control: life or death.” 95 Ward claims that Nepal and Bangladesh received over 60% of their family planning funding from overseas organizations, foremost among them USAID. Ward, “Population control: life or death.” 96 See Warwick, Bitter Pills. 97 “Pill Abused in Bangladesh,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 4, (April 1985), 4. 98 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Violations of American Law Documented,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 1, (January 1986), 1.

180 for Sterilization in Bangladesh.”99 O’Reilly reported that the United States contributed around half of the $71 million that Bangladeshi family planning programs spent each year in their efforts to stabilize the population by reducing the average family size from six to two children.100

A variety of strategies were in place at the 1600 U.S.-funded family planning clinics across the country, the most controversial of which provided financial incentives to

Bangladeshis who agreed to be sterilized.101 O’Reilly identified three schools of thought on population control in Bangladesh. Soft-liners asserted that any program should be based on

“voluntarism and free choice.”102 Hard-liners advocated coercion if it was necessary to

“achieve desired results,” and a hybrid group reframed financial incentives paid to those who were sterilized as “compensation” for travelling costs and time off work. 103 W.B.M. Golam

Mustafa, secretary for Bangladesh’s Ministry of Health, seemed to embody this third approach when he told O’Reilly that he was personally opposed to inducements, and that the

programs were premised on “a free choice of family methods.”104 Upon further investigation,

however, O’Reilly discovered that sterilization “acceptors” received saris and substantial

cash payments amounting to about a month’s wage for the average Bangladeshi woman.105

The impact of the payments was apparent when incentives payments increased: sterilizations

rose by 61 percent, resulting in a sterilization rate of 43 percent among Bangladeshi couples

practicing birth control.106 Although he was expelled from the country and his investigation

terminated after a USAID official “denounced” O’Reilly to Bangladesh’s “military

99 William M. O’Reilly, “Incentives for Sterilization in Bangladesh,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 6, (June 1985), 6- 7. 100 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. 101 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. 102 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. 103 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. 104 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. 105 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. According to International Right to Life Federation Secretary Bill Sherwin, the paymounts amounted to the equivalent of seven U.S. dollars. See William Sherwin, “Population Control Worldwide,” Right to Life Assocation N.S.W., (c. 1991), 6, CMRX 72/130. 106 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6.

181 government” because he was a “pro-lifer,” his study yielded ample evidence to mount a serious challenge to the agency.107

The terminology used to describe the sterilization payments in Bangladesh proved significant because section 104 (f) of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibited USAID from funding any organization that provided “financial incentives to any person to undergo…sterilization.”108 The measure had been introduced in 1978 to guard against the potential for genocidal acts in population control programs.109 HLI published The Deadly

Neo-Colonialism in 1985, in which O’Reilly emphasized the “vast disparity between the population control policy articulated in Washington and the way that programs were actually experienced overseas.”110 He further stated: “There is little relationship between the pro-life rhetoric of the White House, such as the Mexico City Statement on Population Policy of July

1984, and what I observe in the attitudes and activities of the foreign aid bureaucracy administering the U.S. policy overseas.”111 The Deadly Neo-Colonialism also reiterated

O’Reilly’s previous claims that “segregated funds” masked a complicated “shell game,” in which funds were transferred between organizations to finance abortion and circumvent

Section 104 restrictions.

O’Reilly’s experiences led him to conclude that the Reagan administration needed to

“adopt a coherent, consistent, and clear application of present policy.”112 In a separate article,

John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe compounded O’Reilly’s critiques by claiming that the World Bank used U.S. funds to pay doctors who performed abortions; this again made USAID appear complicit in the practice.113 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe and O’Reilly’s revelations signalled the

107 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Violations of American Law Documented,” 2. 108 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. 109 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6. 110 See Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Violations of American Law Documented,” 1. 111 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Violations of American Law Documented,” 4. 112 O’Reilly, “Incentives,” 6 113 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Violations of American Law Documented,” 1.

182 beginnings of a major pro-life push against U.S.-funded population programs. ALL soon

picked up O’Reilly’s accusations from HLI Reports, and published them along with an appeal

to readers to petition Reagan to read and respond to the allegations.114 But it was Father Marx

and John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s careful manipulation of HLI’s contacts on Capitol Hill that

yielded tangible results.

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe launched the campaign by distributing The Deadly Neo-

Colonialism to legislators and USAID officials who he hoped would object to the harmful

consequences of the contradictions between U.S. rhetoric and action.115 Had HLI been

beholden to USAID financially, O’Keefe could not have criticized U.S. funding initiatives in

this manner. Instead, HLI publicized The Deadly Neo-Colonialism without fear of political or

financial reprisals.116 HLI’s lobbying efforts also benefitted from the parallel findings of

women’s rights advocates Betsy Hartmann and Hilary Standing.117 Their pamphlet, Food,

Saris and Sterilization, included a letter from UNFPA’s Dhaka representative Walter

Holzhausen to the fund’s Assistant Executive Director Nafis Sardik, which suggested that

USAID relinquish the concept of “voluntarism” in favour of the Chinese approach to

population control: “No one really doubts the need for massive direct or indirect intervention

by government.”118 Evidence of this nature was especially damaging given the precedent set

by USAID’s recent decisions to withdraw funding from IPPF and UNFPA for defying U.S.

114 William M. O’Reilly, “Bangladesh’s Big Brother,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 7, No. 9, (September 1985), 17. 115 See Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Henry Hyde re: The Deadly Neo-Colonialism, (January 9, 1986), 1, CMRX 73/14; Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Violations of American Law Documented,” 1. 116 HLI’s freedom to publish criticisms of USAID funded programs differed notably from Donald P. Warwick’s experiences several years before. In a subsequent article, Warwick observed that politics impacted noticeably on his colleague’s willingness to publish his criticisms of UNFPA programs. See Donald P. Warwick, “The Politics of Research on Fertility Control,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994), 188. 117 Interestingly, this was not the first time HLI had found itself tacitly aligned with the concerns of feminists or women’s rights advocates. In 1979, Father Marx had written to Judy Norsigian of the Women’s Health Network Board to compliment her for the organization’s condemnation of the contraceptive implant Depo Provera. See Father Marx, “Letter to Judy Norsigian,” (March 1979), 1, CMRX 77/9. 118 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 6, (May 1986), 1.

183 directives regarding voluntarism and individual freedom.119 By publicly committing itself to these principles, the U.S. government in general and USAID in particular had rendered themselves vulnerable to pro-life groups’ demands that they “close the distance” between

their “discourse and practice.”120

The Deadly Neo-Colonialism and Food, Saris and Sterilization forced USAID to

issue a public reply to the accusations. The agency at first denied any involvement in coercive

practices, simply claiming that the payments were “not incentives.”121 USAID also carried out a “consumer satisfaction survey” that concluded payments were not offensive to

Bangladeshis.122 Finally, USAID prepared a fourteen page memo for Congress which claimed that the agency was “not aware” of any Bangladeshi “constituency” that supported

“harsh measures.”123 But an incident detailed in O’Reilly’s report belied this assertion—in

June of 1983over 500 people had been rounded up in Mymensingh to be sterilized by the

Bangladeshi army.124 At the time, USAID had intervened to stop the “physical coercion.”125

For O’Reilly, the agency’s subsequent denial of knowledge about any form of coercion

“strain[ed] credulity beyond the breaking point.”126 To pro-lifers, USAID was clearly breaching congressional prohibitions intended to prevent U.S. funding for coercion, doing so consciously, and denying it. Cavanaugh-O’Keefe wrote that compensation for sterilization had “opened loopholes in the law large enough to make the wall” between voluntarism and

119 Integrating opposition to coercion within population control programs to rights rhetoric – including the rights of the foetus, women’s rights, and most broadly, human rights, contributed to the eventual success of pro-life assaults on population control programs. They also laid the foundations for an even “broader vision” of global family values that was evolving at the time. See Khagram, “Restructuring the Global Politics of Development,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics, 229. 120 Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, 24. 121 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” 1. 122 Cavanaugh- O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” 1. 123 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” 1. 124 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” 1. 125 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” 1. 126 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” 1.

184 coercion “look like a triumphal arch.”127 HLI’s attacks on U.S. funding for Bangladesh were not, however, limited to USAID.

HLI had begun monitoring the World Bank’s population control expenditure and

projects in developing nations more closely in the early 1980s.128 Father Marx requested clarification on projects in Bangladesh and India in 1982 and 1983, and so received several

World Bank Staff Working Papers; HLI later investigated population control programs in both countries.129 Previously, HLI Reports had accused the World Bank of disregarding congressional restrictions when it acted as “a major conduit” for U.S. funds to population control programs.130 HLI placed the World Bank in the same category as the IPPF and

UNFPA with respect to population control funding, and wanted to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing through the bank into international family planning projects. The World

Bank, meanwhile, promoted its image as a “staunch advocat[e] of fertility control” after the

United States had retreated from its role championing population control.131 The bank’s 1984

World Development Report, for example, called for a “quadrupling of expenditures for population programs” amounting to $7.6 billion within the next two decades.132 Yet despite its determination to meet contraceptive needs in developing nations, the World Bank proved especially vulnerable to attacks from pro-lifers because, like the UN, it too was governed by several voting nations, foremost among them the United States.133 Serendipitously for pro-

127 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill,” 2. 128 See CMRX 73/20 – World Bank 1984, and CMRX 73/21 World Bank 1984-1987. 129 See Rashid Faruqee and Ethna Johnson, “Health, Nutrition, and Family Planning in India: A Survey of Experiments and Special Projects,” World Bank Staff Working Paper, No. 507, (Washington D.C.: World Bank, February 1982), and Mohammad Alauddin and Rashid Faruqee, “Population and Family Planning in Bangladesh: A Survey of the Research,” World Bank Staff Working Papers, No. 557, (Washington D.C.: World Bank, 1983), both in CMRX 73/22. 130 Father Paul Marx, “World Bank Funds Forced Abortion in China,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 3, (March 1985), 1. 131 Warwick, “The Politics of Research on Fertility Control,” 187. 132 “World Bank Calls for Quadrupling of Expenditures for Population Programs to $7.6 Billion by 2000,” Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1984), pp. 234-236. 133 See Paul J. Nelson, “Agendas, Accountability, and Legitimacy among Transnational Network Lobbying the World Bank,” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink, Restructuring World Politics, 131-142.

185 lifers, the controversy sparked by O’Reilly and Hartmann’s research coincided with an impending World Bank vote on a development loan to Bangladesh.

In January of 1986, John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe mentioned the imminent World Bank vote in a letter to White House Communications Director Pat Buchanan. Pro-lifers believed

that much like USAID the bank was complicit in “abortion and coercive sterilization in

Bangladesh.”134 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe also noted that if “the administration…[had] the

will…to begin dismantling the World Bank’s population program,” it certainly had “the

power,” because “20 per cent of the World Bank’s money arrive[d] via the White House.”135

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe included a copy of The Deadly Neo-Colonialism with the letter and

urged Buchanan to “act quickly” to hold the bank “accountable” for violating the Mexico

City policy through its programs.136 Father Marx addressed a similar appeal to Representative

Henry Hyde, calling on him to bring O’Reilly’s claims to the attention of U.S. lawmakers.137

The Bangladesh case provided an excellent opportunity for HLI to test its ability to

influence U.S. funding decisions since the Mexico City policy now dictated funding

appropriations for U.S. population policies, and because the United States wielded

considerable voting power in the bank.138 Under pressure from HLI, ALL, and some

women’s rights advocates, the United States ultimately voted against the proposed loan to

Bangladesh. U.S. representative Hugh Foster announced the decision on January 14, 1986,

marking the first time the United States “opposed a population control program” within the

World Bank.139 The outcome of the vote reflected the growing prominence of pro-lifers on

134 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Pat Buchanan,” (January 1986), 1, Reagan Presidential LIbrary, WHORM Subject Files, F O 004-02 395551. 135 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Pat Buchanan,” 1. 136 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Pat Buchanan,” 1. 137 See Father Paul Marx, “Letter to Henry Hyde re: The Deadly Neo-Colonialism, (January 9, 1986), 1, CMRX 73/14; O’Keefe, “Violations of American Law Documented,” 1. 138 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Letter to Pat Buchanan,” (January 1986), 1. 139 Human Life International, “Press Release: Pro-Life Group Applauds International Funding Vote,” US Newswire, (January 21, 1986), 1, CMRX 73/14.

186

Capitol Hill, in particular HLI’s newfound ability to transform information into political power. The decision was “precedent-setting” for a number of reasons, foremost among them

the fact that the U.S. vote was partly based “on a negative recommendation” from USAID,

which had not previously been known “for pro-life activism.”140

Father Marx publicly applauded USAID administrator M. Peter McPherson’s

“courageous…decision to listen to” pro-life voices within the agency, including Richard

Derham.141 The close ties between HLI and USAID’s assistant administrator evidently influenced the agency’s position on World Bank funding for Bangladesh. Each decision to cut funding from population control programs like the one in Bangladesh brought pro-lifers

closer to their goal of forcing the U.S. government to “clarify” its “determination to stop such

expenditures, not merely redirect them.”142 As Marx observed, the vote opened “a new era in

efforts to stop the flow of American dollars supporting abortion overseas.”143 Although the

loan was ultimately approved, the United States’ stake in the bank allowed it to stipulate that

Bangladesh’s use of the funds in question be “scrutinized, and the 400 medical clinics…built

with Bank funding [would] not be abortion clinics.”144

Population Crisis Committee President Sharon Camp credited HLI as the catalyst for

Treasury Secretary James Baker’s decision to order “the US representative to the World Bank

to vote against” the development loan, and expressed considerable alarm at this “ominous

twist.”145 According to Camp, the restrictions that the United States had placed on the development loan “considerably broaden[ed] the Mexico City abortion policy.”146 Moreover,

Camp reported that the Treasury Department had since begun examining “health and family

140 HLI, “Pro-Life Group Applauds International Funding Vote,” 1. 141 HLI, “Pro-Life Group Applauds International Funding Vote,” 1. 142 Father Paul Marx, “Letter to M. Peter McPherson,” in HLI, “Pro-Life Group Applauds International Funding Vote,” 1. 143 Father Paul Marx, quoted in HLI, “Pro-Life Group Applauds International Funding Vote,” 1. 144 “World Bank Strategy,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 12, (November 1986), 3. 145 Sharon Camp, “PCC Legislative and Policy Update,” quoted in “World Bank Strategy,” 3. 146 Camp, “PCC Legislative and Policy Update,” quoted in “World Bank Strategy,” 3.

187 planning loans proposed by the development banks for possible violations of the

Administration [sic] anti-abortion policy.”147 When the National Research Academy and

National Academy of Sciences released their 1986 Population Growth and Economic

Development report, they highlighted the extent to which changing attitudes toward

population and development had permeated U.S. politics and society.148 The 1986 report

“almost completely reversed” its 1971 counterpart, suggesting that population growth was not necessarily a “drag” on economic development.149

HLI also attempted to consolidate its influence over U.S. population policy through unofficial channels after the World Bank vote. Before U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz met with Pope John Paul II in March of 1986, HLI “implore[d]” the Pontiff to call on Schultz to cease all funding for UNFPA and the World Bank.150 The telegram referred to the

Bangladeshi population control program as a “cruel violation[n] of the human rights” of some of the worlds’ “poorest and most vulnerable” people.151 Minnesota Senator Dave

Durenberger also took up the cause, informing Father Marx that he, too, was investigating claims against domestic and international family planning programs in the United States.152

HLI’s access to political and, for that matter, religious power-brokers, hence their ability to influence official U.S. positions on population policy, suggested that “even if the powerful nations…currently funding huge sums of money to depopulate the globe” would not

147 Camp, “PCC Legislative and Policy Update” quoted in “World Bank Strategy,” 3. 148 See Julian L. Simon, “Population Growth is Not Bad for Humanity,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 6, (November/December 1993), 2. 149 Simon, “Population Growth is Not Bad for Humanity,” 2. 150 Father Paul Marx and Albin Rhomberg, Director of the Center for the Documentation of the American Holocaust, “Telegram to Pope John Paul II, c/o Msgr John Magee,” (28 March 1986), 1, CMRX 65/19. 151 Marx and Rhomberg, “Telegram to Pope John Paul II,” 1. There is no record of the meeting between the Pope and Schultz that shows whether the Pope did as Marx and Rhomberg had asked, but the Pontiff did receive the telegram. 152 Dave Durenberger, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (February 3, 1986), 1, CMRX 73/15.

188 withdraw their support, “much” could still “be done at the World Bank…to defeat destructive loans.”153

John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe viewed the U.S. action at the World Bank as proof that the

Mexico City policy had created a new political opportunity for pro-life lobbying in the United

States. The policy enabled HLI to translate information acquired via existing transnational networks and overseas investigations like O’Reilly’s into a concerted campaign to defund international population control programs.154 In a subsequent communication with ALL,

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe described the timing of O’Reilly’s pamphlet and the World Bank vote as a “happy coincidence (or act of Providence).”155 He further noted that Father Marx had already “collected anecdotal material from around the globe” that, although useful for explaining the problem, was not “detailed enough to force action in Washington.”156 “In future,” Cavanaugh-O’Keefe asserted, pro-lifers should make a “conscious effort” to “try to plan such events,” citing upcoming votes on Colombian and Indonesian programs as potentially fruitful opportunities.157 He suggested that many of the countries in which HLI had contacts such as the Philippines, South Korea, India, Kenya, Mexico, Honduras,

Guatemala, and as yet untapped nations like Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco and

Nigeria might also yield useful information.158 Although Cavanaugh-O’Keefe believed that it was not yet “feasible to plan to develop a working network among prolife groups in developed nations to lobby simultaneously on specific issues in international bodies,”159 his

“dream” was not “utopian and should not be forgotten.”160 In 1988, HLI established the

Population Research Institute (PRI) to pursue these same goals; the Institute subsequently

153 “World Bank Strategy,” 3. 154 See “Dismantling the Population Control Network,” 1. 155 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Tracking Population Control Donors,” (1986), 2, JCOK, Box 2, Folder 4. 156 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Tracking Population Control Donors,” 1. 157 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Tracking Population Control Donors,” 2. 158 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Tracking Population Control Donors,” 2. 159 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Tracking Population Control Donors,” 2. 160 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Tracking Population Control Donors,” 2.

189 played an important role in monitoring population control programs and lobbying U.S. politicians to abide by the Mexico City policy.161

Four years after HLI had established the Institute, PRI persuaded “U.S. Congressman

Chris Smith, chairman of the Pro-life Caucus,” to request “a congressional hearing on the

Nigerian population project” by providing Smith with “information…concerning possible violations of the U.S. Mexico City Policy.”162 Nigerian Catholic bishops meanwhile objected to population control programs because of “research and documentation presented by PRI director Jean Guilfoyle.”163 PRI maintained a constant presence on Capitol Hill throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. Briefly, PRI circulated and presented a 1996 petition requesting that the Foods and Drug Administration (FDA) withdraw Norplant from sale in the United States in light of its adverse impact on women’s health in Bangladesh and

Haiti.164 That same year, PRI successfully lobbied Congress to maintain Reagan era cuts to population control funding.165

Moreover, conservative politicians in Australia and Canada have since attempted to pass similar legislation with varying degrees of success, again attesting to the salience of transnational information exchanges.166 Father Marx’s friend and Australian Catholic Senator

Brian Harradine spearheaded the push to emulate the Mexico City Policy in Australia;

161 Dolores Reuss, “Population Research Institute Created,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 1, (January 1988), 5. 162 “PRI debunks population-control advocates,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 10, (October/November 1992), 22. 163 “PRI debunks population-control advocates,” 22. 164 See David Morrison, “PRI Petitions to withdraw Norplant ®: Group seeks FDA’s disapproval of contraceptive on medical grounds,” PRI Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, (July/August 1996), 1-3, and PRI Staff, “Norplant alleged to cause blindness: Abuse of women in Bangladesh, Haiti documented,” PRI Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, (May/June 1993), 5-7, 11. 165 Morrison, “PRI Petitions to withdraw Norplant ®,” 1-3; PRI Staff, “Slowing the juggernaut: U.S. Congress cuts population control funding by one-third,” PRI Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, (May/June 1996), 1, and “PRI Outguns Guttmacher in reports duel,” PRI Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, (May/June 1996), 3. 166 HLI, and Father Marx in particular had long had ties to Australian pro-life activists and sympathizers. Senator Brian Harradine and Father Marx often exchanged pertinent information on the workings of USAID or AIDAB. See Bede Harradine, “Aid money for the promotion of abortion abroad,” The Catholic Weekly, (February 8, 1989), 1-2, CMRX 6/12 – Australia (3 of 8). HLI also provided the impetus for several Australians to join the pro-life cause in the first place, and for some to adopt similarly radical tactics to those advocated by their U.S. counterparts. See for example Rod McGrade, “From Armchair to Abortuary: A Conversion in Four Parts,” Fidelity, (December 1989), 26-34.

190

Harradine explicitly referenced U.S. foreign policy in his 1991 criticisms of the Australian government’s decision to bankroll population control projects in Papua New Guinea that distributed Depo Provera, even though the drug was “not official approved for use as a contraceptive in Australia.”167

In 1993, Senator Harradine took advantage of a legislative impasse to pressure the

Labor government to launch an investigation into its own population control projects, administered by the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB).168

Although the government was quick to release funds that had been frozen at the conclusion of the investigation in 1994, Harradine later had more success during negotiations with the newly installed Liberal Prime Minister John Howard.169 Howard instituted Australia’s version of the global gag rule, which closely resembled the United States’ Mexico City policy, in 1997 and in so doing denied funds to any population control project that provided abortions as well as contraceptives.170 In 2010, Canada attempted to follow suit and institute its own restrictions on foreign aid appropriations for international family planning programs; as of June, debates over possible funding restrictions continue to divide Canadian politicians.171 These examples demonstrate that the Mexico City policy not only affected

167 See Senator Brian Harradine, “Media Release: Controversial Drug to be Used on Papua New Guinea Women,” (May 15, 1991), 1-3, CMRX 6/14. The same year, HLI had launched an Australian membership drive. See Australian Catholic Pro-Life Association Newsletter (February 1991), 1-3, CMRX 6/14. 168 When Father Marx travelled to Australia in 1992, Senator Harradine helped him resolve a visa problem, demonstrating the close working relationship between the two. In fact, they had corresponded for several years beforehand. See Father Paul Marx, “Australian Diary,” (6-8 September, 1992), 1, CMRX 79/45, Bede McDougall, “From the President,” Australian Catholics Pro-life Association Newsletter, (October-November 1992), 1-2, CMRX 6/17, and Kathryn Robinson, “Who’s Making the Choice? Population Policy, Women’s Rights, and Australian Overseas Aid,” Just Policy, No. 3. (June 1995), 44. 169 See Pamela Bone, “Conservatives Start the Population Bomb Ticking Again,” The Age, 10 July 1997, 15 Factiva.com, (Accessed 5/3/2008), and David Marr, “Balancing Acts,” Sydney Morning Herald, 1 February 1997, 1, Factiva.com, (accessed 5/3/2008).. 170 See Bone, “Conservatives Start the Population Bomb Ticking Again,” 15, and Marr, “Balancing Acts,” 1. 171 See Sarah Boseley, “Does the Canadian Government, G8 President, Oppose Family Planning in Africa?” guardian.co.uk, (March 19, 2010), http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/sarah-boseley-global- health/2010/mar/19/maternal-mortality-g8, Accessed: 20/3/2010, and Joshua Keating, “A Canadian Global Gag Rule?” Foreign Policy, (Friday, March 19, 2010), http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/19/a_canadian_global_gag_rule, Accessed: 20/3/2010. It is unclear whether HLI has directly influenced the present push for a Canadian “gag rule,” but the organization has maintained a constant, increasingly vocal presence in Canada since it established its first branch there in 1984.

191 women in developing nations dependent on internationally funded population programs, but also influenced political decisions in countries across the developed world.

Conclusion

By 1987, HLI was advertising its successful track record of “monitor[ing] and expos[ing] the destructive global network of pro-abortion funders” including USAID,

UNFPA, and the World Bank.172 HLI claimed that its “timely publications” had “been

instrumental in limiting the power of these monsters” by ensuring that they were denied U.S.

funds or only able to access them under severely restricted conditions.173 As discussed above,

political opportunity shaped HLI’s subsequent trajectory. The twin prerogatives of grass roots

resistance and political lobbying informed HLI’s future endeavours, seeing the organization

shift from a predominantly reactive approach to an increasingly activist one after 1984. While

HLI’s political lobbying highlighted U.S. debates over population control, the organization’s

growing transnational network showcased the globalization of similar concerns, which

precipitated the rise of parallel pro-life movements in a wide variety of countries that were

often responding to similar pressures and opportunities as their counterparts in the United

States.

See “HLI Opens Four New Offices,” HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 7, (September 1984), 5. Also see Brian Clowes, Confronting the Canadian Anti-Life Network, (Vanier, ON: Human Life International-Canada, 1995), 1-48. Moreover, HLI representatives attended parliamentary debates over human life legislation in 1987, but Canadian politicians ultimately rejected the proposals. See Therese Bell, “Canada Weighs Constitutional Protection of Unborn,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 2, (February 1987), 3, and “Canada suffers double blow,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 7, (July, 1987), 5. By 1988, however, pro-life attacks had yielded some success: Canada’s Supreme Court struck down the law that had legalized abortion in 1969, deeming it unconstitutional because the justices found “no right to abortion” in their Charter. Subsequent pro-choice efforts to re-legalize abortion stalled, though, when the Senate refused to pass a bill to that effect, and abortion remained nominally illegal as late as 1992. See Sabina McLuhan, “The Scene in Canada,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 2, (February 1992), 3, 10. 172 HLI, “Prolife Missionaries to the World!” ALL About Issues, Vol. 9, No. 6, (November-December 1987), 38. 173 HLI, “Prolife Missionaries to the World!” 38.

192

Chapter Six Countering “contraceptive imperialism”: The expansion and consolidation of transnational pro-life networks in Latin America, 1986-1991 Our goal is a major escalation of our war to save the family.1 After the leaders of Human Life International (HLI) realized that recent cuts to U.S.

funding for world population control programs would have little impact unless target

populations could be persuaded to resist international family planning programs too, the

group did indeed escalate its “war to save the family” by shifting the pro-life battle from

Capitol Hill to the frontlines in developing countries.2 At the same time, many Latin

American nations were in the process of transitioning from “from authoritarian to democratic

regimes.”3 As dictatorships crumbled across Latin America, HLI’s twin goals of fostering

pro-life resistance to population control and legalized abortion in developing countries

profited from the rapid geopolitical changes.4 Father Marx’s global coalition of pro-life

leaders proved particularly adept at exploiting Latin American fears that population control

providers were, as one family planning advocate wryly acknowledged in 1986, “more

concerned about exploding numbers of people than with the people themselves.”5 In addition

to employing pseudo anti-imperialist rhetoric to appeal to local conservatives, HLI was easily

able to extend its network into Latin America due to its manipulation of inter-Church conflict

between conservative and liberation theologians, and due to the way local communities

responded to the effects of globalization.

1 Father Paul Marx, Special Report No. 22, (July 1986), 2. 2 “Dismantling the Population Control Network,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 12, (November 1986), 1. Their predictions came to fruition just over a year after the aforementioned article was published, when it became clear that Japan had stepped into the breach left by the United States after the announcement of the Mexico City Policy and become the world’s largest population control funder. See “Japan: New Global Abortion Funder,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No.1, (January 1988), 1-2. 3 “[M]ore than fifty countries scattered throughout the world” undertook this process in the last two decades of the twentieth century. See Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), 15. 4 See Mala Htun, Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce and the Family Under Latin American Dictatorships and Democracies, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) and James T. Patterson, Restless Giant: the United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 194. 5 See James Allen Flannery and Phil Johnson, “Latin Americans at Odds, Battle Waged Over Birth Control,” The Omaha World-Herald, (23 February 1986), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 193

In the 1960s, “a growing consciousness of the reality of inequality, poverty, and oppression of the masses” had permeated Catholic thought in Latin America, leading many

“Catholics to critically re-evaluate the doctrines of the Church.”6 Liberation theology’s dual emphasis on “social justice and freedom” resonated with Latin Americans who had suffered decades of oppression under right wing dictatorships. However, its critiques of liberal capitalism, international monetary imperialism and ties to Marxism simultaneously drew the strongest proponents of liberation theology into conflict with their conservative contemporaries in the Vatican.7

Pope John Paul II eventually moved to suppress what sociologist Michael Cuneo calls

“modernizing tendencies within the Church,” including but not limited to liberation theology.8 In 1983, he explicitly “warned clergy in Latin America to…shun the ‘alien doctrine’ of Marxism.”9 Consequently, the Pontiff visited Latin America on nine occasions between 1978 and 1988, during which time he also installed several conservative bishops in a bid to quash the “Marxist-inspired Liberation theology” that he believed had undermined

Catholic orthodoxy in Latin America.10 These moves were part of the Pontiff’s global project to regain control over a Church hierarchy riven with dissent after Humane Vitae.11 For

6 Charles G. Leathers, “Liberation Theology, the New Religious Political Right, and Veblen's Ambivalent View of Christianity,” Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1984), 1161. For a discussion of the origins of liberation theology, see John H. Yoder, “The Wider Setting of ‘Liberation Theology,’” The Review of Politics, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Spring, 1990), pp. 285-296, and Manzar Foroohar, “Liberation Theology: The Response of Latin American Catholics to Socioeconomic Problems,” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 3, Religion, Resistance, Revolution (Summer, 1986), pp. 37-58. 7 Leathers, 1161-1162, 1165. Also see N. J. Demerath III, “Crisscrossing the Gods: Globalization and American Religion,” in Bruce Mazlish, Nayan Chanda, and Kenneth Weisbrode (editors), The Paradox of a Global USA, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), 84. 8 Michael Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 31. 9 Pope John Paul II, quoted in Leathers, 1161-1162, 1165. On behalf of the Vatican, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger launched investigations into liberation theology’s ideas and influence in 1984 and 1986. Although Ratzinger tempered his initial wholesale condemnation of the Latin American movement, his eventual conclusions left its adherents in no doubt that the Church would brook no further dissent. Jeffrey L. Klaiber, “Prophets and Populists: Liberation Theology, 1968-1988,” The Americas, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jul., 1989), 10-12. 10 Victor L. Simpson, “For John Paul, a decade of activism,” Houston Chronicle, (15 October, 1988), Proquest, Accessed: 15/11/2009. 11 Victor L. Simpson, “John Paul’s Decade,” The Associated Press, (9 October, 1988), Proquest, Accessed: 15/11/2009.

194 example, Vatican favourite Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo of Colombia, who would become one of HLI’s closest allies in Latin America, was well known for his opposition to liberation theology.12 Official Vatican condemnation of modernization and secularism-

symbolized by sexual permissiveness-was a “delicious vindication” for activists like Father

Marx.13 From the mid-1980s onward, HLI therefore supported Latin American conservatives

in their battle against proponents of leftist liberation theology, while simultaneously shifting

the focus to population control—the other symbol of the threat that modernization—and

globalization—posed to organized religion.

Latin America therefore became one of the first and most important fronts in the

multifaceted “culture wars” that had begun to globalize in the 1980s, and HLI’s pro-life push

coalesced neatly with the Vatican’s agenda in the region. In their wider context, these

developments were part of a marked rightward shift in global politics. Even as HLI promoted

its own cause as an adjunct to the Pope’s work in Latin America, John Paul II drew on a rich

body of scholarly critiques of international family planning programs to attack population

control’s neo-imperialist connotations in Latin America.14 In this way, HLI’s work in the

region not only benefited from but actually contributed to the Pope’s efforts to reassert

Catholic orthodoxy in Latin America. HLI’s exponential growth in the region, and indeed

worldwide between the mid-1980s and 1990s also attests to a second, related issue: the global

resonance of its ideals and goals.

12 See Klaiber, 10-12, Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary – Colombia,” (24 and 30 September, 1991), 3, 18, CMRX 52/10, and Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary – Rome,” (12 November, 1991), 3, CMRX 79/38. During a 1991 tour of Trujillo’s home country, Father Marx remarked that “liberation theology” was still a theme in many major seminaries and concluded that the even though the “fall of Communism” had “mitigated” their influence somewhat, Marxist principles undergirding liberation theology had done great damage in Colombia. 13 Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan, 32. Here Cuneo is referring to American Catholics in general, but his observation certainly applies to Father Marx’s attitude toward the Vatican’s moves to suppress Liberation Theology too. 14 “Reject Contraceptive Imperialism, Vatican Urges,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 9, (September 1988), 3. The intellectual heritage of JPII’s anti-population control stance can be traced back to a several key figures within HLI’s extended network including Dr Jacqueline Kasun, Bob Sassone, Father Rene Bel, former Presidential Aide Carl Anderson, Julian Simon and Colin Clarke.

195

Although HLI was instrumental in establishing and supporting early pro-life groups in

Latin America, the organization could not have expanded as rapidly as it did if Latin

Americans themselves had not shared the concerns of U.S. pro-lifers and willingly adopted

HLI’s goals.15 Furthermore, as will be shown below, Latin Americans also felt that traditional

family structures were under siege from a range of “modern” threats, which was the primary

reason they proved receptive to HLI’s message; this in turn affected HLI’s choice of rhetoric

and symbolism and prompted the organization to reframe many of its appeals as pro-family

rather than pro-life.16

Montreal: Setting the Agenda On the April 23, 1986, six hundred pro-life leaders assembled at Le Grande Hotel in

Montreal, Quebec, for HLI’s Second Annual International Symposium on Human

Sexuality.17 Over the course of four days representatives of HLI’s branches in Argentina,

Canada, Germany, India, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa,

the United States and Yugoslavia discussed challenges and formulated new strategies to

oppose abortion and world population control.18 The conference featured thirty-seven

speakers from the United States, India, Europe, and Latin America, who addressed the

meeting in English and French.19 Conference participants followed a similar format to

previous HLI symposia, at which international speakers had explored a wide array of topics

15 In her study of the Christian Right’s globalization in the late 1990s and early twenty-first century, Jennifer S. Butler rightly notes that “similarities” between Latin American and U.S-based pro-life groups of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries hint that the pro-life movement began to “globalize not only because of U.S initiatives but because global economic and social trends [were] creating the same conditions in many countries that” organizations in the United States had first addressed. However, Butler’s analysis fails to acknowledge that the alliances she analyses, such as Mexico’s Red Familia, which cleverly exploited ties to right wing President Vincente Fox to achieve some of its “pro-family” goals, actually shared a common ideological and sometimes material heritage with U.S.-based groups such as HLI. See Jennifer S. Butler, Born Again: The Christian Right globalized, (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 127–130. 16 Again, this rhetorical shift presaged future “pro-family” appeals by Latin American groups; see Butler, 126. 17 HLI, “Stand with the Pope for Life and Family at the Second International Symposium on Human Sexuality,” (1986), 1-2, PMRX Box 3. 18 “World Map with HLI Branches,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 5, (Special Symposium Issue, 1986), 3. 19 “Second International Symposium on Human Sexuality Brings Experts to Montreal,” 1-2; HLI, “Ad for audio tapes from International Symposium on Human Sexuality, April 23-27, 1986,” HLI Reports Vol. 4, No. 6, (May 1986), 7.

196 from natural family planning and sex education to population control in China, sidewalk counselling, political lobbying strategies, and closing “abortion mills.”20 In one important

respect, however, a number of key speakers at the Montreal meeting departed from earlier

emphases on education and political lobbying by calling on participants to unite “theory and

practice” in pro-life activism.21

Infamous Pro-Life Action League President Joseph Scheidler and HLI Reports’ editor

John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, dubbed the “father of the prolife rescue movement,” encouraged

the gathering of international activists to give “tangible expression” to “their brave words

about the ‘inalienable right to life of the unborn’” by launching direct action protests at

abortion clinics.22 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe spoke on “Non-Violent Direct Action,” while

Scheidler schooled his audience on the best means of closing “abortion mills.”23 Both men

were part of a broader movement in the United States dating back to the 1970s, when pro-life

activists had started to appropriate successful tactics used by civil rights and antiwar

protestors.24 In addition to Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s Pro-Life Nonviolent Action Project and

Scheidler’s Pro-Life Action League, a number of American-based groups engaged in

nonviolent direct action protests in the 1980s and 1990s. Foremost among them was Randall

Terry’s Operation Rescue, which continued to arouse strong responses with its controversial

confrontational tactics through 2010.25 Scheidler asserted in his manual Closed: 99 Ways to

Stop Abortion that “No social movement” in U.S. history had “succeeded without activists

20 “Second International Symposium on Human Sexuality Brings Experts to Montreal,” 1-2; HLI, “Ad for audio tapes,” 7. 21 “HLI Symposium United Theory and Practice,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 7, (June 1986), 1. 22 See HLI, “Stand with the Pope for Life and Family at the Second International Symposium on Human Sexuality,” (1986), 1-2, PMRX Box 3. Also see Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 51, (1988), 8, and John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Direct Action to Protect Lives,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 7, (July 1985), 3. 23 See HLI, “Stand with the Pope for Life and Family at the Second International Symposium on Human Sexuality,” 1-2. Also see Marx, Special Report, No. 51, 8, and Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Direct Action to Protect Lives,” 3. 24 See Ed Martin, “You Don’t Have to Be a Catholic,” (Marion County Right to Life, 1987), JLW, File 11, Juli Loesch, “Papal Pro-Life Pilgrimage,” (June-September 1987), 1-34, JLW, File 10, and Juli Loesch, “Letter to We Will Stand Up Ad Hoc Committee,” (June 17, 1987), 1, JLW, File 11. 25 See Martin, “You Don’t Have to Be a Catholic,”, and Operation Rescue, “What Others Say About Us,” http://www.operationrescue.org/about-us/what-others-say-about-us/, Accessed: 22/2/2010.

197 taking to the streets.”26 Scheidler’s book therefore embodied what Cavanaugh-O’Keefe referred to as “the new spirit of activism among dedicated pro-lifers around the world,” and laid the foundation for the subsequent globalization of the rescue movement by schooling budding activists in the best techniques to prevent abortion.27

According to Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, pro-life activists could give “tangible expression”

to their convictions by participating in direct action protests.28 Around 150 HLI members put

his and Scheidler’s suggestions into action during the Montreal conference by assembling at a

local abortion clinic to pray, sidewalk counsel and sit-in.29 The year before, a Canadian pro-

life coalition from Quebec had trialled similar tactics, but were disappointed by the limited

and unsympathetic media coverage they attracted.30 In Montreal, however, protestors were

pleased with the fair reports of their activities that appeared on French and English national

television networks and in newspapers.31 Afterward, Joseph Scheidler complimented the

Canadian activists, likening them to “AUSSI[sic] activists like Fr. Ahern,” and Margaret

Tighe, who had pioneered nonviolent direct action protests at abortion clinics in Australia.32

The subsequent development of international rescue movements, especially in Latin

America, further illustrates the “networking, information-gathering and cross-fertilization”

that had occurred during HLI’s Montreal meeting.33 Early in 1987, for example, a small

group of Honduran pro-life activists took to the streets in front of the local International

Planned Parenthood Federation’s (IPPF) affiliate, the Associacion Hondurena de

Planificacion de Familia (AHSONPLAFA), to protest a concerted “pro-abortion assault” in

26 Joseph S. Scheidler, Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion, (Lake Bluff, IL: Regenery Books, 1985). 27 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Direct Action to Protect Lives,” 3. 28 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Direct Action to Protect Lives,” 3. 29 “HLI Symposium United Theory and Practice,” 1, 3. 30 Mark Flynn, “New Activism in Quebec,” HLI Reports, Vol. 3, No. 4, (April 1985), 6. 31 Father Paul Marx, Special Report No. 22, (1986), 1-2. 32 Joseph M. Scheidler, “Full Steam: Letter to Father Marx,” HLI Reports Vol. 4, No. 11, (October 1986), 10. 33 Marx, Special Report No. 22, 1-2. Also see Fr. Hans Gruner, “Picketing in Vienna,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 13, (December 1986), 12. The trend continued throughout the next decade. See The Associacion Pro-Vida de Puerto Rico, “Puerto Rico: Rescues Save Lives,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 2, (February 1989), 6.

198 their country’s media and on public billboards.34 After just two hours, six Honduran pro-life protestors had attracted enough attention from the local media and passersby for their leader

Martha Lorena de Casco to conclude that it was not “necessary to have many people to change the course of events.”35

Pro-life direct action protests experienced a renaissance in the 1980s and escalated rapidly in the 1990s after political opportunities that had opened during Ronald Reagan’s presidency began to close even before his successor George H.W. Bush took office in 1989, and were completely occluded after President William Clinton’s inauguration in 1993.36 Juli

Loesch’s campaign for an abortion-free Papal tour of the United States in 1987 illustrates this phenomenon. In 1986, Loesh’s organization, Pro-Lifers for Survival (PS), took an unusual approach to nonviolent direct action by calling for ecumenical cooperation to ensure that the

Pope’s 1987 tour of the United States would be “abortion free.”37 Ahead of the Pontiff’s visit,

Loesch travelled across the nation by Greyhound bus to raise awareness. , met and spoke with local pro-life leaders in key areas during her “Papal Pro-life Pilgrimage,” and eventually succeeded in establishing an ecumenical alliance.38

Dismantling the Population Control Network – Latin America

34 Martha Lorena de Casco, “Pro-Life Nonviolent Action in Honduras,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 4, (April 1987), 9. 35 Lorena de Casco, “Pro-Life Nonviolent Action in Honduras,” 9. 36 See Alesha E. Doan, Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, (2007), 14-15, 84-85. Also see Dallas A. Blanchard, The Anti- Abortion Movement and the rise of the religious right: from polite to fiery protest, (New York: Maxwell MacMillan, 1994), 58-59. Direct action protests initially attracted few activists and yielded fewer arrests. But when the media began publicizing protests and their cause, the scale of protests and resultant arrests increased considerably. See for example “Cherry Hill Abortion Clinic Invaded; 6 Arrested,” United Press International, (25 November, 1984), Factiva.com, Accessed: 3/4/2009; Warren Strobel, “Judge Harder on 3rd group of pro- lifers,” The Washington Times, (February 14, 1985), JCOK Box 2, Folder 1; “69 More Opponents of Abortion Jailed in Atlanta Protest,” New York Times, (August 7, 1988), 20, Proquest, Accessed: 3/3/2009; “95 Abortion Protestors Are Freed,” New York Times, (May 10, 1990), A21, Proquest, Accessed: 3/3/2009. 37 See Martin, “You Don’t Have to Be a Catholic,” JLW, File 11, Loesch, “Papal Pro-Life Pilgrimage,” JLW, File 10, and “Letter to We Will Stand Up Ad Hoc Committee,” 1, JLW, File 11. 38 Loesch, “Papal Pro-Life Pilgrimage,” 1-34, Loesch, “Letter to We Will Stand Up Ad Hoc Committee,” 1.

199

The most important outcome of the Montreal symposium, however, was HLI’s decision to strengthen its presence in Latin America. The selection of Venezuelan pro-life leader Christine De Vollmer as the recipient of the HLI’s 1986 International Pro-Life Award symbolized the organization’s resolve.39 De Vollmer had grown up in the United States but moved to Latin America in 1972 after marrying a Venezuelan citizen.40 Nine years later she formed an anti-abortion group called Associación Provida de Venezuela, also known as

PROVIVE, and eventually played an instrumental role in persuading the Venezuelan government to send a “strongly prolife” delegation to the UN’s 1984 Mexico City conference.41 De Vollmer shared Father Marx’s belief that transnational networking held the

key to successful pro-life activism, and when the Mexican Catholic hierarchy offered to host

HLI’s 1987 annual meeting in Mexico City, De Vollmer and Marx resolved to take the

opportunity to “organize the whole continent and subcontinent against population

controllers.”42 She reportedly agreed with Father Marx that it might yet be possible to save

Latin America “from the abortion imperialists of the West.”43

The cornerstone of HLI’s Latin American outreach efforts was Vida Humana

Internacional (VHI), the organization’s Spanish language branch based in Miami, Florida,

and headed by Cuban refugee Magaly Llaguno.44 When Llaguno accepted Father Marx’s

invitation to join HLI’s growing network in 1982, she had already amassed ten years of

experience educating Hispanics on pro-life issues in the United States.45 In 1972 she had

39 Marx, Special Report No. 22, 1-2. 40 Father Paul Marx, “Defenders of Life,” (c. 1986), 1, CMRX 15/9. 41 Marx, “Defenders of Life,” 1. In fact, de Vollmer’s “millionaire” husband later served as Venezuela’s Ambassador to the Vatican, while she acted as a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family. See Butler, 130. 42 Marx, Special Report No. 22, 1-2. 43 Marx, Special Report No. 22, 1-2. 44 The Miami VHI should not be confused with HLI’s Mexico City branch of the same name, although the two were indeed linked since Miami VHI coordinated HLI’s Latin American offshoots which often took the same name. See chapter four of this thesis for a brief discussion of VHI Mexico’s origins and activities. 45 See Vida Humana Internacional, “Meet Our Director, Mrs Magaly Llaguno,” (Miami, FLA: VHI), http://www.vidahumana.org/english/director-vhi.html, Accessed: 2/6/2009, and Vida Humana Internacional,

200 formed the Comite Pro Vida Internacional in Miami, and was a founding member of the

National Right to Life Committee.46 With HLI’s support, Llaguno established VHI in 1984.47

She immediately began translating HLI publications into Spanish in preparation for shipping

to Latin America, Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries.48 The same year, HLI began

to publish a quarterly Spanish language bulletin called Escoge la Vida [Choose Life].49

Together with Father Marx’s travels in the region, Escoge la Vida played a vital role

in establishing HLI’s presence in Latin America ahead of the organization’s 1987 regional

conference in Mexico City.50 In many instances, local clergy and activists proved extremely

receptive to HLI’s overtures, and particularly valued the pro-life literature they received. The

Bolivian Archbishop of Sucre, the Most Reverend Rene Fernandez, attested to Escoge la

Vida’s importance in October 1986, when he told Father Marx that he often referenced the

publication in his homilies.51 Fernandez’s letter suggests that Escoge la Vida tapped into an

unmet need in Bolivia, which also accounts for the organization’s popularity in Latin

America at large. On the one hand, HLI bolstered the efforts of orthodox Latin American

Catholics against liberation theology, a challenge from within the Church.52 By 1989, HLI

Reports would explicitly link liberation theology and permissive attitudes toward sex and

abortion, claiming that in Brazil, “just as in the United States, the extreme left wing of the

“How and Why VHI Was Created,” (Miami, FLA: VHI), http://www.vidahumana.org/english/how-why- vhi.html Accessed: 2/6/2009. 46 VHI, “Meet Our Director, Mrs Magaly Llaguno.” 47 VHI, “How and Why VHI Was Created.” Also see “Literature Fuels Growth of Hispanic Pro-Life Network,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 8, No. 6, (August-September 1986), 46. 48 VHI, “How and Why VHI Was Created,” “Literature Fuels Growth of Hispanic Pro-Life Network,” 46. 49 See Father Paul Marx, “Argentina: Sex Ed, Birth Control Plans Go Down in Flames,” Special Report, No. 55, (1989), 5, and “Literature Fuels Growth of Hispanic Pro-Life Network,” 46. 50 See Marx, “Argentina: Sex Ed, Birth Control Plans Go Down in Flames,” 5, which credits Escoge la Vida and Magaly Llaguno’s personal efforts with fostering prolife resistance to sex education and contraception in Argentina. Also see “Literature Fuels Growth of Hispanic Pro-Life Network,” 46. 51 Most Rev. Rene Fernandez, Archbishop of Sucre, Bolivia, “Gruesome News: Letter to HLI,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 11, (October 1986), 12. 52 See“Liberation Theology and Abortion,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 6, (June 1989), 9, which openly accuses Frei Alberto Lipanio Cristo, or Frei Betto, a prominent journalist and proponent of liberation theology of supporting legalized abortion.

201

Church…decrie[d] social evil, but refuse[d] to face the serious evils of undermining the family.”53

On the other hand, HLI helped conservative Latin American Catholics face external

pressures from feminist and population control groups by harnessing the widespread disquiet

generated by the pressures of globalization, which had contributed to rapid domestic political

changes in several Latin American countries. Conservative Latin American Catholics were

already blaming international family planning programs for corrupting their people by

imposing modern, Western, ostensibly secularist ideas and practices on predominantly

Catholic populations. In Latin America, as in the United States years before, “the ever-

expanding realms of science and technology” seemed set to “destro[y] traditional social

relationships…undermin[e] traditional beliefs,” and even threaten “the economic security of

many groups of people.”54 In the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s, economic and political

difficulties triggered widespread social anxiety that opened a space for pro-family organizing

in many Latin American countries.55 Just as U.S pro-lifers seemed to have responded to a

deep sense of “insecurity…with ambivalent attitudes toward science and technology” and

resorted to religious “devoutness” in their search for “traditional security,” Latin Americans

reacted to rapidly changing domestic political circumstances and the pressures of

globalization in similar ways.56

In December 1986, HLI Reports featured a detailed account of Father Marx’s nine-

day tour of Argentina with Father Albert Salmon, one of HLI’s Latin American coordinators

who had a long-standing missionary involvement in the region.57 The two priests lectured in

four cities and participated in a series of radio and television interviews, in addition to

53 Liberation Theology and Abortion,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 6, (June 1989), 9. 54 Leathers, 1172. 55 Kurt Gerhard Weyland, The Politics of Market Reform in Fragile Democracies: Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 1-8. 56 Leathers, 1172. 57 Father Paul Marx, “Argentina, Rich and Empty,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 13, (December 1986), 1.

202 delivering pro-life materials to HLI’s Buenos Aires branch.58 Argentina had recently emerged

from over a decade of intermittent military rule, and the advent of democracy under President

Raul Alfonsin in 1983 paved the way for legislative, as well as political and socio-economic

change.59 A brutal period of repression between 1976 and 1982 had all but obliterated

grassroots organizations including feminist groups, but it was not long before a “considerable

number of women took the risk of supporting” the new regime in the hope that it would heed

the nascent feminist movement’s calls for women’s rights.60

Shortly before Marx and Salmon’s visit, the Argentine Senate highlighted the rapid

pace of political change by tabling a proposal to legalize divorce. The HLI leaders’ tour

proved especially timely in light of the initiative; in their public addresses, Salmon and Marx

linked the proposed law to the corrosive impact of contraception, sterilization, and abortion

on family life, as seen in Western nations such as the United States.61 Argentina’s Catholic

bishops responded to the Senate’s moves by marshalling large public demonstrations in

several major cities, while pro-life leaders such as retired businessman Victor Taussig

worried that the proposal meant that moves to legalize abortion would likely begin the

following year.62 If they could not mobilize sufficient opposition to prevent the law passing,

Cardinal Raul Francisco Primatesta, the Archbishop of Cordoba, Argentina, told Marx that he

believed it would be a case of “divorce today and abortion tomorrow.”63 His comment may

have inverted HLI’s established wisdom on the linear progression from contraception to

abortion and family decline, but the archbishop clearly shared Marx’s conviction that

58 Marx, “Argentina, Rich and Empty,” 1. 59 Mabel Bellucci, “Women’s Struggle to Decide Their Own Bodies: Abortion and Sexual Rights in Argentina,” Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 5, No. 10, (November 1997), 101-102. 60 Bellucci, 101, Htun, 18. 61 See Marx, “Argentina, Rich and Empty,” 1-2, Father Paul Marx, Special Report No. 24, (1986), 5, Father Paul Marx, “Argentina: HLI Helps Church Battle State,” Special Report, No. 27, (1987), 2, and Father Paul Marx, “Alfonsin’s Debacle in Argentina,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 11, (November 1987), 3. 62 Marx, “Argentina, Rich and Empty,” 1-2. Demonstrations reportedly gathered 80, 000 people in Buenos Aires alone. See Marx, Special Report, No. 24, 5, Marx, “Argentina: HLI Helps Church Battle State,” 2, and Father Paul Marx, “HLI Fights Abortion in Argentina,” (c.1986-1987), 3, CMRX 51/7. 63 Marx, “Argentina, Rich and Empty,” 1; Marx, Special Report No. 24, 5.

203 legislative change would adversely impact traditional families, and, by extension, the

Catholic Church’s authority over the Argentine people.

Given that Argentina, much like other Catholic bastions such as Ireland and the

Philippines, was one of the last countries to maintain an absolute ban on abortion, the fears

Father Marx and the Archbishop of Cordoba shared were not unfounded. In some respects,

HLI’s Argentine campaign marks the beginning of its rhetorical shift from “pro-life” to “pro-

family.” Although the organization had always taken a “total approach” to its cause, from the

mid-1980s onward HLI had widened its focus from abortion and population control to

encompass a broader constellation of issues including divorce, homosexuality and AIDS, and

opposition to “radical feminism.”64

The reasons Argentine activists chose to collaborate with HLI were equally clear: they

hoped to gain access to resources that would help them mount an effective counter

campaign.65 HLI fulfilled expectations by supplying audio-visual aids and literature to

Taussig’s Buenos Aires branch.66 The organization also sent thousands of dollars to activists

and clergy to finance their fight against legalized divorce and later, abortion; in 1986, Father

Marx reportedly shipped $4,000 worth of materials to Argentina, and on another occasion

gave a $2,000 cash donation to a priest visiting the United States.67 Even with HLI’s financial

and material aid, however, Argentine activists were overwhelmed by the strong reformist

coalition which included many of the country’s politicians, particularly members of the

64 This shift is particularly significant because it provided the ideological basis for the pro-family lobby that began to make waves in UN NGO forums in the late twentieth and early twentieth centuries. See Butler, Born Again, and Dori Buss and Didi Herman, Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). 65 Victor Taussig, “Letter to the Editor: HLI – Argentina,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 1, (January 1987), 12. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Argentina, Rich and Empty,” 1-2, and Marx, “HLI Fights Abortion in Argentina,” 3. 66 See Father Paul Marx, “HLI Fights Abortion in Argentina,” (c. 1986-1987), 3, CMRX 51/17, and Marx, Special Report No. 24, (1986), 5. 67 Marx, “HLI Fights Abortion in Argentina,” 3, and Marx, Special Report No. 24, 5.

204 majority-holding, left-leaning Union Civica Radical Party.68 Although the Church hierarchy

and HLI’s local affiliates put up a strong fight against the initiative, Argentine opponents of

divorce ultimately failed in their bid to prevent changes to the nation’s law.69 On November

29, 1986, Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled the country’s “98-year old law barring divorce

unconstitutional.”70 The following May, divorce and remarriage became legal in the country

when Argentina’s Senate voted to approve the measure; the move reflected opinion polls that

had shown that 70 percent of Argentines favoured the “legalization of divorce.”71

A countermovement against the liberalization of Argentine law reform, particularly

opposed to the revision of legislation related to marriage and the family did persist, however,

and within two years of Father Marx’s first visit, HLI had established two branches in

Argentina.72 Both affiliates played key roles in campaigns that attempted to entrench the

“pro-family” agenda in the country by opposing the legalization of abortion, population

control and the introduction of sex education programs into the nation’s schools.73 Buenos

Aires HLI representatives, for example, challenged the government’s decision to waste

already scant “medical resources” on “promoting abortifacients and sterilization” when so

few Argentines had adequate access to “medical attention.”74 HLI representatives from the

United States, meanwhile, defended their foothold in Argentina and worked to expand into

68 See Father Paul Marx, “News Flash,” Special Report, No. 27, (1987), 3, and Merike Blofield, The Politics of Moral Sin: Abortion and Divorce in Spain, Chile and Argentina, (New York: Routledge, 2006), 121-122. 69 Marx, “News Flash,” 3, and Blofield, 121. 70 Marx, “News Flash,” 3, and Blofield, 121. 71 “Argentina, a Hold Out, is Legalizing Divorce,” The New York Times, (May 9, 1987), http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/world/argentina-a-holdout-is-legalizing-divorce.html?pagewanted=1, Accessed: 12/10/2009. 72 See “Argentina Weighs Depopulation Program,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 7, (July 1988), 4, Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 46, (1988), and Marx, “Argentina: Sex Ed, Birth Control Plans Go Down in Flames,” 5. 73 In cooperation with members of friendly organizations such as the League of Mothers, local HLI members also prevented the government from introducing sex education programs across much of Argentina. See “Argentina Weighs Depopulation Program,” 4, and Marx, “Argentina: Sex Ed, Birth Control Plans Go Down in Flames,” 5. 74 Marx, “Argentina: Sex Ed, Birth Control Plans Go Down in Flames,” 5.

205 nearby countries with the help of Dr. Pedro Garcia.75 Based in Rosario, Argentina, Garcia ran

HLI’s Latin American pro-life news service, which broadcast information on the activities of

Planned Parenthood affiliates across the continent in the hope of raising public awareness and

sparking resistance among local populations.76 Overall, HLI made considerable use of radio

and TV networks to propagate its message in Latin America, a point well-illustrated by the

organization’s work in Peru.

In the winter of 1986, reports that women in Peru were procuring as many as three or

four abortions a year from illegal clinics operating in villages on the outskirts of major cities

reached VHI director Magaly Llaguno.77 Peru, like Argentina, had issued nominal statements

in favour of “responsible parenthood” at the end of ten years of military rule in 1979.78 The

Ministry of Health had approved government funding for family planning programs in 1983,

and two years later the government passed Peru’s first National Population Policy.79 Yet

despite these moves, women’s rights organizations had made little headway in their calls for

reproductive rights—especially abortion.80 So as to ensure the status quo, Magaly Llaguno

together with Peruvian Natural Family Planning instructor Dr. Marino Huancuco and his wife

Ernestina set about laying the groundwork for a concerted pro-life push into the country.81

Local radio stations began to air regular excerpts from VHI’s Escoge la Vida, and The Silent

Scream was shown on national television before HLI’s first Peruvian branch opened in

1988.82

75Father Paul Marx, “H.L.I’s Urgent Needs,” Special Report, No. 40, (1988), 8, Father Paul Marx, “H.L.I. Battles PP South of the Border,” Special Report, No. 46, (1988), 3. 76 Marx, “H.L.I’s Urgent Needs,” 8, Marx, “H.L.I. Battles PP South of the Border,” 3. 77 Magaly Llaguno, “Struggles in Peru,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 13, (December 1986), 8. 78 Anna-Britt Cole, “From Anti-Natalist to Ultra-Conservative: Restricting Reproductive Choice in Peru,” Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 12, No. 24, (November 2004), 59-60. 79 Cole, 59-60. 80 Cole, 59-60; 63-64. 81 Llaguno, “Struggles in Peru,” 8. 82 Llaguno, “Struggles in Peru,” 8. Also see Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 51, (1989), 6.

206

Although activities of population control NGOs remained “extremely limited” in

Peru, HLI focused on educating locals about the negative consequences of contraception and tried to reduce the number of illegal abortions.83 As international family planning providers

stepped up their efforts to penetrate Peru, HLI “linked up” with a Lima-based Catholic news

service that allowed HLI-Peru representative Carlos Polo to reach “millions more people”

through the network’s 4,000 outlets.84 Llaguno’s foresight also ensured that pro-life leaders

were ready to collaborate with conservative government officials in Peru and the United

States to mount effective challenges to international family planning programs over the

ensuing decade.85 Since newly installed left leaning governments offered little to pro-life

factions within Latin America, U.S.-based HLI leaders encouraged their Peruvian colleagues

to support right wing political candidates. The resulting collaborations closely resembled the

way in which HLI accessed and influenced population policy in the United States, and even

contributed to the groups’ attempts to prevent USAID from funding Peruvian family planning

programs.

In 1998, HLI’s contacts in Peru provided the Population Research Institute (PRI) with

vital information that helped its representatives launch a campaign against U.S. funding for

Peruvian population control programs.86 Local women’s organizations, such as the Centro de

la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristan and the Comite de America Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa

de los Derechos de la Mujer (CLADEM), uncovered evidence of coercion and sterilization

abuses in Peru’s population control program in the late 1980s and early 1990s.87 Whereas

feminist groups attempted to pressure the government to correct the overzealous approach to

sterilization while retaining other vestiges of women’s reproductive rights, an alliance of

83 Cole, 60. 84 Father Paul Marx, “HLI Peru Reaching Millions,” Special Report, No. 62, (1989), 7. This service cost HLI $800 per month. 85 See Cole, 64-65. 86 Cole, 63-65. HLI established the PRI in 1989 to function as its dedicated anti-population control lobbying arm. 87 Cole, 63-65.

207 conservative politicians and US-backed pro-life activists took the opportunity to call “for an

immediate end to government-sponsored family planning services.”88 HLI and PRI’s

international political influence extended the anti-population control push well beyond

Peruvian borders.

Hector Chavez Chuchon, a conservative Peruvian congressman, shared information

on the abuses with PRI, which then publicly accused USAID of “fund[ing] the abuses.”89

This led the U.S. Congress to mount an investigation into the agency’s role in Peru.90

Although the agency was able to prove that its donations to Peru had not facilitated the

abuses in question, the PRI continued to scrutinize the USAID’s expenditures.91 In Peru,

HLI’s ties to right-wing politicians seemed to be the key to maintaining that country’s anti-

abortion status quo; this in turn mirrored Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy in Latin America,

which clearly demonstrated that a regime’s willingness to suppress leftists at all costs

trumped any real commitment to democracy.92 PRI’s collaboration with Chavez also bore a

strong resemblance to similar pro-life political alliances in the United States, which had

pressured USAID to defund various population projects after the Mexico City Policy came

into force in 1984.93

Around the same time as Magaly Llaguno intensified VHI’s outreach to Peru,

Antonio J. Gonzalez, then Archbishop of Quito, applauded HLI’s support for pro-life

88 Cole, 63-65. 89 Cole, 64-65. 90 Cole, 64-65. The investigation, launched by the chief counsel of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the House International Relations Committee saw U.S. representatives travel to Peru to scrutinize USAID’s activities and brought Peruvians to the United States to testify on behalf of USAID. 91 See Cole, 64-65. 92 For a discussion of the guiding principles of President Reagan’s foreign policy, with particular reference to Nicaragua, see Chester Pach, “The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, Presidential Doctrines (Mar., 2006), pp. 75-88. 93 See Chapter Five of this thesis.

208

Ecuadorian gynaecologist Dr. Olga Reyes.94 Father Marx had first made contact with Reyes

in 1977 when he travelled to Ecuador in an attempt to stimulate pro-life resistance to

population control and legalized abortion there.95 The close ties between international pro-life

groups were especially apparent in Ecuador, where PRONACER [For Birth], the organization

Reyes had founded after Marx’s visit, also served as the Latin American coordinating unit for

the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life.96 When the Archbishop asked

HLI to “continue, and increase” funding to PRONACER, Father Marx readily obliged.97 In

fact, HLI provided enough financial support to allow Reyes to “give up her medical practice”

and “work full time for HLI.”98 In addition to ample financial aid, HLI also supplied Reyes

with pamphlets, film projectors, and Spanish-language pro-life films intended to educate

viewers and convince them to oppose abortion and population control.99

HLI and the Reagan Doctrine: investing in right-wing movements in Latin America

At the same time as HLI intensified its outreach to Latin America, Protestantism was

growing “on a massive scale” in the region, particularly in Central America; estimates

claimed that between eight and ten thousand Catholics converted daily.100 U.S. Protestant

missionaries therefore posed a significant threat to Catholicism, and further predisposed the

mostly conservative Catholic activists and leaders toward HLI’s anti-population control

message. Emissaries of the U.S. Christian Right’s Protestant wing “offer[ed] their support” to

the U.S. forces that were organizing the Contras on the Nicaraguan and Honduran borders by

94 Antonio J. Gonzalez, Archbishop of Quito, “Letter to the Editor,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 13, (December 1986), 12. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Aids Ecuador’s Activists,” Special Report, No. 67, (April 1990), 2. 95 Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Aids Ecuador’s Activists,” 2. 96 Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Aids Ecuador’s Activists,” 2. 97 See Gonzalez, “Letter to the Editor,” 12, and Marx, “H.L.I. Battles PP South of the Border,” 3. Also see Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Aids Ecuador’s Activists,” 1-8. 98 Gonzalez, “Letter to the Editor,” 12, Marx, “H.L.I. Battles PP South of the Border,” 3, and Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Aids Ecuador’s Activists,” 1-8. 99 See Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Aids Ecuador’s Activists,” 2. 100 Anne Motley Hallum, “The Transformation of the Christian Right in Central America,” in Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning (editors), Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), 217.

209 broadcasting a similar anti-Communist message in the region.101 To counter their incursions,

HLI also supported the U.S. government’s efforts to shore up anti-leftist groups and governments by funding conservatives opposed to liberation theology, feminist groups or the

liberalization of divorce or abortion laws. HLI’s efforts paralleled, and even contributed to

the maintenance of the “Reagan Doctrine,” which aimed to arrest the spread of Communism

by aiding anti-Communist forces in key regions around the world. In practice, the doctrine

saw the Reagan administration support the right-wing Nicaraguan Contras in their bid to

overthrow Daniel Ortega’s leftist government.102

HLI’s willingness to offer financial support to activists in poor Latin American

countries was another key reason why the organization was able to expand across the region

so rapidly. Guatemalan pro-life organization CODENDA (the Comision Defensora del

Derecho a Nacer) was one of many beneficiaries of HLI’s renewed concentration on Latin

America after 1987.103 In Guatemala— the most populous republic in Central America at the

time—the Ministry of Health had begun to offer family planning services in 1967, two years

after IPPF affiliate APROFAM (the Asociación Pro Bienestar de la familia de Guatemala)

had been formed.104 Despite its relatively high population and the early introduction of

modern birth control methods, Guatemala still had one of the lowest rates of contraceptive

use in Latin America by the 1980s.105 A number of factors account for the low acceptance

rates, including resistance from Guatemala’s indigenous population, lack of health care

infrastructure, and the persistent political and military strife that plagued the country between

101 See Motley Hallum, “The Transformation of the Christian Right in Central America,” in Smidt and Penning (eds), Sojourners in the Wilderness, 219. 102 Formalized in the “National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75 as approved by Reagan on January 17, 1983,” these imperatives “affirmed” that the United States would pursue its “established goal of containing and reversing Soviet expansionism” by competing with the USSR “in all international arenas.” Pach, 80, 82, 84. 103 Dr. Eduardo Fuentes Spross, Codenda, “Fighting Rich Anti-Natalists,” HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 13, (December 1986), 12. 104Richard S. Monteith, John E. Anderson, Maria Antonieta Pineda, Roberto Santiso, Mark Oberle, “Contraceptive Use and Fertility in Guatemala,” Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1985), 279, Accessed 12/11/2009. 105 Monteith, Anderson, Pineda, Santiso, Oberle, 279.

210 a CIA-engineered coup in 1954 and the end of the civil war in 1996.106 In December 1986,

CODENDA’s President Dr. Eduardo Fuentes Spross wrote to Father Marx to thank HLI for

funding and providing material that had helped CODENDA mount a variety of campaigns

against APROFAM.107 HLI’s donation to CODENDA offers yet another example of the organization’s determination to ensure that Guatemalans continued to resist contraception and abortion, and the organization’s inadvertent contributions to the Reagan administration’s broader anti-Communist project in Latin America.

A 1987 policy statement succinctly articulated HLI’s intentions: “Since the anti- life/anti-family juggernaut has, for many years, used the very effective technique of networking, we believe that we…should do likewise.”108 The group’s efforts in Latin

America clearly show that HLI was willing to expend considerable time, funding and effort to do so.VHI and HLI’s leaders’ access to and collaboration with local lay and religious leaders was premised on contemporary political developments that seemed to threaten traditional family values, as well as the Pope’s efforts to reign in dissident clergy across the region. HLI’s Latin American outreach also demonstrated the organization’s pragmatism and opportunism since it adapted its rhetoric and agenda to incorporate a broader array of “pro- family” elements in order to address the primary concerns of local activists. The same themes were evident in HLI’s outreach to Brazil.

Father Marx had been horrified by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recent attempts to institute stronger family planning programs and legislative change in Brazil.109

The WHO justified its push by claiming that between two and five million abortions were

106 Jeremy Shiffman and Ana Lucía Garcés del Valle, “Political History and Disparities in Safe Motherhood between Guatemala and Honduras,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Mar., 2006), 64, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20058851, Accessed: 12/11/2009. 107 Fuentes Spross, “Fighting Rich Anti-Natalists,” 12. 108 Father Paul Marx, “Policy Statement of Human Life International,” (April 1987), CMRX 53/22. 109 Father Paul Marx, “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 1, (January 1987), 2.

211 being performed each year in Brazil, most of which were illegal.110 Although he believed that

WHO had exaggerated the scale of the epidemic, Father Marx agreed that abortion was a serious problem in Brazil.111 As he told supporters, a “softening-up process” spearheaded by feminist leaders and programs funded by USAID and IPPF, intended to pave the way for legalized abortion, had “begun.”112 He believed that it was only a matter of time before abortion would be legalized in the world’s largest Catholic nation.113

During Marx’s September visit, HLI opened its first branch in Rio to stop Brazil

“drift[ing] toward death.”114 HLI joined several existing Billings’ Natural Family Planning groups that were also attempting to offer alternatives to the Brazilian Family Welfare Society

(BEMFAM), Planned Parenthood’s local affiliate.115 HLI initiated its Brazilian campaign by giving Portuguese-language copies of The Silent Scream to local pro-life sympathizers, including several medical doctors, so that they could dramatize the realities of abortion when addressing local audiences.116 To help Brazilian activists persuade their fellow citizens that abortion was murder, VHI also translated “The First Days of Life” for their use and sent them a pro-life propaganda pamphlet detailing foetal development to humanize the victims of abortion.117 HLI was prevented from challenging U.S. funding for population programs in

Brazil, however, since it could not unearth evidence linking USAID to illicit abortions or

coercive tactics that had cast doubt on the agency’s involvement in Peru’s population control

programs. Instead, HLI focused on fostering grass roots opposition to population control

110 Marx, “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death,” 2. 111 Marx, “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death,” 2. 112 Marx, “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death,” 2, 5. 113 Marx, “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death,” 1. 114 Marx, “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death,” 1-2. 115 Marx, “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death,” 2. BEMFAM, like many of its counterparts across Latin America, traced its origins to the 1960s. The family planning provider had become an IPPF affiliate in 1967, two years after its founding, and had immediately adopted the federation’s policies on sexual and reproductive health. See BEMFAM, “BEMFAM in Brazil: Brief History,” http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.bemfam.org.br/&ei=1W6DS9m0IIWwsw OimPCxDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBemfa m%26hl%3Den, Accessed: 12/11/2009. 116 Father Paul Marx, “HLI Invades Brazil Again,” Special Reports, No. 24, (1986), 5. 117 Marx, “HLI Invades Brazil Again,” 5.

212 providers, taking its battle against the IPPF from Capitol Hill to the frontlines in developing countries.

Consolidating transnational networks at international meetings

The broad pro-family agenda that had made HLI so attractive to Latin American conservatives also facilitated the organization’s expansion and professionalization in the

United States, particularly after the group implemented its first “National Grassroots

Organization Plan” in 1987.118 Domestically, HLI embarked on a campaign to found branches in all fifty states.119 The plan targeted ten for the 1986-1987 fiscal year: Michigan,

New York, Illinois, California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Minnesota and

Missouri.120 Early indications suggested that HLI’s U.S. drive would be moderately successful—in the first months of 1987, Michigan established a full state committee, while promising prospective pro-life leaders in Florida, California, New York and North Carolina

had been identified by the group’s search committees.121 Yet HLI’s ultimate goal was to

“battle…school sex clinics, euthanasia laws, abortion, infanticide and other horrors” as

effectively as possible by “mobiliz[ing] a volunteer network in every state.”122 The drive’s broad agenda suggests that HLI’s pro-family approach was responding to and crystallizing

around the organization’s expansion into developing nations.123 The organizations’ move

from its initial headquarters in Washington D.C. to a more spacious compound in

Gaithersburg, Maryland, at the end of 1987 was another sign that HLI had become a major

hub for transnational organization.124 By this point, HLI employed 39 part- and full-time staff

118 See “HLI Expanding Efforts in the US,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 2, (February 1987), 7, and Thomas V. Wykes, Jr., “Be An HLI Volunteer in Your State!” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 2, (February 1987), 7. 119 “HLI Expanding Efforts in the US,” 7, and Wykes, “Be An HLI Volunteer in Your State!” 7. 120 “HLI Expanding Efforts in the US,” 7, Wykes, Jr., “Be An HLI Volunteer in Your State!” 7. 121 “HLI Expanding Efforts in the US,” 7, Wykes, Jr., “Be An HLI Volunteer in Your State!” 7. 122 “HLI Expanding Efforts in the US,” 7, Wykes, Jr., “Be An HLI Volunteer in Your State!” 7. 123 “HLI Expanding Efforts in the US,” 7. 124 See Father Paul Marx, “Behind the Scenes at HLI,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 7, (July 1987), 4-5.

213 worldwide and supported a growing number of volunteers in its sixteen branches scattered across North America, Europe, Asia, the Pacific and Africa.125

Father Marx’s determination to “organize leaders from all over the…Latin world and teach them how to resist” incursions from international population control providers remained at the forefront of HLI’s goals for 1987.126 A series of articles published in the May

1987 edition of HLI Reports underscored the organization’s focus on the region by warning readers of the systematic “depopulation of Latin America” at the hands of international family planning providers.127 Several articles also emphasized the importance of uniting Latin

American activists within a single pro-life federation.128 Reports tabulated the financial expenditures of population control providers, named Latin American affiliates of international family planning NGOs, and detailed the number of clinics and “distribution posts” operated by each group.129 According to HLI’s correspondents, over forty organizations were actively promoting population control in Latin American countries, from

Argentina to Venezuela.130

Although international family planning providers’ efforts were probably far less coordinated than the reports suggested, HLI clearly intended the results to shock Latin

American readers and pro-life sympathizers alike into action.131 Most importantly, every HLI article intimated that Latin American activists needed to agree upon a comprehensive

125 Marx, “Behind the Scenes at HLI,” 4. 126 Father Paul Marx, Special Reports, No. 28 (1987), 4. Also see “The Depopulation of Latin America,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 5, (May 1987), 1-2. 127 See “The Depopulation of Latin America,” 2, “Funds for Sterilizing Latin America,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 5, (May 1987), 3, and “Planned Parenthood’s Depopulation Network,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 5, (May 1987), 9. 128 See “The Depopulation of Latin America,” 1-2, “Funds for Sterilizing Latin America,” 3, and “Planned Parenthood’s Depopulation Network,” 9. 129 “Planned Parenthood’s Depopulation Network,” 9. 130 “The Depopulation of Latin America,” 1. Countries discussed were: Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Also see “Planned Parenthood’s Depopulation Network,” 9. 131 “The Depopulation of Latin America,” 1, “Planned Parenthood’s Depopulation Network,” 9.

214 response to population control and actively oppose campaigns that agitated for changes in restrictive abortion laws.132 One asserted that it was imperative that Latin American pro-life

leaders draw upon the considerable experience of their North American counterparts and

learn from their mistakes.133 To this end, HLI convened two major international meetings in

1987. Both contributed to the expansion of the organization’s transnational network by bring

regional leaders together and giving them a chance to strengthen existing relationships and

forge new alliances. Preparations for HLI’s Third Annual International Symposium on

Human Sexuality in Mexico City dominated the first half of the year, while the latter half was

dedicated to revitalizing the European pro-life movement at a Protect Life in All Nations

(PLAN) Conference in Scotland.134

HLI’s Mexican team, headed by Angelina Muniz, organized the 1987 Latin American

meeting in cooperation with Father Marx.135 Conference planners expected that the meeting

would attract widespread interest from Latin American activists, due in part to HLI’s efforts

over the previous twelve months to build contacts with pro-life leaders throughout the

region.136 So as to cater to the anticipated demand and guarantee places for local activists,

HLI capped the number of “non-Latins” permitted to attend the conference at five hundred.137

Like HLI’s Montreal meeting, the organization’s third annual conference was bilingual, but

this time speakers presented in Spanish and English.138 This conference also heralded the

132“Don’t Imitate the North,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 5, (May 1987), 10. 133“Don’t Imitate the North,” 10. 134 See Chapter Seven of this thesis for a discussion of HLI/PLAN’s 1987 Conference in Scotland. 135 Father Marx told Special Reports readers that HLI funnelled around $2000 per month into its Mexican branch, in addition to providing communications technology including IBM typewriters “to cope with the flood of correspondence’ generated by the symposium. Father Marx’s comments highlight the dynamic of dependency that often existed between branches of NGOs in the developing and developed world. Father Paul Marx, “Dear Friend of the Babies,” Special Report, No. 28, (1987), 2, 6. 136 Marx, “Dear Friend of the Babies,” 2. 137 Marx, “Dear Friend of the Babies,” 2. 138 Marx, “Dear Friend of the Babies,” 2.

215 beginning of a new phase of transcontinental pro-life activism in Latin America with the inaugural meeting of the Alliance for the Family in Latin America (AFLA).139

A record crowd of thirteen hundred activists from thirty-two countries attended HLI’s

Mexico City symposium between April 29 and May 3, 1987.140 A further fifteen hundred

Latin American youth participated in a vibrant pro-life festival that paralleled the official meeting.141 The youth meeting Angelina Muniz coordinated showed that the pro-life message resonated with a good many young Latin Americans.142 Similarly, it demonstrated HLI’s commitment to grooming future pro-life leaders and foreshadowed the youth alliance that would emerge as a potent force in UN politics in the coming decades.143 Although the overall mood of the conference was celebratory, many speakers and participants took the opportunity to lament the challenges population control and legalized abortion posed to pro-life and family values.144 Guatemalan Professor of Medicine Dr. Carlos Perez Avendano and

CODEDENA President Dr. Eduardo Fuentes Spross, for example, took the opportunity to discuss the challenges they had encountered when coordinating their challenges to sex education and population control campaigns.145

Yet when Mexican activists asked keynote speaker Dr. Bernard Nathanson for his advice, he responded bluntly: “Do not follow in the bloody footprints of the United States and

Western Europe. Mexico can still hold her head high in the community of nations, for having

139 AFLA was the fruition of plans made by Father Marx, Christine De Vollmer and Magaly Llaguno at HLI’s second annual conference in Montreal. See Marx, “Dear Friend of the Babies,” 1, and “HLI Symposium Unites Theory and Practice,” 1-3. 140 “News Flash,” Special Report, No. 31, (1987), 8; HLI, “Advertisement for Tapes from the International Symposium on Sexuality, April 29-May 3, 1987,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 5, (May 1987), 11. 141 “Human Sexuality Symposium Studies Family and Population Questions,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 2. 142 “Human Sexuality Symposium Studies Family and Population Questions,” 2. 143 See Buss and Herman, xxxi. 144 See for example “Opposition to Population Control,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 1-2, and “AID Whitewashes Guatemalan Program,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 4-5. 145 “Opposition to Population Control,” 1-2, and “AID Whitewashes Guatemalan Program,” 4-5.

216 resisted the murderous abortion ethic.”146 Nathanson’s statement embodied a common thread running through the conference’s proceedings—developed nations had failed to prevent the legalization of abortion, but if Latin Americans learned from their colleagues’ failures, they might yet prevail against “contraceptive imperialism.” At the same time, this exchange was symptomatic of deeper historical tensions between Latin Americans and the United States; whether deliberately or otherwise, Nathanson tapped into a pervasive anti-gringo sentiment that HLI frequently manipulated to foster anti-population control attitudes in target populations across the region. In a sense, HLI was asking Latin Americans to emulate pro-life

tactics pioneered in the United States in order to reject U.S.-funded international family

planning programs. In this way, HLI depicted itself not only as a representative of Latin

American pro-life interests, but also as an ally equally invested in outcomes north and south

of the border.

The national origins of invited experts again demonstrated HLI’s determination to

promote Latin American self-determination. Apart from a few keynote speakers, the majority

of those who addressed the symposium and ran workshops were Latin American. Speakers

discussed a broad spectrum of pro-life, pro-family issues, from the movement’s ideological

roots to a scientific rationale for eschewing contraception, ways to foster grassroots activism,

how to mount successful direct action protests, and the best ways to organize effective

educational campaigns and provide pregnancy counselling services.147 Thirty of the fifty

presenters hailed from Latin America, and the program was rounded out by fourteen speakers

from North America, five Europeans and one doctor from New Zealand.148 Although

Catholic clergy were well represented on the program, two-thirds of Latin American speakers

146 Bernard Nathanson, “From the Victim’s Viewpoint,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1987), 4. 147 Representatives of Birthright and other Emergency Pregnancy Services in Canada and Colombia, for example, joined prolife lawyers, sidewalk counsellors, direct action leaders and medical professionals to present their views. See HLI, “Pamphlet: Third Annual Symposium on Human Sexuality,” (1987), 3. 148 See HLI, “Pamphlet: Third Annual Symposium on Human Sexuality,” (1987), 3.

217 were lay leaders, including directors of pro-life organizations from Venezuela, Mexico,

Colombia, Argentina, Honduras, Brazil, Uruguay and Haiti.149 Yet again, this showcased

HLI’s emphasis on nurturing local leadership and providing opportunities for activists to build regional alliances. Moreover, the wide range of countries represented at the meeting suggests that participants shared HLI’s vision of uniting the Latin American pro-life movement.150

As already mentioned, one highlight of the conference was the formal establishment of the Alliance for the Family in Latin America (AFLA).151 In her capacity as the alliance’s secretary, Magaly Llaguno had arranged AFLA’s tax exemption in the United States prior to the meetinf, since it yielded the strongest returns from fund-raising campaigns.152 Board members then passed AFLA’s first bylaws, readying the alliance for action.153 In addition,

Father Marx promised that HLI would “organize a similar alliance of the family on every continent to oppose the worldwide International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)” once

AFLA had been “successfully launched.”154 In the meantime, AFLA demonstrated the potential political uses of regional federations by issuing an urgent appeal on behalf of the meeting’s 1300 participants titled the “Declaration of Mexico City.”155

This declaration criticized U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop’s handling of

HIV/AIDS, a disease that posed a serious international health threat in part because it

149 HLI, “Pamphlet: Third Annual Symposium on Human Sexuality,” 3. 150 HLI, “Pamphlet: Third Annual Symposium on Human Sexuality,” 3. 151 See Father Paul Marx, “Alliance for the Family Set to Oppose Population-Controllers in Latin America,” Special Report, No. 32, (1987), 3. Also see “HLI Office Opened in Miami,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 4, (April 1988), 11, which showed images of HLI’s new offices, built to accommodate Llaguno’s work coordinating prolife work across Latin America through VHI and AFLA. 152 Marx, “Alliance for the Family Set to Oppose Population-Controllers in Latin America,” 3, “Scrapbook,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 8, (August 1987), 7. 153 Marx, “Alliance for the Family Set to Oppose Population-Controllers in Latin America,” 3, “Scrapbook,” 7. 154 Father Paul Marx, “Huge Mexico City Symposium Mobilizes Latins to Fight Anti-lifers,” Special Reports Vol. 32, (1987), 3. 155 HLI, “An Urgent Appeal to C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc. D, Surgeon General of the United States, from the 1,300 Participants in the Third Annual International Symposium on Human Sexuality,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 10-11. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Symposium Declaration Exposes Condom King Koop,” Special Report, No. 32, (1987), 3.

218

“[knew] no borders.”156 AIDS had been a frequent topic of discussion at HLI’s Mexico meeting, reflecting pro-life organizations’ preoccupation with the disease’s origins and transmission.157 Meanwhile, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop’s coordinated response to AIDS, which focused on preventing the disease from spreading further, had come about in a surprisingly ad hoc manner.158 Koop was given no formal mandate to respond to the emerging crisis but seized on an off-the-cuff remark by Reagan, made after his 1986 State of the Union address, as permission to launch a study and public relations campaign.159

With the help of medical and scientific experts, as well as leading health organizations across the United States, Koop quickly prepared a detailed statement on the transmission and treatment of AIDS that advocated, among other measures, sex education campaigns aimed at students as young as eight or nine years old, and promoting condom use to prevent the spread of the disease.160 On October 22, 1986, Koop issued his statement on AIDS at a press conference and afterward politicians, health care workers, and educational professionals distributed some twenty million copies of the report to the American public.161 Pro-life leaders agreed with the U.S. surgeon general on at least one point: in the war against AIDS,

156 See C. Everett Koop, “Statement to the U.S. Public Health Service, (Wednesday October 22, 1986), 1, Koop Papers, NIH/NLM, Box 148, File 33, and C. Everett Koop, “Address Presented to the President’s Commission on AIDS, Washington D.C.,” (September 9, 1987), 3, NLM/NIH, Koop Papers, Box 148, File 33, and HLI, “An Urgent Appeal to C. Everett Koop,” 10-11, Marx, “Symposium Declaration Exposes Condom King Koop,” 3. 157 See for example Father Paul Marx, “Canadian Church Sounds Uncertain Trumpet Against A.I.D.S,” Special Report, No. 29, (1987), 1-2, and Father Paul Marx, “A.I.D.S – The First Politically Protected Plague,” Special Report, No 31, (1987), 1-2. Fear and confusion dominated the earliest discussions of the disease initially known as “GRID” (Gay Related Immune Deficiency), which had begun to strike down otherwise healthy young men in predominantly gay communities in 1981. Two years later, advances in medical understanding of the disease saw it renamed Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). See C. Everett Koop, “Introduction to AIDS Archive,” 1, (c. 2004-2005), NLM/NIH, Koop Papers, Box 148, File 32. 158 See Sandra G. Boodman, “How C. Everett Koop shook up his former allies on the right and surprised his new friends on the left,” The Washington Post Magazine, (November 15, 1987), 20, 26; C. Everett Koop, “Introduction to AIDS Archive,” 2. 159 Koop, “Introduction to AIDS Archive,” 2; W. Dale Nelson, “Reagan-Campaign,” Associated Press Washington, (May 2, 1986), NLM/NIH, Koop Papers, Box 49, File 5. 160 See C. Everett Koop, “Statement by C. Everett Koop, MD, Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service,” (22nd October 1986), 1-15, NIH/NLM, http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/B/B/M/W/_/qqbbmw.pdf, Accessed: 3/4/2009, and Joyce Price, "Koop Urges Early Sex Education to Fight AIDS," Washington Times Section A, (23 October 1986): 1, 10. 161 US National Library of Medicine/National Institute of Health, “AIDS, the Surgeon General, and the Politics of Public Health,” http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/Views/Exhibit/narrative/aids.html, Accessed: 3/4/2009.

219 there were “no neutral, nonaligned countries...because,” as Koop had told the UN General

Assembly, “all countries” were “at risk, all populations…vulnerable to attack.”162 They differed on the crucial question of how to best contain the threat AIDS posed, however.

Father Marx argued that American and European attempts to “contain or cure the disease” were doomed.163 His reasoning directly referenced HLI’s core ideological tenets, since the initiatives did not address AIDS’ root cause: “the abuse of God’s powerful gift of human sexuality.”164 Several participants at HLI’s recent Mexico City symposium had even

claimed that they were better qualified to respond to the disease because they had more

experience handling “situations in which personal, familial, moral and political questions”

were “entangled.”165 The surgeon general’s emphasis on “safe sex” and more specifically

condom use enraged pro-life leaders who condemned his education campaign for its refusal

to link “morality” to “health.”166 “Using a condom does not change the rules of the game,”

John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe wrote in HLI Reports, “it is still Russian roulette, with a few extra

empty chambers in the gun.”167

Magaly Llaguno would later voice fears shared by countless pro-life sympathizers in

North, Central and South America when she claimed that USAID and population control

providers were using AIDS as an excuse to launch a “major push all over Latin America” to

“legalize…abortion…under the guise of protecting women.”168 The authors of HLI’s

“Declaration of Mexico City” denounced the surgeon general’s safe sex campaign in even

162 C. Everett Koop, “Remarks Presented before the U.N. General Assembly, New York,” (October 20, 1987), 1, NLM/NIH, Koop Papers, MSC 489, Box 59, Folder 15. 163 Marx, “A.I.D.S – The First Politically Protected Plague,” 1. 164 Marx, “A.I.D.S – The First Politically Protected Plague,” 1. 165 “Focus on AIDS,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 1. 166 Marx, “A.I.D.S. – The First Politically Protected Plague,” 1. 167 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “The AIDS-Related Complex,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 4, (April 1987), 6. Also see Judie Brown, “Judie Brown’s Action Report: Understanding AIDS,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 10, No. 6-7, (June-July 1988), 22. 168 Magaly Llaguno, quoted in “Anti-Life Report: Stepped-Up Propaganda Push for ‘Safe, Legal’ Third World Abortions,” ALL About Issues, (February 1989), 19.

220 more strident terms, describing it as a “public policy catastrophe” that would further imperil

“traditional family values” already under siege in the United States and Latin America.169

Furthermore, the declaration accused the surgeon general of downplaying the threat AIDS

posed to “the people of the United States and the world.”170 HLI and AFLA concluded that

Koop’s “recommendations for controlling the spread of AIDS,” would therefore “do little or

nothing” to stop the “killer” disease.171

Citing a number of alleged health experts, the HLI/AFLA document questioned the

efficacy of condoms in preventing AIDS transmissions, and challenged the claims of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services that AIDS could not be spread via casual contact

or through insect bites.172 Further, the document urged Koop to “identify and register” all

AIDS carriers and to quarantine those who could not prove they would “not infect others

through sex acts or drug abuse” in the future.173 The criticisms reflected broader pro-life

disapproval of the Reagan administration’s handling of the issue by advocating far stronger

measures than the White House had taken up to that point. HLI’s leaders subsequently

decided to publish their statement as a full page advertisement in the Washington Post and

conservative Catholic newspaper The Wanderer to “alert the public to the dangers of AIDS

and the deadly flaws in Koop’s Report.”174

169 “Human Sexuality Symposium Studies Family and Population Questions,” 1. 170 HLI, “An Urgent Appeal to C. Everett Koop,” 10. 171 HLI, “An Urgent Appeal to C. Everett Koop,” 10. 172 HLI, “An Urgent Appeal to C. Everett Koop,” 10. 173 HLI, “An Urgent Appeal to C. Everett Koop,” 11. 174 See John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “H.L.I. Fights A.I.D.S. as World Offers Condoms, Abortion,” Special Report, No. 35, (1987), 7. Estimates place The Wanderer’s circulation at around 35, 000, a significant number of readers who would, given the general content of the publication, likely have supported HLI’s condemnation of Koop. See Mary Jo Weaver and R. Scott Appleby, (editors), Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1995), 337.

221

The Reagan administration largely ignored HLI’s accusations, even though several presidential advisors evinced considerable sympathy with the group’s position on AIDS.175 In a letter to HLI advisor and long-time colleague Dr. Herbert Ratner, the surgeon general described HLI ally Judie Brown’s response to the AIDS crisis as “beneath contempt.”176 Yet

Koop also admitted that he had “never before in [his] life felt so abandoned…by the pro-life forces for whom [he had] worked so hard for so long.”177 In so doing, Koop highlighted the growing rift between more progressive and conservative pro-life activists in the United

States.

The most conservative U.S. pro-life groups such as HLI sought allies outside of the

United States because they were disillusioned with many of their domestic counterparts.

United under HLI and AFLA’s interwoven banners, conservative pro-life organizations entered a new phase of transnational activism, during which they consolidated existing networks and began to experiment with coordinated campaigning.178 Moreover, HLI’s global expansion in the late 1980s and early 1990s provided a solid ideological and organizational base for future transnational pro-family networking and lobbying.

Soon after the Mexico meeting, AFLA found another opportunity to test its strength, this time in Honduras. Under the alliance’s mantle, pro-life activists headed by Honduran journalist and HLI contact Martha Lorena de Casco opposed the introduction of a UN-funded sex education program targeted at Honduran students between first grade and high school.179

175 Perhaps most (in)famously, future White House Director of Communications Pat Buchanan caustically wrote that the “poor homosexuals” had “declared war upon nature,” leading “nature” to “[extract] an awful retribution (AIDS).” See Pat Buchanan, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, (11/28/1986), http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553, Accessed: 22/2/2010. 176 See C. Everett Koop, “Letter to Dr. Herbert Ratner,” (June 8, 1987), 1, NLM/NIH, Koop Papers, Box 85, Folder 6. Also see C. Everett Koop, “Letter to Father Marx re: AIDS,” (September 3, 1987), 1-3, Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM Subject File, HE 001-480428. 177 Koop, “Letter to Dr. Herbert Ratner,” 1,. Also see Koop, “Letter to Father Marx re: AIDS,” 1-3. 178 Koop, “Letter to Dr. Herbert Ratner,” 1,, and Koop, “Letter to Father Marx re: AIDS,” 1-3. 179 See Dan Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras: Program Considered ‘Amoral,’” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 9, (September 1987), 3.

222

Lorena de Casco described the program, “Education on Population,” as an insidious example of the “new demographic colonialism” invading Latin America.180 Given that the program had been developed with assistance from the United Nations Education Scientific

Organization (UNESCO), UNFPA, and a $2 million USAID grant, her complaint had some basis in reality.181 AFLA also expressed concerns that Honduras might “become another

Mexico,” where the government had recently sanctioned the distribution of contraceptives to

“youth without parental consent.”182 In the eyes of pro-life leaders, the Mexican government’s decision had further eroded core family relationships and values.183 Alliance spokesmen urged government officials to develop an alternative “Education on the Family” program that would have the opposite effect of inculcating the Honduran population with

“positive moral and cultural messages” to counter these troubling trends.184

The pro-life group’s proposal clearly resonated within the center-right Liberal

Honduran government. Vice-President Alfredo Fortin reportedly described the UN-funded

initiative as “amoral and contrary to good customs” shortly before Minister of Education

Elise Valle de Martinez suspended the program.185 When the minister of education

announced the government’s decision, she intimated that it was neither age appropriate nor,

as alliance activists had suggested, in the “national interests.”186 Honduran pro-life activists’

success in this instance proved that it was possible to stimulate effective grass roots

opposition to population control programs outside of the United States. The Honduran

branches’ proactive approach was soon reflected in HLI’s broader agenda for the region. As

180 Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras,” 3. 181 Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras” 3. 182 Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras,” 3. 183 Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras,” 3. 184 Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras,” 3. 185 Alfredo Fortin and Ellise Valle de Martinez, quoted in Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras,” 3. Also see Dario Moreno, The Struggle for Peace in Central America, (Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 1994), 96. 186 Fortin and Valle de Martinez, quoted in Zeidler, “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras,” 3.

223

Father Albert Salmon remarked during a tour of Brazil, “this time let Planned Parenthood try

to undo our work, instead of us having to trying to restore the work of the Church.”187 Here,

Salmon’s choice of words was telling: from his perspective, HLI was not only defending the

family from negative modern values, symbolized by contraception and abortion, but was

actually playing an important role in the religious resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.

Broadening the battlefield: from “pro-life” to “pro-family”

A personalized message from President Reagan greeted one thousand pro-life activists

when they arrived at HLI’s “World Conference on Love, Life, and Family” on April 27,

1988, in Irvine, California.188 Reagan made a particular point of welcoming HLI’s overseas

guests when he acknowledged that abortion was a “worldwide…tragedy.”189 Alluding to his

1984 Mexico City policy, the president wrote: “We are determined to deny U.S. funds to any

agency that supports, directly or indirectly, coercive population control programs.”190 Reagan

also expressed his deep appreciation for HLI’s support and commitment to ensuring that the

United States complied with the Mexico City policy, and encouraged pro-life activists to

continue their good work.191 He told the conference that “the law of our land…ought not to

embrace” abortion, before emphasizing that “the foreign policy of our land ought never to

export it.”192 Despite Reagan’s strong endorsement of their cause, HLI’s U.S. leaders

nevertheless encouraged their Latin American counterparts to join the Vatican in raising their

collective voices against “US interference” in their region, particularly the “ideological

187 Father Albert Salmon, quoted by Father Paul Marx in “Our Chance to Beat ‘Planned Barenhood’ in Brazil,” Special Report, No. 49, (1988), 7. Also see “HLI’s New Outreach in Brazil,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 11, (November 1988), 3. 188 Father Paul Marx, “World Conference a Huge Success,” Special Report, No. 46, (1988), 1; HLI, “Help ‘Restore All Things’ at the World Conference on Love, Life and Family,” (Gaithersburg, MD: HLI, 1988), 1-2; President Ronald Reagan, “Letter to Father Marx re: HLI Symposium,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1988), 12. 189 Reagan, “Letter to Father Marx re: HLI Symposium,” 12. 190 Reagan, “Letter to Father Marx re: HLI Symposium,” 12. 191 Reagan, “Letter to Father Marx re: HLI Symposium,” 12. 192 President Ronald Reagan, “Letter to HLI Irvine Conference,” (April 19, 1988), in HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1988), 12.

224 bombardment” of international population control providers.193 Latin America’s influence on

HLI was also evident at the 1988 meeting; since 1981, run most of its symposia under the banner of “human sexuality,” but the Irvine meeting was promoted as a forum for the discussion of “love, life and the family.”194 This rhetorical shift not only responded to the needs of Latin American activists, but also attested to HLI’s evolving agenda and paved the way for the evolution of a dedicated pro-family movement in the coming decades.

At the parallel Latin American meeting held during the Irvine conference, the testimony of several participants intimated that the shift was already more than rhetorical. A dozen activists representing HLI affiliates in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia,

Chile, Brazil, Peru and Argentina met to discuss AFLA’s growth and provided conference participants with a wealth of information on pro-life issues in their region.195 Testimony at

AFLA’s meeting was decidedly mixed; although timely action by leaders from Honduras and

Peru had managed to prevent the introduction of sex education and population control campaigns, Brazilian, Colombian and Guatemalan activists gave less favourable reports.196

Latin American leaders nevertheless agreed that Magaly Llaguno’s dedication to providing

Spanish language literature produced at HLI’s Miami office was an invaluable addition to their campaigns against Planned Parenthood.197 Struggling Latin American groups still relied heavily on U.S. funding, a point made abundantly clear when Chilean pro-life leader

Fernandez Rojas accepted $4,000 from Father Marx during the meeting on behalf of HLI’s

193 Jorge Marique Hurtado, Archbishop of La Paz, Bolivia, “Letter to the Editor: Forge Ahead,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 8, (August 1988), 12. Also see “Latin American Pro-lifers Protest US interference,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 7, (July 1988), 2 as well as the statement issued by clergy and lay leaders from Peru, Panama, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Spain and the USA, “Latin American Coalition Denounces Contraceptive Imperialism,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 8, (August 1988), 1-2, and “Reject Contraceptive Imperialism, Vatican Urges,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 9, (September 1988), 1-3. 194 HLI, “Help ‘Restore All Things,’” 1-2. 195 See “Coercive Depopulation in Latin America,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1988), 4; Marx, “World Conference a Huge Success,” 1. 196 See “Coercive Depopulation in Latin America,” 4, and Father Paul Marx, “International Roundup: Colombia,” Special Report, No. 46, (1988), 6. 197 See “Coercive Depopulation in Latin America,” 4, and Jorge Marique Hurtado, Archbishop of La Paz, Bolivia, “Letter to the Editor: Forge Ahead,” 12.

225 new branch in Chile, the Movimiento Anonimo por la Vida, with which his organization

planned to establish an education campaign targeted at reducing the estimated 85,000 illegal

abortions performed in his country each year.198

The relationship between HLI and its growing transnational network was symbiotic;

HLI’s Latin American network drew resources and support from North America while

implicitly, and at times explicitly, endorsed and therefore legitimized U.S. leaders’ opposition

to contraceptive “imperialism.” Eleven leaders from nine Latin American nations formulated

a joint statement at their meeting, which protested “U.S. Interference” in Latin America

through agencies including the World Bank and USAID.199 The protest, which they issued on

behalf of all AFLA members, was yet another instance in which HLI and its affiliates

appropriated leftist rhetoric by protesting imperialistic U.S. policies in Latin America.200

AFLA’s statement played to existing fears in Latin America by alluding to decades of

informal imperial rule by the United States in the region in order to arouse opposition in Latin

America, as well as the United States, to this “new” form of “contraceptive” imperialism.

Several of the alliance’s members amplified the statement’s impact by alleging that

U.S.-funded population control programs in their countries employed varying degrees of

coercion despite President Reagan’s promises to the contrary.201 AFLA therefore called on

the U.S. government to mount a thorough investigation into their claims and authorized HLI

to act as the coalition’s spokesman in the United States—a role the organization had always

sought.202 Cooperation between U.S.-activists and their Latin American contemporaries

posed a distinct challenge to population control NGOs and to the U.S. government, even

198 Father Paul Marx, “International Roundup: Chile,” Special Report, No. 46, (1988), 6. 199 The countries included Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Peru, and AFLA’s secretary Magaly Llaguno contributed to the statement as well. See “Latin American Leaders Protest U.S. Interference,” 2. 200 See “Latin American Leaders Protest U.S. Interference,” 2. 201 “Latin American Leaders Protest U.S. Interference,” 2. 202 “Latin American Leaders Protest U.S. Interference,” 2.

226 though family planning had begun to move “from the margins to legitimacy” in Latin

America.203

Juxtaposed against Reagan’s praise for HLI’s efforts to enforce the Mexico City policy, AFLA’s statement takes on greater significance. The Latin American leaders showed that activists outside of the United States shared their U.S. colleague’s determination to pressure the U.S. government to enforce its Mexico City policy—although unsurprising, this

is an important point given the vital role transnational information exchanges played in HLI’s

political lobbying endeavours. AFLA’s 1988 meeting showcased a new cohesion between

North and Latin American pro-life activists as demonstrated by international leaders’

growing willingness to engage in accountability politics by making coordinated transnational

appeals beyond their own borders. In so doing, AFLA explicitly challenged population

control NGOs who claimed that they represented not only the best interests, but also the

majority opinion of individuals across Latin America.204

Conclusion Again, it comes home how much worse things would be except for HLI starting all these fires, all around the world, giving hope here and there with literature many would never see, tools they would never use!205 There was some truth to Father Marx’s self-congratulatory statement, but Billy Joel’s

1989 “We didn’t start the fire” offers a better analogy for HLI’s involvement in and impact on Latin America. Joel’s refrain: “We didn’t start the fire, it was always burning, since the world’s been turning…” hints at the persistent anxieties that drove the expansion of transnational pro-life, pro-family networks in the 1980s and 1990s.206 HLI’s expansion into

Latin America was premised on a constellation of stresses generated by internal

203 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “HLI v. IPPF Congress in Brazil,” Special Report, No. 61, (1989), 5. 204 Latin American Leaders Protest U.S. Interference,” 2. 205 Marx, “Travel Diary – Colombia,” (25 September, 1991), 8. 206 Billy Joel, “We Didn’t Start the Fire,” Storm Front, Track 2 (Columbia Records, 1989, Lyrics from official Billy Joel website, http://www.billyjoel.com/music/storm-front/we-didnt-start-fire, Accessed: 3/4/2010.

227 developments, namely the fall of dictatorships, and external pressures, such as incursions from transnational NGOs. Many of the activists HLI drew into its expanding Latin American network felt profoundly threatened by the effects of globalization—or at least the impact they perceived globalization had had on their communities. Specifically, they objected to the

“imposition of modern, secular values” on their “traditional cultures and communities” that globalization seemed to facilitate.207 HLI’s Latin American outreach also demonstrated the organization’s regional nous and willingness to adapt its tactics to suit local circumstances.

HLI intensified its global outreach programs after it became clear that cuts to U.S. population control expenditures would not stop international family planning providers from expanding into developing nations, particularly Latin American countries, where “half the world’s

Roman Catholics” were expected to reside by the year 2000.208 The convergence of HLI’s

Latin American outreach and Pope John Paul II’s efforts to bring his “unruly flock into line” also foreshadowed their future endeavours in Eastern Europe.209

207 Andrew H. Tan makes this point with respect to the rise of transnational terrorist networks, but the sense of dislocation he identifies in his subject is very much applicable to pro-life activists and sympathizers in much of the developing world during the 1980s and 1990s. See Andrew T. H. Tan, A Handbook of Terrorism and Insurgency in South East Asia, (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007), 29. 208 Simpson, “For John Paul, a decade of activism.” At the same time, HLI and the Vatican echoed President Reagan’s policies in Latin America because it was in many cases politically expedient to support conservative, right wing politicians rather than risk pro-choice reform under more democratic successors. The close relationship between Vincente Fox and conservative Catholics in Mexico, for example, clearly resembled the ties between the U.S Christian Right and President George W. Bush. See Butler, 126-130. 209 Simpson, “For John Paul, a decade of activism.” Moreover, HLI’s growing global presence set the stage for the global pro-family lobby’s emergence as a significant power broker in international affairs in the following decades. See for example HLI, “Stand with the Pope for Life and Family at the Second Annual Symposium on Human Sexuality,” (Washington D.C.: HLI, 1986); HLI, “Defend Life and Family! At the Third International Symposium on Human Sexuality,” (Gaithersburg, MD: HLI, 1987); “Human Sexuality Symposium Studies Family and Population Issues,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (1987), 1-2; “World Symposium Shows Growing Pro-life Strength,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1988), 1-2; Kathy Kelly, “Symposium in Split a Success,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 11, (November 1988), 1-2; Father Paul Marx, “The Struggle for Africa,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 11, (November 1989), 1-2; “1300 Attend Eight World Symposium,” HLI Reports, Vol. 8, No. 6, (1990), 10.

228

Chapter Seven Glasnost and Perestroika: The Pope, HLI, and Eastern European Pro-Life Politics In the absence of communism, the Eastern European people “now want all the evils of the West, from prostitution to wealth to affluence to Planned Parenthood and the humanism that is moving in.1 ~ Father Paul Marx, quoting Cardinal Jozef Tomko (1991)

The dramatic unravelling of the Soviet Union in the final years of the 1980s and

beginning of the 1990s offered new opportunities for pro-life networking even as political

possibilities slipped away from activists in the United States.2 A new phase of globalization,

beginning in the 1990s with the “end of the Cold War and Soviet Communism as a viable

economic and political system,” and the resultant “global expansion of democracy” gave rise

to a “global identity crisis” according to renowned scholar Samuel P. Huntington.3 In his

estimation, these developments inclined disaffected populations around the world to turn to

“religion for comfort, guidance, solace and identity.”4 Czech Cardinal Jozef Tomko’s 1991

conversation with Father Paul Marx, quoted above, intimates that these deeply felt anxieties

predisposed conservatives, particularly Eastern European Catholics, to accept and propagate

Human Life International’s (HLI) message. Tomko seemed to believe that the economic

globalization that attended glasnost, or the ‘opening’ of the former Soviet bloc at the end of

the Cold War might see the worst social and sexual excesses infect Eastern Europe with a sort

of hedonistic moral anarchy. As in the United States and Latin America, “abortion assumed

greater political salience” in Eastern Europe after pro-life groups such as HLI encouraged

1 Father Marx, referring to a 1991 conversation with then head of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith Cardinal Jozef Tomko. See Father Paul Marx, “Europe Travel Diary,” (April-May 1991), 12, CMRX 79/34. 2 See Father Paul Marx, “Huge Mexico City Symposium Mobilizes Latins to Fight Anti-Lifers,” Special Report, No. 32, (1987), 2, and HLI, “Pamphlet: Third Annual Symposium on Human Sexuality,” 3, PMRX, Box 3. 3Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), 13. 4 Huntington, Who Are We? 15. 229 local conservatives to see it as a symbol of “an escalating conflict between secular, progressive and Catholic worldviews.”5

Seeking to (re)Unify “The Splintered Image”: HLI in Europe Whereas HLI guided the already considerable endogenous resistance to population

control providers and legalized abortion in Latin America, Father Marx faced a sterner task in

Europe. In his own words, he aspired to revive the region’s “anemic [sic] pro-life

movement,” beginning by establishing a pro-life bulkhead in Western European countries

from which HLI later launched incursions into the former Soviet bloc.6 Father Marx had

long-standing ties to vocal pro-life leaders in Europe, but HLI’s leaders signalled their

renewed focus on the continent by selecting Belgian doctor Philippe Schepens as the

recipient for the organization’s Annual International Award in 1987.7 For over two decades,

Schepens played a key role in the formation and maintenance of global pro-life networks.

Schepens had served as the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life’s

(Doctors Who Respect Life) secretary for fourteen years, and was an inaugural member of

HLI’s Board of Advisors.8 Schepens’ career symbolized the powerful complimentary

relationship between religious and professional prolife organizations that developed after the

United Nations’ (UN) 1974 Bucharest meeting.9

The social, cultural and political turmoil that attended the Cold War’s final years

opened up new opportunities for Father Marx to exploit the close relationships he had forged

5 Andrzej Kulczcki, “Abortion Policy in Postcommunist Europe: the Conflict in Poland,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, (September 1995) 492. 6 Father Paul Marx, “HLI’s Urgent Needs,” Special Report, No. 33, (1987), 7. 7 “HLI’s 1987 Award: Dr. Philippe Schepens,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 5. Father Marx began contacting European pro-life leaders early in 1987, seeking suggestions for possible locations for new HLI branches throughout the region. See for example John O’Reilly, “Letter to Father Paul Marx,” (21 February 1987), 1, and John O’Reilly, “Letter to possible HLI contacts: Ireland,” (16 February 1987), 1, both in CMRX 11/4. 8 “HLI’s 1987 Award: Dr. Philippe Schepens,” 5. 9 For example, Schepens represented the Holy See at the October 1986 meeting of the General Assembly of the World Medical Association. See Dr. Philippe Schepens, “Sophisticated Evil,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 1, (January 1987), 12.

230 with prominent European pro-life leaders since the 1970s, but HLI began by focusing on

Germany, Scotland, and Yugoslavia.10 To this end, HLI and its Scottish affiliate, the Human

Life Council (HLC) co-sponsored a three day meeting of Protect Life in All Nations (PLAN)

in Edinburgh, Scotland, from August 27 to 30, 1987.11 PLAN’s semi-annual gatherings,

including several that were scheduled to coincide with UN conferences, gave activists the

chance to meet in order to formulate tactics and plan campaigns.12 HLC director Sara Brown

organized and promoted the meeting, titled “The Splintered Image,” as the “first international

prolife symposium” in the United Kingdom to “approach anti-life, anti-family practices as

symptoms of the same disease.”13 In fact, Sara Brown’s “total approach” to contraception and

abortion, and aggressive condemnation of the International Planned Parenthood Federation

(IPPF) had drawn her into HLI’s network four years earlier.14

One hundred and thirty-five activists from twelve countries assembled in Edinburgh

for “The Splintered Image,” which featured speakers from Poland, Yugoslavia, Sweden,

Ireland, and the United Kingdom, as well as five keynote addresses by American pro-life

leaders.15 Father Paul Marx, Judie Brown, John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, Bob Sassone and China

expert Steven Mosher each discussed their respective areas of expertise.16 The conference

covered a wide range of topics, ranging from the international dimensions of the pro-life

movement to practical anti-abortion strategies such as pregnancy counselling and support,

10 See Father Paul Marx, “Huge Mexico City Symposium Mobilizes Latins to Fight Anti-Lifers,” Special Report, No. 32, (1987), 2, and HLI, “Pamphlet: Third Annual Symposium on Human Sexuality,” 3. Long time colleagues included Dr. Shepens, Father Rene Bel, Valerie Riches and Martin Humer. Also see Chapter three of this thesis, and HLI, Special Report, No. 33, (1987), 1. 11 See Sara Brown, “The Splintered Image,” (Human Life Council: Fife, Scotland, 1987), 1, JCOK, Box 4, File 4. Judie Brown and Father Marx formed Protect Life in All Nations, which operated as an umbrella organization for the individual groups within HLI’s transnational pro-life network, several years before. “PLAN,” HLI Report, Vol. 1, No. 5, (November 1983), 3. 12 “PLAN,” 3. 13 Brown, “The Splintered Image,” 1; Sara Brown, “Protect Life in All Nations 4th International Conference, Edinburgh, Pamphlet,” (Human Life Council: Fife, Scotland, 1987), 1, CMRX 52/17. 14 See Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary,” (August 31, 1987), 6, CMRX 79/26. 15 Brown, “The Splintered Image,” 11-18; Father Paul Marx, “HLI Shores Up U.K.,” Special Report, No. 36, (1987), 3. 16 Brown, “The Splintered Image,” 11-18; Marx, “HLI Shores Up U.K.,” 3.

231 and discussions of legalized euthanasia.17 Participants were also invited to renew their

“dedication…to stop the…pro-death movement” through a combination of “educational and planning sessions.”18 A number of the conference’s participants chose to demonstrate their fresh commitment to the cause by emulating John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s example and participating in direct action protests. The HLI Reports editor himself hoped to spark

European activists’ interest in nonviolent strategies with his speech “Walking in the Footsteps of Martin Luther King, Jr.”19 Direct action tactics were not entirely unknown in Europe at the time. Dutch priest Father Joannis Koopman, for example, had been leading regular monthly pro-life pickets at the Hague since the Netherlands legalized abortion in 1981.20 Koopman’s organization ‘Stirenzo’ also mounted public information campaigns that distributed literature at high schools and showed pro-life films such as The Silent Scream in a bid to turn public

17 Twelve leaders came from across the UK, while each of the remaining nations sent one speaker. Brown, “The Splintered Image,” 11-18. Speakers from both sides of the Atlantic foreshadowed the emergence a new pro-life trend when they devoted considerable attention to the importance of recognizing and treating post abortion syndrome. Two years later, for example, HLI founded Sorrow’s Reward, a new periodical responding to an apparent demand for post-abortion healing in the United States. Sorrow’s Reward targeted women who regretted aborting their pregnancies, offering understanding, validation of their subsequent experiences, and even a sort of absolution. HLI’s Director of Communications Kathleen Kelly was a self-described “victim of an abortion profiteer” who suffered considerable guilt before returning to the Catholic faith. Kelly subsequently joined Project Rachel, an organization formed in Milwaukee in 1984, which like Women Exploited By Abortion (WEBA) focused on post-abortion syndrome and healing. Project Rachel advocated faith-based “post-abortion healing,” and counselled women struggling to forgive themselves for deciding to terminate their pregnancies. The Project was a direct response to what author Paula Ervin called “an epidemic of broken women” suffering from post-abortion syndrome across the United States. By depicting the women who procured abortions as victims of abortion, Project Rachel and WEBA attempted to reassign “guilt” for taking the life of an unborn child to the doctors who terminated pregnancies and legislators who refused to pass a Human Life Amendment. See PMRX – Sorrow’s Reward, 1989-1990. Also see Kathleen Kelly, “Victim of an Abortion Profiteer,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 9, (September 1987), 1-2, 4. HLI was linked to WEBA in a number of ways. For example, HLI Reports Editor John Cavanaugh O’Keefe spoke at the organization’s 1984 conference. Several other HLI members and reporters were involved in various aspects of WEBA’s work. See “jcok Diary,” HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 9, (December 1984), 4, Kathleen Kelly, “Post-Abortion Healing,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 11, (November 1987), 8, and Paula Ervin, quoted in Father Paul Marx, “The Aftermath of Abortion,” HLI Reports Vol. 4, No. 10, (September 1986), 3. 18 “European Triumph for P.L.A.N.,” ALL About Issues, (November-December 1987, 16. 19 Brown, “The Splintered Image,” 11-18. For an example of the adoption of direct action tactics in Latin America, see Martha Lorena de Casco, “Pro-Life Nonviolent Action in Honduras,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1987, 9. 20 Marx, “Travel Diary,” (September 4, 1987), 9; Pater J. Koopman, SSS, Foundation for the Right to Life of the Unborn Child, “Report from the Netherlands,” Vol. 7, No. 1, (January 1989), 5.

232

opinion against abortion.21 Protests at abortion clinics were not yet as commonplace as they had become in the United States, however.

Glasgow’s Roman Catholic Archbishop Thomas Winning was profoundly troubled by

Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s calls for local pro-life activists to experiment with rescue tactics, and

attempted to prevent “American rhetoric” corrupting his flock by initiating an “archdiocese-

wide news blackout” to coincide with the Edinburgh meeting.22 Forty conference participants

defied the Archbishop, however, and joined Cavanaugh-O’Keefe’s “peaceful protest” in front

of a local hospital that performed abortions.23 Their protest elicited some media interest, but

did not result in the violent confrontations or widespread condemnation Winning seemed to

have feared. The Edinburgh conference’s transnational influence was, however, evident in the

subsequent proliferation of direct action protests throughout Europe. The National Campaign

Coordinator of English pro-life group LIFE, Keith Davies, met Cavanaugh-O’Keefe in

Edinburgh and invited him to bring his nonviolent direct action tactics to England.24 Davies’

group already took practical action to prevent abortions by offering pregnancy counselling

services and housing indigent pregnant women, as well as engaging in political and

educational efforts.25 Cavanaugh-O’Keefe accepted Davies’ invitation and returned to

England in 1988 to speak at LIFE’s annual conference.26

Davies later told Cavanaugh-O’Keefe that he had inspired several LIFE members who

left the conference “committed to attempting future vigils and pickets.”27 Over the coming

years, pro-life activists mounted rescues in Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool, and

21 Marx, “Travel Diary,” (September 4, 1987), 9; Koopman, “Report from the Netherlands,” 5. 22 John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “HLI Brings Church’s Teaching to Reluctant Christians,” Special Report, Vol. 35, (1987), 1. 23 Marx, “HLI Shores Up U.K.,” 3. 24 Brown, “The Splintered Image,” 15. 25 Brown, “The Splintered Image,” 15. 26 Keith A. Davies, “Letter to John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe,” (17 October, 1988), 1, JCOK, Box 7, Folder 4. 27 Davies, “Letter to John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe,” 1.

233

Manchester.28 The protests, which demonstrated how transnational information exchanges were influencing pro-life tactics, resulted in several arrests and attracted mainstream news coverage.29 But the British courts proved less sympathetic to pro-life rescues than their transatlantic counterparts.30 In 1991, a group of activists based at Scotland’s Humanae Vitae

House launched a rescue effort in Britain after their legal bid to shut down the abortion clinic had failed. Their barrister argued that the group’s protest was a “last resort” to save babies, but the magistrate rejected their appeal.31

Father Paul Marx, meanwhile, spent the fortnight following the PLAN conference asking colleagues in Scotland, Germany, Holland, Luxembourg, and Switzerland “how

Human Life International could better serve…pro-life groups in Europe.”32 On a practical level, he helped HLI’s German director Fridolin Huber secure tax exemption for his organization, and proposed that Dutch Father Joannis Koopman’s center schedule a meeting of European leaders to announce HLI’s willingness to “work with and feed all prolife groups.”33 Father Marx hoped to capitalize on HLI’s rising profile in Europe, which he attributed to the organization’s “One More Child” campaign.34 HLI had appropriated the idea

28 Peter Greene, Humanae Vitae House, Scotland, “Letter to John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe,” (March 1, 1989), 1, JCOK Papers, Box 7, Folder 4; Jill Burdell, “Demo arrests at baby clinic,” Manchester Evening News, (March 11, 1989), front page, JCOK Papers, Box 2, Folder 1; Father James Morrow, “HLI Flourishes in Britain,” HLI Reports, Vol. 8, No. 3, (March 1990), 3; “Holy Innocents Pilgrimage in England,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 12, (December 1988), 3. Also see Father Marx, “Father Marx, Joan Andrews Help Launch Rescue Movement in South America,” Special Report, No. 59, (1989), 1. 29 Greene, “Letter to John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe,” 1; Burdell, “Demo arrests at baby clinic,” front page; Morrow, “HLI Flourishes in Britain,” 3; “Holy Innocents Pilgrimage in England,” 3. Marx, “Father Marx, Joan Andrews Help Launch Rescue Movement in South America,” 1. 30 In the United States, juries deliberating on abortion clinic trespass cases periodically acquitted the pro-life activists involved. See for example Garvan F. Kuskey, D.D.S, “A Jury Saves the Unborn,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 6, (June 1987), 9. 31 See Tasmin Geach, “Rescue in Britain – A Court Case,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 2, (February 1991), 3-4. By contrast, a similar approach succeeded in the United States in 1990, when 17 people arrested at an Omaha rescue were acquitted after convincing the jury that abortion was killing a person, and therefore they were defending the children. See Fr Matthew Habiger and Brian Hermes, “Necessity Defense Gets Rescuers Acquitted,” HLI Reports, Vol.8, No. 11, (November 1990), 3, 6. 32 Marx, “Travel Diary,” (August-September 1987), 8-15. 33 Marx, “Travel Diary,” (4, 6 September 1987), 9, 11. 34 See Father Paul Marx, “Abortion in Yugoslavia,” HLI Reports, Vol. 2, No. 5, (June 1984), 1, and Marx, “Travel Diary,” (4, September 1987), 9. Also see HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 11, (November 1988), 7, and Father Paul Marx, “Need in Yugoslavia: One More Child,” Special Report, No. 49, (1988), 5.

234 from Yugoslavian priest Anto Backovic and distributed pamphlets titled “Eight Reasons You

Should Consider Having One More Child” throughout North America and Europe in the late

1980s.35 The brochures were initially printed in English and German, but Father Marx hoped to also produce French, Dutch and Spanish language copies.36 The campaign no doubt raised

HLI’s European profile on a superficial level, but the tensions and uncertainty generated by

the end of the Cold War provided a fertile recruiting ground for the organization in Eastern

Europe.

Reagan, Gorbachev, and the consequences of ‘glasnost’

Negotiations between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union’s new

President Mikhail Gorbachev midway through 1985 completely revolutionized U.S.-Soviet

relations.37 The historic summits eventually culminated in a 1987 agreement to reduce both

countries’ nuclear weapon stockpiles, effectively ending the arms race and the Cold War.38

At the same time, Pope John Paul II intensified his efforts to foment a “Catholic Restoration”

in Eastern Europe.39 Under the Pontiff’s determined leadership, the Catholic Church re-

emerged from decades of turmoil and dissent as a potent political force on the global stage.40

Yet the world was “neither…at ease nor truly at peace” even after it had been “freed from the

spectre of a third global war between two superpower-led camps armed to the teeth with

nuclear weapons.”41 The United States in particular might have emerged victorious as the

35 Marx, “Travel Diary,” (4, September 1987), 9. 36 Marx, “Travel Diary,” (4, September 1987), 9. 37 James T. Patterson, Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 194. 38 Patterson, 194. 39 In fact, Pope John Paul II’s “mastery of television and other communications techniques” and “superb use of mass media” closely resembled President Reagan’s ability to communicate with the American people. See E. J. Dionne Jr., “Determined to Lead,” The New York Times, (12 May, 1985), Proquest.com, Accessed: 21/8/2009. Australian journalist Evan Whitton remarked in 1986 that both Reagan and John Paul II shared a “knack of playing to an audience.” See Evan Whitton, “The Road to Rome,” Sydney Morning Herald, (22 November, 1986), 41, Factiva.com, Accessed: 21/8/2009. 40 Dionne Jr., “Determined to Lead.” 41 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 22.

235 world’s lone superpower, but the future was anything but assured.42 Writing in the uncertain

aftermath of the Cold War, Huntington hypothesized that this new historical epoch would see

“cultural” divisions and “conflicts” replace the ideological divisions of old; consequently

“global politics” would also be “reconfigured along cultural lines.”43 As evidenced by the

formation and expansion of global pro-life networks since the 1970s, the divisions

Huntington anticipated had actually been two decades in the making by the 1990s.

The resulting “clash of civilizations,” in Huntington’s terms, was not, however,

limited to representatives of the world’s major religions. It also erupted between religious

fundamentalists and the secular challengers they had opposed for almost twenty years.44

HLI’s expansion across Eastern Europe from the mid-1980s onward was part of this global

cultural realignment and showed that pro-life leaders were both aware of and well-prepared

to exploit new political opportunities at the end of the Cold War.45 As the former Soviet bloc

“dissolved into sixteen states, each with its own national identity defined largely by culture

and history,” HLI joined Pope John Paul II’s efforts to replace Marxism with religious revival

in Eastern Europe.46

HLI manipulated the anxieties generated by rapid social and political changes in

Eastern Europe to gain support for and advance its pro-family agenda. But the organization

also altered its approach to fit the region’s perceived needs. Instead of battling to keep

population control providers out of developing nations, HLI had a different focus: attempting

to roll back decades of entrenched acceptance of contraception and abortion, and to play an

important role in the Catholic Church’s attempt to reclaim Eastern Europe from

42 Brzezinski, 29. 43See Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, (Summer 1993), 22, and Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, (London: Simon and Schuster, 2002), 19. 44 Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” 28. 45 See for example Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 37, (1988), 1-8. 46 Huntington, Who Are We? 258-259. HLI supplied $1500 and 20, 000 pro-life pamphlets to a Yugoslavian outpost in 1986. See HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 6, (May 1986), 8.

236

Communism.47 HLI’s outreach to Eastern Europe was also a response to American cultural

anxieties brought about by the fall of Communism; the United States was bereft of an

“‘other’ against which to define itself” for the first time since 1945, and as the country

struggled to respond to this and the effects of globalization, U.S. pro-lifers sought sanctuary

in the transnational identities they had been establishing for two decades.48 The political and

religious atmosphere after the Cold War altered HLI’s trajectory and simultaneously revealed

unexpected parallels between the countries that had been drawn into the organization’s

network since 1981; specifically, local activists often felt a profound sense of social

dislocation, which often resulted from rapid changes initiated by globalization.

As in Latin America and the Philippines, a combination of domestic and international

pressures influenced HLI’s trajectory. In the United States, President Reagan gave one last

token nod to right to life activists before he left office when he proclaimed January 17, 1988

National Sanctity of Human Life Day.49 Yet the fact remained that his administration, which

had started with such promise in pro-life leaders’ eyes, had not delivered significant domestic

victories.50 When George H.W. Bush was sworn into office in 1989, he made no move to

alter his predecessor’s population control policy. Neither, however, did he respond with much

enthusiasm to pro-life lobbyists who had gained considerable traction during Reagan’s

presidency.51 During Bush’s single term in office, the pro-life movement grew increasingly

47 British writer Paul Johnson called John Paul II “the Pope of the ‘Catholic Restoration.’” See Dionne Jr., “Determined to Lead.”. 48 Huntington argues that the fall of communism coupled with globalization “profoundly changed America’s external environment and had…three major consequences for American identity,” specifically: challenges to American exceptionalism and therefore U.S. national identity, globalization, and the rise of trasnational identities, often rooted in specific cultures or cultural movements. See Huntington, Who Are We? 257-258. 49 White House Office of the Press Secretary, “National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 1988; By the President of the United States of America, A Proclamation,” (January 15, 1988), 1-2, Reagan Presidential Library, Gary Bauer Files, Box 1, OA 16920, “Abortion.” 50 White House Office of the Press Secretary, “National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 1988,” 1-2. 51 Patterson, Restless Giant, 266.

237 restive despite a series of decisions, especially in State legislatures, that progressively tightened provisions for legalized abortion.52

In fact, pro-life leaders never really warmed to Bush as they had to Reagan, in part because they suspected that Bush did not genuinely support their cause, especially their opposition to U.S. funding for population control. Soon after Bush had been sworn in, for example, the American Life League (ALL) criticized him for installing Thomas R. Pickering as the United States’ ambassador to the UN.53 Pickering had previously served as U.S.

Ambassador to Nigeria and El Salvador, where ALL claimed he had endorsed population control programs; this made him a poor UN representative for the nominally pro-life Bush administration in ALL’s eyes.54 Yet despite pro-life leaders’ concerns, the Bush administration upheld its predecessor’s Mexico City policy.55 Pro-life unease nevertheless erupted into countrywide direct action protests, clinic bombings and attacks on staff of abortion clinics.56 Set against the rapidly souring economy, the latter years of Bush’s

52 In July, 1989, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court‘s Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision upheld “a Missouri law that banned abortions in publicly funded hospitals and clinics.” Within three years, some “40 states…passed or retained” a range of “parental consent laws,” fifteen of which “enforc[ed] these laws,” while just “13 states allowed the use of Medicaid funds for abortions.” Even though the Supreme Court’s 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey verdict further restricted access to legal abortion, pro- life leaders were deeply disappointed that the court had not struck a stronger blow against Roe v. Wade. In fact, Bush maintained the vast majority of Reagan’s “pro-life” policies, ranging from bans on RU-486 to fetal tissue research. See Dallas A. Blanchard, The Anti-Abortion Movement and the rise of the religious right: from polite to fiery protest, (New York: MacMillan, 1994), 74-77, Laurence H. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992), 176, Patterson, Restless Giant, 242, Deborah Rowland, The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Women’s Rights in America, (Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing, 2004), 128, and “An Interview with Fr. Marx, After Casey – Where we go from here,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 8, August 1992), 1-3. 53 “New U.N. Ambassador Linked to Population Control Aid,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 11, No. 2, (February 1989), 19. 54 Pickering served in Nigeria between 1981 and 1983, when he was reposted to El Salvador until 1985. 55 See Susan A. Cohen, “Abortion Politics and U.S. Population Aid: Coping with a Complex New Law,” International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), 138. 56 Rowland, 286, and Alesha E. Doan, Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 84-89.

238 presidency were especially turbulent and saw thousands of pro-life protestors arrested at mass demonstrations such as the 1991 “summer of mercy” in Wichita, Kansas.57

New avenues for global pro-life organizing were particularly important in the waning

days of the Reagan administration and throughout George H.W. Bush’s presidency, therefore,

when U.S. pro-life leaders had all but given up hope of securing legislative change at home.58

In contrast, HLI’s ambitious outreach efforts to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland,

among other countries, benefitted from the freer discussions permitted by political ‘glasnost,’

and from local clergy and activists’ greater openness to their message.59 The same sense of

uncertainty that generated domestic direct action protests increased HLI determination to

seek out alternative means of exerting social, cultural and political influence outside of the

U.S., particularly when new opportunities for international pro-life organizing began to open

across Europe.60

Putting pro-life ‘glasnost’ into Eastern Europe HLI’s growth in Eastern Europe was premised on similar circumstances to those faced

by Latin American conservatives: globalization seemed to be promoting secularization, and

progressive values that conflicted with Catholic teachings, especially regarding sexuality. In

the absence of Communism, organized religion—and religiously affiliated NGOs such as

HLI—endeavoured to fill the power vacuum in both practical and psychological terms. Moral

conservatives, for example, attempted to reclaim some semblance of stability and control by

blaming their anxieties about the impact of these rapid political, economic and social changes

57 See Patterson, 247. Operation Rescue was just one of the organizations at the forefront of the direct action movement.See Doan, 84-89 and Rowland, 286. 58 Judie Brown, “President’s Column,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 10, No. 10, (October 1988), 5. 59 Reuter News Agency, “Pontiff Salutes Poland in Easter Day Message,” The Globe and Mail, (20 April, 1981), P3, Factiva.com, Accessed: 21/8/2009. 60 The National Right to Life Committee generally maintained a positive attitude toward George H. W. Bush, but HLI and ALL’s leaders were less convinced of his sincere commitment to the pro-life cause. See for example National Right to Life Committee, “Reagan Endorses Bush for President/Pro-lifers determined to defeat Dukakis,” NRL News, (May 19, 1988), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, Mariam Bell Files, Box 11, OA19273, “Title X,” and Judie Brown, “Letter to President Reagan,” (June 22, 1988), 1, Reagan Presidential Library, WHORM, FG 999, 72 996.

239 on their symbolic causes: contraception and abortion. A series of pro-life conferences that

HLI sponsored after 1988 attested to the organization’s determination to use these developments to reach out to Eastern European moral conservatives. Nearly three thousand pro-lifers from thirty countries attended HLI meetings in Irvine, California, Split, Croatia, and Toronto, Canada in 1988.61 All three meetings showcased the organization’s increasingly global complexion and prominence in international religious as well as political circles, but it became clear that Eastern Europe was, for the moment, HLI’s number one priority.62

Despite different local circumstances, the organization’s outreach in Eastern Europe closely resembled the composition, activities, and strategies of its Latin American affiliates.

Under the direction of Pontifical Council for the Family representative Marijo Zivkovic, HLI

Yugoslavia’s role in Europe quickly came to resemble that played by Vida Humana

Internacional’s Miami headquarters in Latin America.63 The Yugoslavian branch translated and printed a wide range of pro-life materials in eleven languages including Czech, Polish,

Slovak and Hungarian, as well as English; these early publications represented HLI’s first clandestine bid to expand into Eastern Europe.64 By 1988 HLI openly admitted that it was establishing European branches dedicated to “strengthen[ing] family life.”65 Viewed in the geopolitical context in which Father Marx and his colleagues were operating, the

61 See “World Conference Shows Growing Prolife Strength,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1988), 1; Kathy Kelly, “Symposium in Split a Success,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6 No. 11 (1988), 1-2; “Rescue, HLI Conference Coincide,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 12, (December 1988), 1-2; Father Paul Marx “World Conference in Toronto: Maybe Our Finest,” Special Reports, No. 50, (1988), 2. 62 1495 attended the Irvine meeting, 560 participated in Split, and nearly 670 gathered in Toronto. See “World Conference Shows Growing Prolife Strength,” 1; Kelly, “Symposium in Split a Success,” 1-2; “Rescue, HLI Conference Coincide,” 1-2; Marx “World Conference in Toronto: Maybe Our Finest,” 2. Also see HLI, “You are warmly invited to Yugoslavia…Symposium on Human Life and Sexuality and a Retreat at Medjugorje, August 29-September 9,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 7, (July 1988), 11, and “Next HLI World Conference in Toronto,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 7, (July 1988), 5. For information on the Toronto conference, see “5th International Conference on Love, Life and the Family, October 26-30, 1988, Toronto,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 8, (August 1988), 11. 63HLI Yugoslavia was established in 1983. See John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Human Life International Opens Four New Offices Overseas,” (c. 1983), CMRX 53/27. 64 See Father Paul Marx, “I Need Your Help,” Special Report, No. 46, (1988), 7-8; Marijo Zivkovik, “H.L.I’s Press At Work,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 2, (February 1989), 8. 65 Soon after the PLAN meeting HLI claimed to have “inspired ten pregnancies (that we know of).” See Father Paul Marx, “Dear Friend,” Special Report, No. 33, (1987), 1, and John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Pro-Life Pioneer,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 9, No. 6, (November-December 1987), 39.

240 organization’s plans had far greater symbolic significance. By infusing Catholic teaching back into Eastern Europe, HLI participated in the broader project of undermining Communist regimes and breaking through the Iron Curtain.66 HLI was operating in a “post-‘Cold

War’…world” which was, as J. Andrew Slack and Roy Doyon rightly note, “in a transition,” and “marked by two trends, one towards democratization and the other towards the re- emergence of ethnic nationalism.”67 Together with the Catholic hierarchy in Eastern Europe,

HLI fused these two trends together by promoting democratization and religious revival.68

Five hundred and sixty pro-life leaders from Eastern and Western Europe gathered in

Split, Yugoslavia for five days in August and September 1988 to, in Father Marx’s words,

“put some pro-life glasnost” into Eastern Europe.69 HLI’s evolving modus operandi was immediately apparent in Split: like previous conferences in Canada and Latin America, the meeting clearly aimed to foster pro-life leadership.70 Talks were simultaneously translated into English, Croatian and German during the meeting so that they would reach the widest possible audience and encourage the pro-life representatives from the four Eastern European

66 See Marx, “Dear Friend,” Special Report, No. 33, (1987), 1; Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, “Pro-Life Pioneer,” 39. 67 J. Andrew Slack and Roy R. Doyon, “Population Dynamics and Susceptibility for Ethnic Conflict: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Mar., 2001), 139. 68 Slack and Doyon, 139. 69 Kelly, “Symposium in Split a Success,” 1-2; Father Paul Marx, “H.L.I.’s Most Exciting Opportunity in Years,” Special Report, No. 44, (1988), 7; Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 45, (1988), 8. 70 When Irish pro-life leader wrote to colleagues to solicit interest in establishing an HLI branch in Ireland, he observed that he had in the past “received literature from various branches of HLI” in “Austria, Canada, Scotland and Singapore,” and noted that “the emphasis and character of each is quite different and attuned to its local environment.” See John O’Reilly, “Letter to possible HLI contacts: Ireland,” (16 February 1987), 1, CMRX 11/4. Five Western European and North American leaders spoke at HLI’s symposium, including International Right to Life Federation secretary Bill Sherwin, who discussed his plans to coordinate transnational pro-life organizations. Sherwin was particularly concerned with the growing availability of RU- 486, threats to handicapped children and euthanasia. See Kelly, “Symposium in Split a Success,” 2, and “H.L.I.’s Most Exciting Opportunity in Years,” 7-8. Father Marx, English doctor Peggy Norris, Belgian Dr. Philippe Schepens, and Austrian Dr. Martin Humer rounded out the Western contingent. Eastern Europe, meanwhile, was represented by three Yugoslavian HLI leaders, including economist and Pontifical Council for the Family member Marijo Zivkovic, his daughter Jelka Zivkovik, and Dr. Antun Lisec. See “You are warmly invited to Yugoslavia…,” 11. Zivkovic’s ties to the Pontifical Council again show that HLI was developing a much closer relationship with the Vatican. Andrezj Winkler, a psychotherapist who specialized in addiction and post-abortion issues, and Polish doctor and pro-life activist Helen Gulanowska spoke on behalf of Poland. Also see National Office of Post-Abortion Reconciliation and Healing, “Reclaiming Fatherhood: A Multifaceted Examination of Men Dealing with Abortion – Resource People,” http://www.menandabortion.info/l1- resource4.html, Accessed: 20/1/2010.

241 nations to learn from experienced activists and forge working relationships with each other.71

But Father Marx decision to hold HLI’s 1988 meeting in Split had a deeper symbolic

significance too; Marx selected Split because of its proximity to Medjugorje, one of the most

important modern Catholic pilgrimage sites.72 The Virgin Mary first revealed herself to six

young people or visionaries in 1981, and continued to appear to them regularly thereafter,

offering a series of apocalyptic messages that urged people to “return to God.”73 In the seven

years between Mary’s first appearance and HLI’s 1988 meeting in Split, Medjugorje had

become a spiritual center for populist Catholicism, attracting between five and six thousand

visitors a day.74

Catholic fascination with Medjugorje also demonstrates, perhaps more clearly than

any other example, the way in which populations assailed by economic, political, social and

cultural strife returned to their religious roots to seek solace and comfort. Medjugorje

symbolized Catholicism’s survival in Eastern Europe, and, according to the faithful, showed

that God had already “softe[ned] the hearts of Communists” in Yugoslavia.75 The faithful

hoped that the apparitions presaged the imminent “collapse of Communist governments in

Europe.”76 After all, the Virgin Mary’s appearance at Medjugorje had forced the local

Communist rulers to moderate their approach to Catholicism in the years immediately

preceding the Soviet Union’s disintegration.77 Since the Second World War, Communist

governments had consistently stifled religious expression in Yugoslavia, but they were unable

71 See Father Paul Marx, “You Did It Again!” Special Report, No. 48, (1988), 6; Kelly, “Symposium in Split a Success,” 1-2. 72 James M. Jurkovich and Wilbert M. Gesler, “Medjugorje: Finding Peace at the Heart of Conflict,” Geographical Review, Vol. 87, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), 449-450. 73 See Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 49, (1988), 7. Also see Medjugorje Web, “Overview of Medjugorje,” http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 74 Jurkovich and Gesler, 449-450. 75 Jurkovich and Gesler, 460. 76 Jurkovich and Gesler, 460. 77 Jurkovich and Gesler, 454-455.

242 to suppress the Catholic revival that followed Mary’s first visitation.78 In fact, as growing

numbers of Catholics flocked to the town, the local government actually began to promote

Medjugorje as a tourist site, and by 1989 it had become “the most popular tourist attraction in

Yugoslavia.”79 That “a Marxist government” would “encourag[e] Christian pilgrims” to visit

a “Marian shrine in the heart of its territory” convinced many pilgrims that the Virgin Mary

was already performing miracles at Medjugorje.80

For Father Marx and countless other Catholics, Medjugorje therefore became

a powerful symbol of the Catholic Church’s determination to reclaim lands and souls

lost for decades to “godless” Communism.81 It is not especially surprising, then, that

HLI promoted the European meeting by advertising Split’s proximity to

Medjugorgje, and even organized tours to the shrine.82 The conference’s location also

showed that HLI was drawing closer to the Vatican: Pope John Paul II publicly

endorsed HLI’s commitment to re-Christianizing Eastern Europe by bestowing his

apostolic blessing on the Split meeting, which allowed HLI to portray itself as an

unofficial emissary of the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe.83 On a practical level,

distinctions between the organization’s religious and political functions in Eastern

Europe blurred after 1988, when HLI’s Yugoslavian press began to print Bibles as

78 Jurkovich and Gesler, 454-455. 79 Jurkovich and Gesler, 454-455. 80 Jurkovich and Gesler, 454-455. 81 Jurkovich and Gesler, 464. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Inside the People’s Paradise,” Special Report, No. 38, (December 1987), quoted in Confessions of a Prolife Missionary, (Gaithersburg, Maryland: Human Life International, 1988), 313. 82 See HLI, “You are warmly invited to Yugoslavia…,” 11. 83 In 1992, HLI was invited to send four representatives to one Pontifical Council for the family session; the significance of their presence is clearer when one considers that just 150 people were invited to represent all the world’s countries at the meeting. See Father Albert G. Salmon, “World Pro-Life Leaders Meet at the Vatican,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 1, (January 1992), 9. See Antonio Cardinal Casaroli, Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, “Letter to the Split meeting announcing apostolic blessing,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 11, (November 1988), 12, and Father Paul Marx, “Planned Parenthood and Reds V. Church and NFP,” Special Report No. 37, (1988), 2.

243 well as pro-life literature destined for Eastern European countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where such materials were scarce.84

After the Berlin wall came down on November 9, 1989, HLI joined the rush of

other “Americans and Western Europeans” including “entrepreneurs…opportunists,

do-gooders, religious missionaries…and feminists” who “flock[ed] to Central and

Eastern Europe.”85 HLI continued to oppose feminist ideals and sexual liberation,

but married these goals to new attempts to “turn back the clock” and reassert

traditional—specifically Catholic—family values in response to Eastern European

activists’ concerns. As rapid social and economic changes opened Eastern Europe to

a range of progressive and conservative transnational NGOs, HLI worked with local

groups to repeal long standing “anti-life” laws. In countries that had long since

legalized abortion, the pro-life cause symbolized and merged into a broader push to

erase the final vestiges of Communist rule. The relationship between religious revival

and politics was perhaps most evident in Poland where, according to Bishop Jerzy

Dabrowski, “Society [had] projected its hopes and aspirations onto the Church,” and

the spiritual battle to reconsecrate Communist countries to Catholicism would bring

practical political outcomes in the 1990s.86

Rolling back the tide in Poland

Pope John Paul II set a “bloodless” revolution in motion in the summer of 1979 when

he made his first Papal pilgrimage to Communist Poland.87 Within a year of his visit, a small

84 See Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 45, (1988), 8, and Father Paul Marx, “HLI Meeting Shows Need for East Bloc Pro-Life Work,” Special Report, No. 49, (1988), 4. 85 Frances Elisabeth Olsen, “Feminism in Central and Eastern Europe: Risks and Possibilities of American Engagement,” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), 2217-2218. Also see Brzezinksi, Second Chance, 50. 86 According to Michael Kaufman, “many Polish priests” hoped that a 1987 Papal visit to Poland would make it possible for them to “openly identify with the labor unions as a vehicle for national revival and independence.” See Michael T. Kaufman, “Polish Church Awaits Pope, Bewildered by Its New Vigor,” The New York Times, (7 June, 1987), Proquest.com, Accessed: 12/2/2010. 87 “Poland’s revolution has its finale in the Vatican,” The Independent – London, (6 February, 1991), 9, Factiva.com, Accessed: 24/6/2009; Christian Caryl, “1979: The Great Backlash,” Foreign Policy, (June 22,

244 core of Poles in the port city of Gdansk formed an independent trade union called Solidarity, which began to agitate against the Communist government.88 Between 1980 and late 1981,

Solidarity developed close ties to the Catholic Church and clashed with the government on a range of issues and won several concessions.89 Yet in December of 1981 the army seized control of Poland, instituting martial law and retaliating against Solidarity by suppressing its activities, persecuting its members and harassing Catholic clergy who had supported the movement.90 The brutal repression did not, however, end organized resistance to Communist rule.91 Rather, “Catholic and non-Catholic activists and intellectuals gathered in churches across” Poland, which became “safe haven[s]” for political dissidents during the “turbulent

Solidarity years.”92 Because of this, the Polish Catholic “Church…became a symbol of freedom, and firmly established itself as the only legitimate authority in the country.”93

Finally, in June of 1989, Poland held its first partially-free parliamentary elections, heralding the end of Communist rule.94

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Cold War was thawing on two fronts: the first political and the second religious in nature. Hence Catholicism played an especially

2009), http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/18/the_great_backlash_1979?obref=obinsite, Accessed: 24/6/2009. Former Solidarity leader and then-Polish President Lech Walesa credited the Pope with providing the “spark” that prompted the rise of Solidarity during a 1991 visit to the Vatican, the first as head of state. See Philip Pullella, “Walesa Thanks Pope for helping Poland move towards democracy,” Reuters News, (5 February, 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 24/6/2009. 88 Caryl, “1979: The Great Backlash.” For details of President Reagan’s support of Solidarity, see Patterson, Restless Giant, 204-205. 89 Jack M. Bloom, “The Solidarity Revolution in Poland, 1980-1981,” The Oral History Review, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Winter - Spring, 2006), 39-40. 90 See Barry Newman, “Quiet Crusade: As Pope’s Visit Nears, The Church in Poland Hews to Its Strategy – Essentially United It Intends to Outlast Regime, Make Totalitarianism Less Total – Rulers Offer to the Vatican,” The Wall Street Journal, (1 June 1987), Factiva.com, Accessed: 17/8/2009. 91 Resistance to the communist regime went underground after 1981, when many Catholic priests allowed dissidents to meet in their Churches, shielding them from political persecutions. See Jonathon Kaufman, “Pope, in Poland, Savors Victory and Looks East,” The Boston Globe, (2 June, 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 10/9/2009; Mirella W. Eberts, “The Roman Catholic Church and Democracy in Poland,” Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 50, No. 5 (Jul., 1998), 823. 92 Eberts, 820. 93 Eberts, 820. 94 Resistance to the communist regime went underground after 1981, when many Catholic priests allowed dissidents to meet in their Churches, shielding them from political persecutions. See Kaufman, “Pope, in Poland, Savors Victory and Looks East.” Also see Eberts, 823.

245 significant if often underestimated role in lifting the Iron Curtain.95 Poland in particular was

“the focal point” of Pope John Paul II’s “efforts to further religious rights throughout the

Soviet Bloc,” and eventually became the epicentre of HLI’s push into Eastern Europe.96 The organization’s interest in Poland was not surprising given that ninety-five percent of the nation’s thirty-nine million people identified as Catholic.97 Previous pro-life amendment campaigns in Ireland and the Philippines, where, with the help of international organizations, local activists had secured pro-life amendments to their respective constitutions, provided the template for HLI’s efforts in Poland.98 Unlike Ireland and the Philippines, however, abortion had a long history in Poland—the communist government had legalized the procedure in

1956, and had made terminations freely available in state hospitals three years later.99 Since most Poles did not have access to other contraceptives, abortion quickly became a popular method of birth control and by the 1980s the annual abortion rate very nearly matched the number of live births.100

95 In Poland, a common saying reflected the exchange of power as viewed by citizens: in 1991, feminist Hanna Jankowska commented that Poland was on the verge of trading “a red regime for one that [wore] black robes,” referring to communism and the clerical garb worn by Catholic priests respectively. See “Editorial: From Red Flags to Black Robes,” St Louis Post Dispatch, (18 May, 1991), 2B, Factiva.com, Accessed: 10/9/2009. Also see Victor L. Simpson, “John Paul’s Decade,” The Associated Press, (9 October, 1988), Proquest, Accessed: 17/8/2009. 96 In fact, the Catholic Church also benefitted from the fall of Communism in Poland; in the years immediately following Solidarity’s successful challenge to the government, the state authorized the construction of 1400 new Catholic Churches. See Newman, “Quiet Crusade,” and Janet Hadley, “God’s Bullies: Attacks on Abortion,” Feminist Review, No. 48, The New Politics of Sex and State, (Autumn 1994), 96. 97 Hadley, 96. 98 See Chapter Three of this thesis for details. 99 Hadley, 97. 100 Hadley, 97. Hadley reports that the abortion rate had climbed to 600, 000 per year, in contrast to the live birth rate of 700, 000. By 1989, some estimates suggested Polish doctors were performing between 800 000 and 1 million terminations each year in comparison to a birth rate of 605 00. See Drusilla Menaker, “After 33 years of Legal Abortion, Some in Poland want it Outlawed,” The Associated Press, (8 May, 1989), Proquest, Accessed: 12/11/2009. A 1990 public opinion poll revealed that “coitus interruptus and the… rhythm method” remained “the most popular forms of birth control.” See Kitty McKinsey, “Polish women balk at ban on abortions,” The Toronto Star, (25 April, 1991), F1, Factiva.com, Accessed: 12/11/2009. Even though birth control pills and IUDs became more widely available after the fall of communism in Poland, women’s ability to access the alternative methods was limited when the Polish government “eliminated subsidies for birth control bills, more than tripling their price” in May of 1991. See “Poland ends subsidies for birth control pills,” New York Times Abstracts, (9 May, 1991), page 11, Column 1, Proquest.com, Accessed: 12/11/2009.

246

The abortion rate in Poland was subject to some debate, but attracted considerable international interest, particularly in the American media. As early as 1984, HLI Reports had featured an article by Wladyslaw Bernard Skrzydlewski, a professor of social ethics at the

Philosophical and Theological College of the Dominicans in Krakow.101 Skrzydlewski argued that New York Times and Newsweek articles had downplayed abortion’s impact on Polish society and culture by implying that recent surveys had grossly exaggerated the high number of abortions performed in Poland.102 By contrast, Skrzydlewski viewed the abortion rate, which conservative estimates placed at six hundred thousand terminations per year, as an epidemic.103 Within two years, HLI was receiving regular appeals from Polish HLI Reports readers requesting assistance with a variety of pro-life initiatives.104 Quite clearly, then,

Polish conservatives’ anxieties about the consequences of widespread abortion prompted them to invite HLI into Poland, and foreshadowed the future impact of bigger uncertainties that would be generated at the end of the Cold War.

When Father Marx visited the Pope’s home country in 1987 and again in 1988, he brought financial, material and spiritual aid to impoverished Polish pro-lifers.105 Inspired by

Marx’s vision of a re-Christianized Eastern Europe, Bishop Damon Zimon agreed to establish one of HLI’s first branches in Poland.106 Zimon told Marx that he and his colleagues hoped

“to take advantage of” HLI’s “experience” to promote their “common idea of human service.”107 Realistically, HLI’s financial support was of equal, if not greater, importance than

101 See Wladyslaw Bernard Skrzylewski, O.P, “Truth on Abortion in Poland,” HLI Report, Vol. 2, No. 3, (March 1984) 6. 102 Skrzylewski, “Truth on Abortion in Poland,” 6. 103 Michael Broniatowski, “Polish Deputies Exchange Insults in Anti-Abortion Debate,” Reuters News, (16 May, 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 12/11/2009. 104 See HLI Reports, Vol. 4, No. 10, (October 1986), 8. 105 Zbigniew Szymanski met Father Marx at a Vatican Synod in 1980, and later recalled that after his 1987 visit to Poland, HLI had “played a tremendous role” in the Polish pro-life campaign. See Zbigniew Szymanski, “Poland,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 4, (April/May 1992), 16. Also see for example Father R.H., “Letter to the Editor: Pregnancy Aid in Poland,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 4, (April 1988), 12; Damon Zimon, Bishop of Katowice, “Letter to the Editor: We Join You,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 12, (December 1988), 12. 106 Zimon, “Letter to the Editor: We Join You,” 12. 107 Zimon, “Letter to the Editor: We Join You,” 12.

247 the organization’s pro-life expertise. Crippled by a mountain of foreign debt, and with an inflation rate nearing one hundred percent, Poland was on the brink of economic collapse— the Polish government was not even able to provide clean drinking water for all of its citizens and, at times, even such basic necessities as toilet paper were scarce.108 Among others, these material deprivations and financial strictures left would-be pro-life activists scrambling for outside funding for their moral campaigns.109

HLI’s involvement in the Polish campaign has been dismissed as largely peripheral by some scholars; Andrzej Kulczcki, for example, rightly observes that Pope John Paul II’s endorsement of Polish pro-lifers eclipsed HLI’s assistance.110 But closer analysis of the amount of financial aid that flowed from HLI’s U.S. headquarters into Polish pro-life groups and even Catholic newspapers suggests that HLI did contribute to the campaign’s success.111

In one instance, for example, Father Marx promised to donate $12,000 to Polish bishops on behalf of HLI subscribers to ensure that they could continue publishing Catholic newspapers at a crucial juncture in the pro-life amendment campaign.112 At the end of 1988 Gosc

Niedzielny featured an interview with Father Marx that had, HLI Poland director Kazimierz

Trojan reported, been “received with enthusiasm” by the Catholic weekly’s two hundred thousand readers.113 Most importantly, the article had increased public awareness of and sympathy for the pro-life cause.114

108 Father Paul Marx, “Poland – A Nation on the Cross,” Special Report, No. 37, (1988), 1; for details of Poland’s economic malaise, see Jeff Sallot, “Half-Speed Ahead: Poland votes tomorrow in the first semi-free election in 60 years,” The Globe and Mail, (3 June, 1989), Proquest, Accessed: 12/11/2009. 109 Marx, “Poland – A Nation on the Cross,” 1. 110 See Kulczcki, 488-489, and Father Paul Marx, “More Printing Paper Needed in Eastern Bloc,” Special Report, No. 51, (1988), 8. 111 Marx, “More Printing Paper Needed in Eastern Bloc,” 8. 112 Marx, “More Printing Paper Needed in Eastern Bloc,” 8. 113 Kazimierz Trojan, quoted in Father Paul Marx, “Let’s Computerize Poland’s Pro-Life Effort,” Special Report, No. 51, (1988), 7-8. 114 Trojan, quoted in Marx, “Let’s Computerize Poland’s Pro-Life Effort,” 7-8.

248

In 1989 Zimon’s branch was joined by two more HLI affiliates in former Solidarity strongholds, the towns of Katowice and Szczecin (Stettin), further demonstrating the close

ties between politics, religion, and the pro-life cause in Poland.115 In the intervening twelve

months, HLI had distributed over forty thousand “Life and Death” anti-abortion brochures in

Polish to its local affiliates.116 Furthermore, Responsible Parenthood Association president

Zbigniew Szymanski observed that the many parcels containing pro-life materials that HLI

had sent since 1987 had “played a tremendous role” in “breaking down…psychological

barriers” to his pro-life work.117 In many respects, HLI’s expansion into Poland was therefore

premised on similar conditions as its work in Latin America. Rapid social and political

changes destabilized the Polish population, prompting a significant number of Christians to

return to overt religious practice, specifically Catholicism, for reassurance during

Communism’s decline. As in the United States and Latin America, social conservatives

assuaged their anxieties over these social, cultural and political uncertainties by attempting to

reassert “traditional” or “family” values.118 In Poland, activists linked the long-established

abortion system to social decay. By repealing legalized abortion they hoped to begin

rebuilding shattered Polish families, which would then serve as bastions of morality—and

social stability. Since HLI often depicted families as the building blocks of wider society,

their mission was as a symbolic effort to democratize the state as well.

Father Tadeusz Styczen, who had succeeded Pope John Paul II as professor of ethics

at the University of Lublin, further attested to HLI’s impact in 1988—the foetal models U.S.

115 Father Paul Marx, “Fr. Marx Founds Two New HLI Centers in Poland,” Special Reports, No. 37, (1988), 1- 6. 116 HLI Poland operated in Katowice and Szczecin. See Father Paul Marx, “Pro-Life News from Poland and Lithuania,” Special Report, No. (1989), 4. 117 See Zbigniew Szymanski, “Poland,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 4-5, (April/May 1992), 16. 118 For a discussion of the role of these types of anxieties in generating transnational activism, see Huntington, Who Are We? 13-14, and Doris E. Buss, “The Christian Right, Globalization, and the ‘Natural Family,’” in Mary Ann Tetreault and Robert Allen Denemark (Editors), Gods, Guns, and Globalization: Religious Radicalism and International Political Economy, (London: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2004), 60, 75. Also see See N.J. Demerath III, “Criscrossing the Gods: Globalization and American Religion,” in Mazlish, Chanda and Weisbrode, The Paradox of a Global USA, 96.

249 pro-lifers had sent to Poland had been so effective in “dissuad[ing]…women from aborting their children” that he wanted eight hundred more to distribute to Catholic chaplains in hospitals across the country.119 HLI also supplied pro-life clergy and lay activists fighting to reverse Poland’s abortion laws with desperately needed funds and pro-life propaganda.120 The materials included films, foetal models, and Polish-language pamphlets printed by HLI-

Yugoslavia.121 Polish pro-life leader Andrzej Winkler admitted that he had been “infected” by HLI’s “attitude and work” after attending one of the group’s 1988 conferences.122 Winkler subsequently resolved to join HLI’s campaign “to spread and share…responsibility for the life of the unborn and the family” in his community “and among other pro-lifers…in

Poland.”123 He soon received crucial funding from HLI that enabled him to begin printing the first Polish pro-life newsletter in 1989.124 When one considers the fact that the Polish

Catholic press had historically played a key role in critiquing Marxism, this clearly demonstrates the convergence of HLI’s symbolic and political functions in Poland.125

HLI also made good use of the growth of political openness within the disintegrating

Soviet bloc by installing modern technology to serve their anti-abortion cause; consequently

HLI ensured that Poles would be more exposed to outside information. HLI donated $4500 earmarked for an IBM computer to its Katowice branch in 1990, a technological innovation that would, with the growth of the world wide web in the 1990s, allow HLI to maintain closer

119 Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 42, (1988), 8. 120 Hadley, 98; Father Paul Marx, Special Report, No. 45, (1988), 8; Rev. Tadeusz Styczen, “Letter to the Editor: 800 Models,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 6, (June 1988), 12. 121 Hadley, 98; Marx, Special Report, No. 45, (1988), 8; Styczen, “Letter to the Editor: 800 Models,” 12. 122 See Andrzej Winkler, “Letter to the Editor: Your Provoking Gift,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 9, (September 1988), 12. 123 Winkler, “Letter to the Editor: Your Provoking Gift,” 12. 124 See Andrzej Winkler, “Letter to the Editor: Hunting for the Essentials,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 3, (March 1989), 12; Father Marx’s appeal raised $2500, which HLI then donated to Winkler to finance his newsletter and other pro-life publications. See Father Paul Marx, “Good News for Pro-Life Poles,” Special Report, No. 59, (1989), 7. 125 See Józef Życinski, “The Role of Religious and Intellectual Elements in Overcoming Marxism in Poland,” Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 43, No. 2, Polish Philosophy at the Crossroads (Mar., 1992), 146.

250 contact with its branches.126 The new technologies not only spread pro-life information; they helped strengthen ties between activists across the borders of the Cold War, and solidified the global pro-life, pro-family movement’s shared identity. The fact that HLI readily adopted these new technologies to connect its transnational network again shows that globalization provided important opportunities for activists, and hints that a new phase of NGO activity was imminent.

Polish pro-life activists and clergy, like their U.S. colleagues, pursued their cause with particular fervour because they envisioned their campaign as more than a push to repeal abortion laws; ample evidence suggests that they viewed their efforts as a key component of the Vatican’s strategic plans to “re-evangelize Europe.”127 As early as 1989, Polish Bishop

Jerzy Modelewski told Catholics celebrating mass at Warsaw’s Holy Cross Cathedral that

“the resurrection of Christ” was also “the resurrection of [their] nation.”128 On a number of occasions, Father Marx also indicated that HLI supported the Pope’s vision of reclaiming

Poland from Communism in order to establish a Catholic bulwark from which to promote religious revival throughout Eastern Europe.129 The fact that Polish pro-life activists shared this vision partially explains why HLI’s American leaders were able to extend their global presence so quickly. Another reason as the significant support HLI received from Vatican- based charities. The Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples donated around $10,000 per annum to HLI’s global pro-life work, and Father Marx corresponded regularly with its

Czech head, Cardinal Jozef Tomko, a powerful arch-conservative in Pope John Paul II’s

126 Winkler, “Letter to the Editor: Hunting for the Essentials,” 12; Marx, “Good News for Pro-Life Poles,” 7; Father Paul Marx, “HLI Poland on the Move,” Special Report, No. 73, (October 1990), 8. 127 Kulczcki, 492. 128 Reuter News Agency, “Pontiff Salutes Poland in Easter Day Message,” The Globe and Mail, (20 April, 1981), P3, Factiva.com, Accessed: 21/8/2009. 129 In just one example of the perspective outlined above, Father Marx described the “struggle between Church and Communism” in Poland as “ferocious and unrelenting.” See Father Paul Marx, “Poland’s Endless Martyrdom,” Special Report, No. 37, (1988), 1.

251

Vatican.130 Together, the shared goals of Rome, Polish pro-life activists and HLI provided a religious counterpoint to Reagan’s calls for Gorbachev to “tear down” the wall separating

Eastern Europe from the West.131

Practically speaking, moves to ban legal abortion in Poland also demonstrated the growing importance of transnational communications to pro-life activities. After five years of

cooperation between HLI and domestic pro-life groups, Polish politicians finally took their

cause up in earnest. In 1989, “seventy-two representatives of the Polish

parliament…introduced a bill to protect ‘the conceived child.’”132 Critics of the proposal

referred to it as “a return to the Middle Ages,” but national polls reported that 46 percent of

Poles favoured a law “forbidding abortions.”133 The proposed law was based on an Episcopal

document by Polish Catholic bishops that drew heavily upon U.S. “President Reagan’s 1988

proclamation of the personhood of the preborn child.”134 In this respect, the bill provides

another example of U.S. leadership of the global pro-life movement, even though activists

had still not secured a constitutional amendment banning abortion in the United States.135

Angry pro-choice protests erupted across the country in October 1990 when Poland’s

Senate passed another anti-abortion bill, which had been introduced in the Spring by thirty-

seven Senators, by a fifty to seventeen margin with five abstentions.136 Although the proposed legislation still had to pass the lower house of parliament and be signed into law by the president, women’s rights groups that formed in the wake of the first proposal balked at

130 See Father Paul Marx, “Paul Marx Diaries, October-November 1987, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia,” (November 1, 1987), 24, CMRX 79/27. 131 President Ronald Reagan issued this challenge during a speech at the Brandenburg gate in divided Berlin. See Patterson, Restless Giant, 213. 132 Marx, “Pro-Life News from Poland and Lithuania,” 4. 133See Kay Withers, “Abortion emerges as an issue in Poland’s election campaign,” St Petersburg Times, (9 May, 1989), 12A, Proquest, Accessed: 12/8/2009, and Marx, “Pro-Life News from Poland and Lithuania,” 4. 134 Marx, “Pro-Life News from Poland and Lithuania,” 4. 135 Marx, “Pro-Life News from Poland and Lithuania,” 4. 136 “Polish senators ban abortion despite protests,” Straits Times, (Singapore Press Holdings Ltd, 1 October 1990), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009.

252 the new legislation’s harsh provisions—legal abortion would be limited to instances in which a woman’s life was endangered or when pregnancy resulted from a crime, and any doctor convicted of illicit performing abortions would face a two year jail term.137 But whereas pro- life organizations in other countries had generally formed after feminists had begun to lobby their governments to legalize abortion, the situation was reversed in Poland—the pro-life bill generated left-wing protests that led to the formation of Polish women’s rights organizations.138 Many of the women’s groups established after the anti-abortion proposal was tabled, including the “government backed Polish Women’s League” were also closely related to former Communist authorities, yet again highlighting the highly symbolic values of the amendment, which pro-life factions viewed it as a final repudiation of the fallen regime.139

Resistance from Polish feminists in turn inspired pro-life groups to maintain pressure on the government in order to secure legislative changes. Three hundred pro-life leaders gathered in Katowice for a two-day HLI-sponsored conference keynoted by an array of international experts in 1991.140 A broad coalition of international speakers including Father

Marx and his assistant Father Matthew Habiger, Yugoslav HLI leader Marijo Zivkovic,

Australian Doctors John and Lyn Billings, Dr. Peggy Norris from England, and the World

Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life’s president Dr. Karl Gunning turned out to

show support for their Polish colleagues.141 The widespread emotion abortion had aroused

across the country was evidenced, meanwhile, by the petitions Polish parliamentarians

137 “Polish senators ban abortion despite protests,” Straits Times. 138 “Polish senators ban abortion despite protests,” Straits Times. 138 “Polish senators ban abortion despite protests,” Straits Times; Hadley, 99. 139 See Drusilla Menaker, “After 33 Years of Legal Abortion, Some in Poland Want it Outlawed,” The Associated Press, (8 May, 1989), Proquest, Accessed: 12/11/2009; “Abortion, church power is hidden battle in vote,” St Petersburg Times, (27 October, 1991), 25A, Factiva.com, 12/11/2009. 140 Father Matthew Habiger, “Pro-Life Mission to Eastern Europe,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 8, (August 1991), 6. 141 Habiger, “Pro-Life Mission to Eastern Europe,” 6.

253 received from pro-life and pro-choice factions alike.142 Yet despite strong support from the

Church and pro-life groups, the anti-abortion law was shelved again in 1991.143 Even though parliament refused to debate the issue, the abortion rate actually declined in 1991, suggesting that Polish women were responding to the Pope’s anti-abortion appeals.144 The decrease likely also reflected the increasing number of medical staff who took advantage of new government regulations that allowed them to refuse to perform abortions.145

At the same time as HLI increased its aid to Polish pro-life groups, U.S. President

George H. W. Bush endeavoured to “open a dialogue” on economic issues with “Polish authorities and Solidarity.”146 Bush, together with his National Security Advisor Brent

Scowcroft navigated the uncertainties, tensions and anxieties of the early post-Cold War years by resorting to “realism”: their foreign policy decisions were designed to maintain U.S. hegemony by prioritizing “stability and survival,” and “balancing rival powers that threaten[ed] the new world order.”147 With respect to Poland, this meant that subsequent talks with Polish leaders and Congress culminated in the development of a massive U.S. aid package. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee appropriated $45 million for Poland, to be spent over the next three years.148 Solidarity leader Lech Walesa applauded the U.S. decision to bolster Poland’s ailing economy during a November tour of the United States, likening the

142 Andrew Tarnowski, “Polish Catholics Called to Prayer on Eve of Abortion Debate,” Reuters News, (15 May, 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 143Andrew Tarnowski, “Jewish Leaders Attack Pope for Comparing Abortion to Holocaust,” Reuters News, (5 June 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; “World in Brief,” Atlanta Journal and Constitution, (31 March, 1992), A8, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; “Bishops step up fight against abortion,” The Independent – London, (5 March, 1991), 12, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; “Poland’s Parliament proposes further tightening abortion bill,” (6 April, 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; John Daniszewski, “Poland Postpones Action Banning Abortion,” The Associated Press, (17 May 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 144 Mary Battiata, “Abortions Decrease Sharply in Poland; Drop Seen as Result of Catholic Campaign,” The Washington Post, (14 June, 1991), a19, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 145 Battiata, “Abortions Decrease Sharply in Poland; Drop Seen as Result of Catholic Campaign.” 146 “White House Hails Polish Dialogue, Notes Bush’s Interest,” Reuters News, (23 January, 1989), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 147 See Bartholomew H. Sparrow, “Realism’s Practitioner: Brent Scowcroft and the Making of the New World Order, 1989-1993,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 34, No. 1, (January 2010), 172. Also see Jeffrey A. Engel, “A Better World…but Don’t Get Carried Away: The Foreign Policy of George H.W. Bush Twenty Years On,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 34, No. 1, (January 2010), 30-31. 148 John Felton, “Foreign Aid Enjoys Boomlet of Support in Hill Panel,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Vol. 47, No. 37, (16 September 1989), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009.

254 aid to the Marshall Plan, which had helped rebuild Western Europe’s economies after World

War Two.149 Leading pro-life groups including HLI also welcomed the decision, especially as it coincided with a separate victory over population control providers.150

The Polish abortion question resurfaced again in 1992, when the parliament contemplated putting the matter to a referendum.151 This time, however, the proposed effects of the pro-life law extended well beyond the legislature, and into Polish civil society. Within a matter of months of the latest legislative push, Poland’s National Doctors’ Guild had introduced a new code of ethics that prohibited its 80,000 members from performing abortions, even though the procedure was still legal.152 Polish Ombudsman Ewa Letowska responded to angry appeals from “a large numbers of doctors” by challenging the constitutionality of the Guild’s new restrictions.153 She was hampered, however, by politicians who shied away from the controversy and refused to support her criticisms of the

Doctors’ Guild.154 While pro-life activists pushed for a parliamentary solution to the abortion question, their opponents favoured a referendum because opinion polls showed that most

Poles still supported legalized abortion in at least some instances; pro-choice activists

149 David Lauter, “Walesa Seeks ‘Marshall Plan’ for Poland,” Los Angeles Times, (16 November, 1989), A1, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. The decision was also popular among international pro-life leaders. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Europe Travel Diary,” (April-May 1991), 12, CMRX 79-34. 150 Congress had approved an eleven percent increase in population control funding for the 1990 fiscal year, but under pressure from the president “voted to give” Bush “final discretion over whether to contribute any of the $220 million” appropriation to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. The Fund had not received any U.S. support since 1985 because of its ties to China’s one child policy. Bush upheld his predecessor’s Mexico City policy by vetoing funding appropriations for UNFPA, making it “unlikely” that the Fund would receive any U.S. taxpayer dollars. Pro-life leaders applauded Bush’s determination to withhold the funding, despite their general ambivalence toward him. David Rogers, “House Votes $14.6 Billion Foreign Aid, Withholds New Capital for World Bank,” The Wall Street Journal, (15 November, 1989), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 151 Tarnowski, “Jewish Leaders Attack Pope for Comparing Abortion to Holocaust”; “World in Brief,” Atlanta Journal and Constitution, (31 March, 1992), A8, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 152 “church power in Poland – abortion,” The Economist, (London: 16 May, 1992), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; Michael Lindemann, “Polish Parliament Approves Strict Limits on Abortion,” The Associated Press, (24 July 1992), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 153 “church power in Poland – abortion,” The Economist. Also see Vera Rich, “Poland: Split Over Abortion,” The Lancet, Vol. 339, No. 8788, (1 February 1992), 295, Factiva.com, Accessed: 12/10/2009. 154 “church power in Poland – abortion,” The Economist.

255 believed that a popular vote stood a better chance of defeating the amendment.155 They gathered one million signatures calling for a referendum, but to no avail.156

Eleventh-hour delays and the relatively powerful pro-choice resistance that coalesced

in the final months of the pro-life campaign did not, however, prevent the Polish government

from approving the most repressive anti-abortion legislation in Europe (apart from Ireland’s)

in January 1993.157 In practice, politicians opposed to the measure managed to water it down

with a series of amendments permitting legal abortions in cases of rape, if pregnancy

threatened a woman’s life, and when prenatal tests revealed serious foetal abnormalities.158

These exceptions suggested that determined women might still be able to procure

terminations from sympathetic doctors. Polish pro-life groups and their U.S. allies still

viewed the law as a major victory, though, if only for its symbolic significance.159 The margin of victory was certainly decisive: in the parliament’s lower house, representatives voted 213-171 in favour of the bill with 29 abstentions, giving the law a strong political

endorsement and explicitly sanctioning pro-life activists’ worldview.160 By the time Poland’s

president Lech Walesa signed the bill into law on February 15, 1993, after thirty-seven years

of legalized abortion, Poland’s about face appeared even more remarkable since public

155 “Poland: Abortion Debate Seems Headed for a Referendum,” Inter Press Service Global Information Network, (17 November 1992), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; “Poles file 2 abortion-rights bills Protection, referendum proposals counter opponents’ measures,” The Dallas Morning News, (31 March 1992), 11A, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. Also see “Poles Seek Vote on Abortion Ban,” Times-Picayune, (3 December 1992), A27, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; “Doctors’ Abortion Ban Illegal, Polish Ombudsman Says,” Reuters News, (5 May, 1992), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 156 “Poland abortion law stalled,” The Las Vegas Review Journal, (Associated Press, 18 December 1992), 16a, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 157 Adam Jasser, “Polish Sejm postpones abortion vote,” Reuters News, (30 December 1992), Factiva.com, Accessed: 26/2009; “Warsaw,” Agence France-Presse (7 January 1993), Hadley, 99. 158 “Plus News: Poland Abortion Bill,” The Chicago Sun Times, (7 January 1993), 3, Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; Adrezj Stylinksi, “Parliament Votes To Restrict Abortion, But Rejects Full Ban,” The Associated Press, (7 January, 1993), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 159 “Plus News: Poland Abortion Bill,” 3; Patricia Koza, “Polish abortion bill fails to satisfy pro-life groups,” The Times, (8 January, 1993), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 160 “Plus News: Poland Abortion Bill,” 3.

256 opinion polls showed that between sixty and eighty percent of Poles still favoured legalized abortion.161

For HLI the law represented a practical and symbolic watershed. Poland proved that it

was possible to repeal entrenched abortion laws, and that, on a spiritual level, a Communist

country could be brought back to Christianity. HLI consequently transferred its Central

European base of operations from Croatia to the Polish port city and former Solidarity

stronghold of Gdansk in 1993.162 Under the direction of Pawel Wosicki, the president of the

Polish Federation of Pro-life Movements, and Ewa and Lech Kowalski, the new Gdansk

center was slated to act as HLI’s “regional coordinating center” for “Bosnia, Croatia, Latvia,

Lithuania, and Russia.”163 The center trained budding pro-life leaders and provided them with

pro-life propaganda and funds to distribute across the former Soviet bloc.164 A few months

later, HLI Poland started to produce Eurolife, a pro-life newsletter modelled on HLI Reports,

but focused exclusively on Europe.165 Eurolife was clearly aimed at a wide audience, as it

was printed in English, Russian and German.166 With the help of U.S. donors, “HLI’s group

of dedicated missionaries” would set forth from Gdansk to “convert souls and save lives.”167

Even though Poland played host to HLI’s most conspicuous success, HLI’s Eastern

European efforts were not confined to that nation. HLI co-sponsored a 1990 meeting in

Slavonski Brod, Yugoslavia, for example, with the World Federation of Doctors Who

Respect Human Life, targeting doctors “behind the Iron Curtain.” Forty speakers from the

161 John Daniszewski, “Walesa Signs Law Banning Almost All Abortions,” The Associated Press, (15 February, 1993), Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009; Drusilla Menaker, “Ban on Abortion in Poland Goes into Effect, Medical Underground Predicted,” The Associated Press, (16 March, 1993); “Correcting ex-Warsaw,” Agence France-Presse, (16 March, 1993), both from Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/6/2009. 162 See Marijo Zivkovic, “Zagreb, Croatia,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 3, (March 1993), 10; Michele La Palm, “HLI Establishes Center in Poland,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 8, (August 1993), 3. 163 See La Palm, “HLI Establishes Center in Poland,” 3, and “HLI’s People of the Month,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 8, (August 1993), 11. 164 La Palm, “HLI Establishes Center in Poland,” 3 and “HLI’s People of the Month,” 11. 165 “HLI to Launch Eurolife from Poland,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 12, (December 1993), 8. 166 “HLI to Launch Eurolife from Poland,” 8. 167 La Palm, “HLI Establishes Center in Poland,” 3.

257

West and a number of nations recently liberated from “the trauma of Communism” addressed six hundred “doctors, health workers and leaders from 15 countries.”168 This description was, again, notable; it was precisely the “trauma” of liberation from Communism as well as the legacy of Communist rule itself that enabled HLI to attract significant crowds to these meetings. A further one thousand leaders from ten countries met in Dresden, Germany, to

discuss future anti-abortion activity in Europe at another conference in September that was

co-sponsored by the German Catholic Church, German prolife federation Aktion Leben, HLI

and Doctors Who Respect Life. Father Marx’s high hopes for Eastern Europe were apparent

in a subsequent HLI Reports article that credited the activists who attended the Dresden

meeting with making plans “to rescue the future.”169 More importantly, both meetings

coincided with tectonic shifts in Eastern European politics, as Communism crumbled in one

country after another; Poland was first, but was soon followed by Hungary, Czechoslovakia,

Romania and Bulgaria.170 Among other structural and economic reasons, Communism’s rapid

decline was partially attributable to the influence of the Pope and Catholic organizations such

as HLI; the developments seemed to mock former Russian dictator Josef Stalin who had once

challenged the Vatican’s authority by asking “how many divisions does the Pope have?”171

Conclusion: Lifting the Iron Curtain “It is God who has won in Eastern Europe…” - Pope John Paul II.172 Viewed in light of HLI’s work in the region, there was an element of truth in Pope

John Paul II’s assertion that God had won in Eastern Europe; the Pope’s own efforts certainly

helped precipitate the fall of Communism, but organized religion and religiously affiliated

168 See Father Paul Marx, “Doctors’ Conference Planned for East Bloc,” Special Report, No. 70, (July 1990), 7, and Father Paul Marx, “Historic Prolife Conference in Slavonski Brod,” Special Report, No. 74, (November 1990), 3. 169 See Father Paul Marx, “1,000 Meet to Rescue the Future,” Special Report, No. 75, (December 1990), 1-2. 170 See Victor L. Simpson, “Vatican - East Europe,” The Associated Press, (19 February 1991), Factiva.com, Accessed: 17/8/2009. 171 Simpson, “Vatican - East Europe.” 172 Roger Boyes, “How complete is the victory of the Church?” The Times, (21 April 1990), Proquest, Accessed: 14/9/2009.

258

NGOs also benefited from the end of the Cold War, both in Europe and the United States.

Between 1986 and 1993, HLI mounted a worldwide counterinsurgency against the international family planning movement by shifting the abortion and population control battlefields from Capitol Hill to the very countries targeted by population control providers.173 When the opportunity arose, HLI expanded into Eastern Europe where, as in

Latin America, the organization consciously aligned its goals with Pope John Paul II’s broader religious and political objectives. As one reporter put it, Pope John Paul II “vastly increased the political influence of the Church” during his papacy, and in so doing aided and abetted global pro-life organizations’ work.174 The key to HLI’s success was its adaptability:

John O’Reilly, who had worked closely with Father Marx and HLI during Ireland’s

successful pro-life amendment campaign, attested to HLI’s flexibility in 1987 when he observed that each time he “received literature from various branches of HLI” in “Austria,

Canada, Scotland and Singapore…the emphasis and character of each [was] quite different

and attuned to its local environment.”175 In Eastern Europe, this meant that HLI focused on

reconsecrating Communist populations to the Catholic Church, as evidenced by many of

HLI’s European mission statements.

For this reason, and because of HLI’s involvement in the successful campaign to

repeal entrenched abortion laws, Poland was the perfect base for HLI’s ongoing efforts to

revive the Catholic faith in “the farthest corners and the coldest hearts of Eastern Europe.”176

By 1991, HLI had established five new branches in the former Communist countries of

Eastern Europe, and started to further the Pope’s mission of “rescu[ing]” the region “from its

173 La Palm, “HLI Establishes Center in Poland,” 3. 174 Dionne Jr., “Determined to Lead.” 175 See John O’Reilly, “Letter to possible HLI contacts: Ireland,” (16 February 1987), 1, CMRX 11/4. 176 La Palm, “HLI Establishes Center in Poland,” 3.

259 years of godlessness.”177 Transnational advocacy networks and NGOs regularly “infuse very small steps with very large meanings” in order to maintain momentum and attract support;

Poland’s pro-life campaign fulfilled this function for HLI by tapping into local anxieties

generated by domestic political upheaval and global pressures.178 The culture wars were

globalizing, but not because U.S.-based activists were exporting their concerns; rather,

American pro-life leaders learned to draw disaffected populations, first in Latin America, and

later Eastern Europe and parts of Africa into its growing pro-life, pro-family networks. HLI

simultaneously participated in and was shaped by domestic and global political developments

in the late 1980s and early 1990s; by the time pro-life Democrat Bill Clinton took office the

global pro-family movement was well-prepared to endure political dislocation in the United

States and instead exploit new transnational opportunities.

177In 1988 alone, HLI established outposts in Australia, Sweden, Peru, France, Chile and India, and Zambia making 1988 HLI’s most successful year for international outreach to date. See “Look At All The Good You Did in 1988!” Special Report, No. 51, (1988), 6. Hadley, “God’s Bullies,” 95. Father Marx referred to “the Blessed Mother’s destruction of the Iron Curtain” in a 1990 Special Report, highlighting the deeply spiritual, Marian aspect of HLI’s work in Eastern Europe. See Father Paul Marx, “Help Eastern Europe!” Special Report, No. 65, (1990), 7. 178 William E. DeMars, NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wildcards in World Politics, (London: Pluto Press, 2005), 3. Also see “World Conference Shows Growing Prolife Strength,” 1-2. Increasingly, HLI meetings purported to cover “the entire spectrum of pro-life, pro-family issues.”

260

Conclusion

On the cover of the current issue of Worldwatch magazine, a caricature shows C-FAM President Austin Ruse, along with other international pro-life and pro-family leaders, flanking US President George W. Bush, all in military flight gear, all apparently about to engage in another battle in what the magazine labels “The Bush War on Women.”... Such is the artwork accompanying an article entitled “Ladies, You Have No Choices, How Extremists Took Over US Family Planning Policy,” which charges that “C- FAM and its network of like-minded groups,” including...the Population Research Institute, “have lobbied heavily against women's rights to make their own decisions about having or not having children...What C-FAM really does is orchestrate misinformation campaigns against the UN system, disrupt meetings, and brand all specialized agencies and NGOs engaged in reproductive health and family planning initiatives in developing countries as ‘anti-family.’”1

“Extremists” may not have completely “taken over US Family Planning Policy” by

2004,” but pro-life, pro-family activists’ efforts in the preceding two decades certainly ensured that population control had joined abortion as a deeply politicized issue which consistently divided Americans down strict partisan lines. The Christian Right that emerged as a potent political force in the 1980s has also continued to play an important role in presidential elections up to and including the 2008 contest.2 Within the Christian Right’s broad sweep, it is transnational pro-life groups that have permanently altered the political landscape of cultural politics over family life, both in the United States and at the United

Nations (UN). Human Life International (HLI) had from the beginning been at the centre of these developments, supplemented later by the work of its offshoots the Population Research

Institute (PRI) and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam). In response to the pro-life coalition, each president since Ronald Reagan has, for example, either rescinded or reinstated the ‘global gag rule’ within days of their inaugurations, making U.S. funding for international family planning programs the single arena in which pro-life, pro-family activists

1 Douglas A. Sylva, PhD, “Magazine Mocks President Bush as Pawn of C-FAM,” Friday Fax, Vol. 7, No. 18, (April 23, 2004), http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.353/pub_detail.asp, Accessed: 12/8/2010. 2 For a discussion of the ongoing salience of the religious right in U.S. politics up to 2004, see Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, (New York: HarperCollins, 2005). Wallis’ observations remained remarkably applicable to the 2008 presidential election. 261 have consistently been able to assert their influence and secure significant political concessions.3 The ramifications of transnational pro-life, pro-family lobbying therefore spans

decades, extends well beyond U.S.-borders, and has continued to affect millions of the

world’s poorest people well into the twenty-first century.

The influence that transnational pro-family NGOs had begun to exert over U.S. foreign policy did not stop at birth control and abortion. The template provided by agitation over these issues has subsequently been applied also to the AIDS pandemic that was ravaging many poorer countries by the year 2000. Pro-life groups supported and promoted President

George W. Bush’s approach to this issue, an issue that highlighted the Christian Right’s

extension of its moral crusade beyond its earlier emphasis on Latin America and Europe to

Africa.4 In keeping with the prerogatives of its strong conservative Christian support base the

White House promoted an “abstinence only” HIV/AIDS prevention strategy after 2003, yet

simultaneously pledged fifteen billion dollars over five years to treat AIDS victims.5 One

scholar has suggested that the U.S. government’s decision to promote the Abstinence, Be

Faithful, Use Condoms (ABC) policy in Sub-Saharan Africa was “analogous to the shift in

positions taken during the 1980s regarding international family planning and population

assistance.”6 President Bush’s seemingly contradictory policies represented a resounding

endorsement of the approaches connected to the anti-population control and, indeed, anti-

birth control ideology espoused by groups that Father Marx had established in the 1970s and

3 See Barbara B. Crane and Jennifer Dusenberry, “Power and Politics in International Funding for Reproductive Health: The US Global Gag Rule,” Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 12, No. 24, Power, Money and Autonomy in National Policies and Programmes (Nov., 2004), 128, and Stephen Phelan, “HLI President criticizes Obama’s Rescinding of the Mexico City Policy,” (January 23, 2009), http://www.hli.org/index.php/component/content/article/73-press-releases/378-press-release-12309-obama- mexico-city, Accessed: 12/8/2010. 4 Crane and Dusenberry, 128. 5 See Andrzej Kulczycki, “Ethics, Ideology, and Reproductive Health Policy in the United States,” Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 38, No. 4, Ethical Issues in Reproductive Health (Dec.,2007), 340, and Tina Rosenberg, “AIDS,” Foreign Policy, No. 147 (Mar. - Apr., 2005), 22. 6 Kulczycki, “Ethics, Ideology, and Reproductive Health Policy in the United States,” 344.

262

1980s.7 HLI’s expansion into Africa in the 1980s and 1990s foreshadowed President Bush’s controversial policy toward Africa by condemning contraceptives, especially condoms, as the source of the continent’s struggles with HIV/AIDS rather than the remedy.8

“Different Strategies, the same battle,” or Unholy Alliances? Pro-life political pragmatism up to the 1990s9 A 2001 meeting of the Preparatory Committee for an upcoming United Nations (UN)

Special Session on Children left one journalist “baffled by the apparent anomaly of…Muslim and Christian conservative NGOs working closely together.”10 However, these seemingly perplexing global interfaith alliances evolved out of the transnational pro-life networks established over twenty years beforehand.11 During this time, Father Marx had manipulated moral conservatives’ fears that international family planning providers were waging a “war of dollars against faith.”12 Most attention has been given in this thesis to HLI’s campaigns in

Latin America and Europe, where traditional Catholic teaching was under threat from

7 See Chapter six of this thesis. Also see Jennifer S. Butler, Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized, (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 45-49, and Dori Buss and Didi Herman, Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 94-95. 8 In fact, political commentators later credited moral conservative lobbyists with persuading the Bush administration to eschew the historical “prevention only” approach to AIDS in Africa and instead adopt a new approach that sought to provide AIDS victims with life-prolonging medications. Scepticism regarding the efficacy of condoms as a means of preventing HIV transmission was a hallmark of the Bush administration’s decision to promote abstinence, as well as an important facet of HLI, PRI, and later C-Fam’s opposition to contraception in Africa. See Holly Burkhalter, “The Politics of AIDS: Engaging conservative activists,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 1, (January/February 2004), 8-9, Gayle Smith, “US Aid to Africa,” Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 31, No. 2, (December 2004), 700, and PRI, “UN AIDS Envoy Can’t Stomach Abstinence,” PRI Weekly Briefing, Vol. 7, No. 40, (13 October, 2005), http://pop.org/20051013677/un-aids- envoy-cant-stomach-abstinence, Accessed: 12/1/2010. 9 Rev. Thomas J. Eutenuer, quoted in Robert B. Bluey, “Conservative Spotlight: Human Life International,” Human Events, Vol. 61, Issue 8, (Washington D.C.: March 7, 2005), 20, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=809399941&Fmt=4&clientId=25620&RQT=309&VName=PQD, Accessed: 10/6/2009. 10 “U.S. Contempt for Convention Brings ‘Spoiler’ Charge from NGOs,” On the Record for Children (Your link to the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children), 14: 5 (February 2, 2001), quoted in Jennifer S. Butler, Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized, (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 64-65. 11 In fact, such alliances were not unheard of in previous social movements. See for example the final chapter of Ian Tyrrell’s Woman’s world/Woman’s empire: the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in International Perspective, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), and Ian Tyrrell, Reforming the World: The Creation of America’s Moral Empire, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 225-226. 12 Father Paul Marx, “Religion and Population in Africa,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 1, (January 1991), 2. For a discussion of the “contraceptive mentality” that Father Marx believed was weakening these structures, see Michael Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 62-63; 61-67, and Chapter One of this thesis.

263

Communism and secularism as in Europe, or Protestant religious and Marxist challenges, as in Latin America. But Marx’s strategy applied potentially to other groups as well, including the growing Islamic communities of Africa. The HLI apparatus had always showed considerable adaptability to changing circumstances, for example in Europe as the Cold War came to an end. But Father Marx was proved to go truly global in the post-Cold War world

by allying his organization in a post-Cold War world with all conservative religious forces,

not merely Christian ones.13 This approach was consistent with his earlier practice and

ideology. As early as 1981, Catholics and Muslims had been able to join in a common cause

in Africa when an interfaith partnership of Catholics and Muslims “howled down” a proposed

“restricted abortion bill” in Nigeria.14

But this inter-faith interest accelerated from 1989 at the end of the Cold War. As

Marx charged in 1991, family planners were spending “money to subvert religions: Islamic,

Christian, or traditional.”15 He had discovered that religiously affiliated groups most often

offered the strongest resistance to contraception and abortion and had endeavoured to weld

together improbable alliances of Christians, Jews and Muslims to oppose the spread of the

contraceptive mentality. The global pro-family lobby that appeared at the UN in the 1990s,

and later enjoyed considerable support from President George W. Bush, was therefore far less

revolutionary than it appeared because it was premised, in part, on Father Marx’s worldview

and decades-long campaign to expand his global pro-life network. Tanzanian Bishop

Aloysius Balina foreshadowed the formation of Christian-Muslim pro-family alliances in

1989 at the opening mass of HLI’s seventh annual conference in New Orleans when he told

13 This approach was not without precedent; HLI had long claimed to be open to ecumenical cooperation, although most of the groups affiliates and allies were Christian, if not Catholic. 14 See Father Paul Marx, “Bishops Promote NFP,” Special Report, No. 69, (June 1990), 3. 15 See Marx, “Religion and Population in Africa,” 2, Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan, 62-63; 61-67, and Chapter One of this thesis.

264 seven hundred activists from forty-one countries about a similar coalition that had recently formed to oppose population control in his country.16

Moreover, the New Orleans meeting featured the first Muslim speaker ever to address an HLI conference. Born in Cairo in 1924, Dr. Hassan Hathout had attended university in

Edinburgh, earned his doctorate in reproductive genetics, and specialized in obstetrics and gynaecology in Kuwait for twenty six-years.17 When he migrated to the United States in the late 1980s, he quickly became a leader of the local Muslim community.18 In New Orleans,

Hathout spoke about “Islamic morality and abortion” and emphasized the common ground shared by HLI members and conservative Muslims.19 Hathout’s discussion in part explains

HLI’s subsequent flirtation with conservative Muslims; conservative Catholics’ understandings of family values, birth control and abortion were far closer to conservative

Muslim perspectives than to progressive Christian worldviews: “The Muslims,” Anthony

Pantin, then Archbishop of Trinidad had told Father Marx earlier that year, “are more faithful to Humanae Vitae than many Catholics.”20

HLI therefore began to explore the possibility of building interfaith coalitions with conservative Muslims in Nigeria, Africa’s “most populous nation.”21 Local pro-life leaders,

16 “Pro-Life Mission: Teach Life in All Nations,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 6., (June 1989), 1. Consequently, when Tanzania’s Muslim President Ali Hassan Mwinyi called religious leaders together to discuss planned population control measures, the majority rejected his proposals out of hand. Father Paul Marx, “Bishops Defend the Family,” Special Report, No. 57, (1989), 1-2. 17 Elaine Woo, “Obituary: Dr. Hassan Hathout dies at 84; Islamic leader fostered interfaith relations,” Los Angeles Times, (April 27, 2009), http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-hassan-hathout27- 2009apr27,0,7586240.story, Accessed 12/6/2009. 18 Executive Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council Salam al Marayati, quoted in Woo, “Obituary.” 19 HLI, “Don’t Miss the Seventh World Conference on Love, Life and the Family, April 19-23, 1989,” (1989), 1-2, PMRX. 20 Anthony Pantin, Archbishop of Trinidad, “Letter to the Editor: Faithful Muslims,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 7, (July 1989), 10. HLI, “Don’t Miss the Seventh World Conference on Love, Life and the Family, April 19-23, 1989,” (1989), 1, PMRX. 21 See Father Paul Marx, “Help Keep Abortion Illegal in Vocation-Rich Nigeria,” Special Report, No. 61, (1989), 7; Steven W. Mosher, Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2008), 103. The Nigerian prolife movement, like many of its contemporaries, owed its existence to transnational information exchanges dating back over two decades. In 1978, Dr. Lawrence Adekoya’s interest in the pro-life cause was ignited when he attended a rally in England organized by renowned English activist and Father Marx’s long-time colleague Dr Peggy Norris. See Fr. Matthew Habiger, “Diary of First Trip to Nigeria,

265 including HLI contact Dr. Lawrence Adekoya, feared that the government, which faced a constellation of crises including crippling foreign debt, runaway inflation, and the burgeoning

AIDS epidemic, would give in to demands posed by foreign aid donors to escalate population control initiatives.22 Adekoya regularly complained that U.S.-funded population control programs were using his country’s “austere economic conditions” to justify their efforts to

“expor[t]” the “anti-life mentality” to Nigeria.23 He particularly abhorred the “mass media jingles and free…condoms” international family planning providers distributed “to promote free sex.”24 Adekoya’s persistent appeals eventually persuaded Father Marx to found a permanent HLI affiliate in Nigeria.25

After a series of meetings with local activists in 1989, Father Marx informed HLI’s supporters that he believed Nigeria could be “save[d]…from legalized baby-killing” if

Africa,” (March 2, 1992), 22, CMRX 79/40. Dr. Norris dated her friendship with Father Marx back to 1973. See Dr. Peggy Norris, quoted in HLI, A Tribute to The Apostle of Life, Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., (Gaithersburg, MD: HLI, 1994), 34. 22 Father Paul Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Invades the “Giant of Africa,” Special Report, No. 69, (June 1990), 1-3; Father Marx, quoted in John Kurzweil, “Catholics of the Year,” Catholic Twin Circle, Vol. 28, No. 4, (Sunday January 26, 1992), CMRX #2005-255, Box 3. Okikoye Rensome-Kuti, in Concord, (19 March 1990), cited in Father Paul Marx, “Pro Life Missionary Invades the ‘Giant of Africa,’” Special Report, No. (June 1990), 2. 23 Lawrence A. Adekoya, “Call to Action in Nigeria,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 8, (August 1989), 5; Also see Dr. M.C. Asuzu, “Letter to the Editor: Kill Life Hordes,” HLI Reports, Vol. 7, No. 8, (August 1989), 12. 24 Adekoya, “Call to Action in Nigeria,” 5; Also see Asuzu, “Letter to the Editor: Kill Life Hordes,” 12. It is certainly true that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) bankrolled a range of programs designed to overcome the Nigerian peoples’ opposition to birth control throughout the 1990s. One particularly notable example was the USAID-funded Johns Hopkins University project that paid African musicians to produce popular “juju” music that promoted birth control. When African leaders condemned these initiatives as USAID-sponsored propaganda, the Agency responded by announcing it had earmarked $67 million over five years to mount “largest birth control campaign ever undertaken on the African continent.” This was not USAID’s first attempt to co-opt popular culture to sell contraception; prior campaigns had seen albums released in Mexico City the Philippines in 1986 and 1988 respectively. In 1987, meanwhile, a soap opera called “Tushauriane,” which was Swahili for “Let’s Talk it Over,” had premiered in Kenya, where resistance to international family planning programs remained strong. See Father Paul Marx, “The Conquest of the Soul,” HLI Reports, Vol. 8, No. 11, (November 1990), 1-2, 7, and “USAID Assaults Nigerian Values,” HLI Reports, Vol. 8, No. 5, (May 1990), 3-4. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Religion and Population in Africa,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 1, (January 1991), 1-2. Nigerian Pathfinder employee Bola Lana, for example, warned her colleagues that “religious opinions…could stop family planning programs.” Father Paul Marx, “The Truth Can Hurt,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 5, (May 1991), 1-2. 25 Father Paul Marx, “Pro-Life Missionary Invades the “Giant of Africa,” Special Report, No. 69, (June 1990), 1-3.

266

Adekoya collaborated “with the dominant [Muslim]” population.26 HLI committed tens of thousands of dollars to the cause, and by 1992 Adekoya reported that his Human Life

Protection League (HLPL) had forty-one chapters across Nigeria.27 When he heard that

Nigeria’s Ministry of Health was planning to legalize abortion by decree in 1991, the league appealed to government officials to reject the plan through a letter writing campaign and in a public statement issued jointly by HLPL and sympathetic Muslim groups.28 Adekoya’s response highlighted the league’s commitment to cooperating “with…men of goodwill, including the Moslem communities,” and demonstrated that HLI’s political pragmatism superseded theological differences.29 The transnational ecumenical alliances that evolved from the late twentieth century onward not only resembled the cultural realignment that began in the United States in the 1970s, but actually grew out of the same roots.30

26 See Father Paul Marx, “HLI Fights to Stop Abortion in Nigeria,” Special Report, No. 61, (1989), 5. This was in spite of the fact that Father Marx initially interpreted Nigeria’s 1988 National Population Policy which imposed a four child limit on families, as biased toward Muslims. Father Marx reasoned that the plan discriminated against monogamous Christians because Muslim men practiced polygamy; while Catholic couples were limited to four children, a Muslim man with four wives could father as many as sixteen. See Marx, “Pro- Life Missionary Invades the “Giant of Africa,” 1-3. 27 See Father Paul Marx, “Help Keep Abortion Illegal in Vocation-Rich Nigeria,” Special Report, No. 61, (1989), 7. In 1991, Dr. Adekoya spoke at an international conference in Rome where he mentioned that HLI had supplied $21 000 to purchase a car for his organization, and supplied a further $13 000 to print pro-life pamphlets. Marx, “Travel Diary – Rome,” (15 November, 1991), 7, CMRX 79/38. Also see Father Paul Marx, “Travel Diary – Rome,” (15 November, 1991), 7, CMRX 79/38. 28 Lawrence Adekoya, “Nigeria,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 4, (April/May 1992), 19. 29 Adekoya, “Nigeria,” 19. Nigerian activists succeeded in preventing the legalization of abortion on this occasion, but President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces General Ibrahim Badamaosi Babangida did eventually accede to domestic and international pressure to change the law and endorse stronger population control programs. Even though the HLPL ultimately failed in its objectives, Human Life International’s willingness to cooperate with conservative Muslims in Nigeria showed that the organization prioritized strategic concerns over theological differences, and foreshadowed the emergence of similar alliances at the UN later in the decade. See Steven W. Mosher, Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2008), 113. Interestingly, HLI’s willingness to consider cooperating with conservative Muslims was largely limited to African countries. In Malaysia, by contrast, Father Marx lamented the large Muslim population. See for example Father Paul Marx, “Dear Loyal Supporter,” Special Reports, No. 64, (1990), 1. 30 Further proof of this pro-life pragmatism was manifest in a 1991 conversation between Dutch Dr. Karl Gunning, founding member and then head of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life and Father Marx. While discussing their respective organization’s future prospects, Dr. Gunning admitted that he believed they “simply [had] to get together with…Moslems [sic]” to increase their political influence.30 Dr. Gunning intimated that conservative Christians and Muslims would be able to forge a workable alliance based on their shared opposition to modern secular threats. See Dr. Karl Gunning, quoted in Father Paul Marx, “Europe Travel Diary,” (April-May 1991), 24, CMRX 79/34. Dr. Gunning lived in close quarters with conservative Muslims during an eight year stint in Morocco, which undoubtedly contributed to his sense of the importance of interfaith of alliances. Dr. Hassan Hathout, the Muslim expert who had spoken at earlier HLI

267

Although HLI had long claimed to be open to ecumenical co-operation, in reality its ties to activists beyond Catholic networks had been minimal; this began to change, however, with the organization’s forays into coalition building with conservative Muslims in the late

1980s and early 1990s. HLI’s willingness to transcend sectarian boundaries was the result of two interrelated factors: first, the end of the Cold War had left a global power vacuum that

NGOs, including conservative organizations, were eager to fill, and HLI’s leaders believed that collaborating with conservative Muslims would aid them in this cause. Secondly, when the pro-life movement lost favour in Washington D.C. in 1993 at the beginning of the Clinton presidency, transnational political opportunities increased in importance, and again, broad ecumenical coalitions stood a better chance of effecting change in UN forums than less inclusive NGOs.

“A New World Order with NGO watchdogs”31

By 1990, HLI had grown from a single office in Washington D.C. to a formidable global organization, with branches in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa, and had increased its political clout in national and global politics by establishing new organizations including PRI and C-Fam. While pro-life, pro-family NGOs’ activities

throughout the 1990s and first decade of the twenty-first century are largely beyond the scope

of this study, it is worth explaining, however briefly, that domestic and global political

conferences shared Gunning’s perspective, and had even sent a book calling “for reconciliation between Christians and Moslems” to the Vatican. The Pope’s representatives allegedly replied that the Holy See agreed with Hathout’s goals. Gunning, quoted in Marx, “Europe Travel Diary,” (April-May 1991), 24-25, CMRX 79/34. The unifying power of a common enemy was obvious in 1992, when the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children’s National Director Phyllis Bowman established a European delegation to protest the production and legalization of “abortion drug” RU-486. She later attributed the group’s strength to its ecumenical composition, which “included twelve organizations, covering the full range of Christian churches as well as representatives of all major Islamic bodies, which are of increasing importance in Britain, as their community is now around the two-million mark.” By 1993, the Population Research Institute would report that “a solid core of resistance to population control” still “exist[ed] within the family-oriented, ethical strongholds of Islam and Catholicism.” Phyllis Bowman, “Fighting RU-486,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 2, (February 1992), 1-2. Also see “Philippine Resistance: On Population and Sustainable Development,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, (March/April 1993), 7. 31 Rita Joseph, “From Cairo to Copenhagen,” PRI Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, (March/April 1995), 5.

268 developments continued to shape the movement’s trajectory. Although the political fortunes of U.S. pro-life groups waned after pro-choice Democrat President Bill Clinton’s 1993 inauguration, transnational pro-family NGOs were well-placed to respond to these changed circumstances.32 In the absence of domestic political access and influence, the organizations that had grown out of Father Marx’s global pro-life networks became the self-styled “NGO watchdogs” of this “New World Order.”33

During his presidential campaign, Bill Clinton had promised to do everything in his power to overthrow “anti-choice extremists,” so when he won the 1992 election, there was every reason to expect that pro-life protests—which had regularly escalated into violence during George H.W. Bush’s presidency—would intensify.34 Within days of his inauguration,

Clinton moved to erase the pro-life movement’s influence on U.S. domestic and foreign policies. While thousands of pro-life groups held their annual March for Life on the twentieth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the new president announced that he was “acting to separate…national health and medical policy from the divisive conflict over abortion.”35 That same day, Clinton ordered “the immediate repeal of the Mexico City policy,” his first presidential act.36 Clinton’s action revealed that the “global gag rule” had become a powerful

32 President Clinton actively encouraged this new phase of globalization, marked by a growing acceptance of NGOs as the “conscience of the world.” See William G. Hyland, Clinton’s World: Remaking American Foreign Policy, (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999), Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, (New York: Basic Books, 2007), and Peter Willetts (editor), “The Conscience of the World”: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations in the U.N. System, (London: Hurst and Company, 1996). 33 Rita Joseph, “From Cairo to Copenhagen,” PRI Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, (March/April 1995), 5. 34 See Jean M. Guilfoyle, “The Future With Clinton and Gore,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 12, (December 1992), 1-2. Guilfoyle predicted that the incoming administration would “bring a catastrophic change to U.S. international and domestic policy on human life issues.” 35 “Special Report,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, (March/April 1993), 9, and Susan A. Cohen, “Abortion Politics and U.S. Population Aid: Coping with a Complex New Law,” International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 26. No. 3. (Sep., 2000), 1 138. 36 “Special Report,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, (March/April 1993), 9; Cohen, 138. Interestingly, Clinton’s decision drew critiques outside of the United States; the President of Latin America’s Bishop’s Council, Santo Domingo Archbishop Nicolas de Jesus Cardinal Lopez Rodriguez wrote to Clinton to object to his “demolition” of the Mexico City Policy. “we do not concur,” Rodriquez told Clinton in a March 1993 letter, “with the policy which attempts to resolve the dire situation of poverty that afflicts Latin America by imposing a culture of death.” See Rodriquez, quoted in “From the Countries: Santo Domingo – the Cardinal Objects,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, (July/August 1993), 13. Clinton administration delivered another slap in the face to pro-life

269 partisan symbol in U.S. politics. Predictably, Clinton’s moves incensed the pro-life community, and the most militant pro-life groups responded in two familiar ways: through direct action protests and by seeking out new opportunities beyond U.S. borders.37 Newly installed Undersecretary of Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, meanwhile, left pro-life groups in no doubt about Clinton’s determination to “reverse” the “deliberate, wanton ignorance that had defined” his predecessor’s population policies when he promised that the president had placed population control at the “forefront of America’s international priorities” during a preparatory meeting for the upcoming UN International Conference on Population and

Development (ICPD) in Cairo.38

protestors on the twentieth anniversary of Roe when he scrapped similar domestic prohibitions on federal funding for abortions. 37 See Deborah Rowland, The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Women’s Rights in America, (Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing, 2004), Chapter 8, 251-379. Pro-life direct action protests continued unabated throughout Clinton’s first year in the White House, leading to thousands of arrests and prosecutions around the country as violence escalated to frightening levels. See Sara Diamond, “Watch on the right: no place to hide,” The Humanist, (September 1, 1993), 1-6, http://www.thefreelibrary.com, Accessed: 6/7/2009. In 1993, Pensacola, Florida abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was shot dead by Michael Griffin, who had ties to local pro-life activists. A year later, Gunn’s replacement Dr. Bayard Britton met the same fate at the hands of former Presbyterian minister Paul Hill. In Massachusetts, two abortion clinic employees died and five more were wounded by crazed anti-abortion terrorist John Salvi. The president reacted by urging Congress to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), which he signed into law on May 26, 1994. An eighty percent decline in “reported incidents” after FACE was enacted suggests that it was a successful deterrent. While direct action protests may have abated after Clinton signed the Act, some militant pro-lifers continued their terrorist campaigns. When pro-lifers planned new protests to commemorate the 1991 summer of mercy ten years on, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a “staunch antiabortion foe” allegedly called marshals in to “protect Dr. George Tiller,” who performed late term abortions and had been “shot twice in 1993.” As the National Right to Life Committee’s Dr. Jack Willke had long-feared, such protests were steadily eroding much of the legitimacy pro-life groups had accumulated during the Reagan years. See Rowland, 277, 279, 286, James T. Patterson, Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 331, 260-261, Alesha E. Doan, Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 88, Dr. John C. Willke, quoted in Paul Galloway, “Anti-Abortion Crusader Follows lead of King and Ghandi,” Chicago Tribune: Tempo, (Wednesday, August 20, 1986), 7 JCOK, Box 2, Folder 1. Seasoned international pro-life leaders also eyed the Clinton administration’s moves to “streamline” the State Department with great suspicion. “From the Countries: U.S. Department of State to be ‘streamlined,” PRI Review Vol. 3, No. 2, (March/April 1993), 10. They were particularly troubled by Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s decision to create a new “undersecretary of global affairs” position, to be staffed by former Senator Timothy Wirth. “U.S. Department of State to be ‘streamlined,” PRI Review Vol. 3, No. 2, (March/April 1993), 10. Pro-life groups objected to Wirth’s long involvement with Planned Parenthood and stance on the environment. See “Global Monitor: The ‘Counselor’ Cometh,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 5, (September/October 1994), 7. 38 “From the Countries: U.S. Department of State to be ‘streamlined,” PRI Review Vol. 3, No. 2, (March/April 1993), 10. Also see Greenwire interview with Timothy Wirth, 24-25 January 1994, quoted in “From the Countries: U.S. to use women to address population problem,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, (March/April 1994), 15. U.S. State Department Counselor Timothy Wirth, quoted in “Global Monitor: U.S. State Department Counselor ‘counsels’ population control,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, (July/August 1993), 7. Astute observers had never really doubted that this would be the case. Vice President Al Gore’s views on the environment were

270

Pioneering interfaith pro-life coalitions subsequently assumed a new salience at the

UN. As discussed in preceding chapters, globalization shaped transnational pro-life activism by generating new political opportunities as well as global problems. The UN’s conferences on population, development, the environment and women’s rights held between 1992 and

1995, meanwhile, revealed the extent to which globalization had redrawn the political boundaries of the modern world.39 This was especially so because the Clinton administration embraced globalization in a new way; by November 2000, the president would describe globalization as “the economic equivalent of a force of nature.”40 Viewed in light of the administration’s emphasis on globalization as foreign policy, as well as the president’s deliberate repudiation of the pro-life agenda, HLI’s interest in these UN meetings was a deliberate attempt to reclaim a measure of political power they had lost at home.41 The

“supranational solidarity” symbolized by the World Trade Organization (WTO), which had been established in January 1995, appeared especially ominous to U.S.-based global pro-life groups; they feared that further economic integration would spread the “cultural hedonism of the rich” even faster than world population control programs had.42

well known, and he regularly identified overpopulation as a key global problem, a perspective he shared with the President. On the campaign trail, Clinton had reportedly described world population growth as the “single greatest threat to ecosystems and the quality of life on earth.” See “Global Monitor: Population Council testimony,” and “USIA pushes environmental propaganda,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 6, (November/December 1993), 6. Also see Albert Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 307-317 and Sheldon Richman, “The Environment: A Pretext to Control Births,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, (March/April 1994), 1. 39 See “Global Monitor: Fashioning the citizen of the new world order,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, (September/October 1993), 8. 40 See President Bill Clinton, quoted in Zbigniew Brzezinksi, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 83. Also see William G. Hyland, Clinton’s World: Remaking American Foreign Policy, (Westport, CT: Praeger, 199o). 41 In fact, after 1993, the Clinton administration seemed to conflated “globalization” and U.S. “national interest[s],” particularly since “America’s embrace of globalization implied innovation, historical momentum, and a constructive outreach” at the close of the Cold War. Interestingly, Brzezinski argues that Clinton “viewed foreign affairs as continuation of domestic politics by other means,” a trend he suggests was not manifest during the Bush years; that said, President Reagan’s Mexico City Policy is a clear example of similar imperatives at work. See Brzezinksi, Second Chance, 31, 85. 42 See Brzezinksi, Second Chance, 109, 113, 132, and Jean Guilfoyle, “The Venus FlyTrap,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 5, (September/October 1994), 13.

271

Recent studies of Christian Right activism within the UN depict the 1994 ICPD and the following year’s World Conference on Women (WCW) in Beijing as the “birthplace” of the transnational pro-family lobby.43 Yet in reality, the very real challenge pro-life groups posed to consensus at both conferences represented the culmination of two decades of transnational organizing and careful observation of UN processes. That is, global pro-family activists in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century stood on the ideological and institutional shoulders of their predecessors.44 The world conferences did, however, mark a turning point for NGOs that had been involved in global politics since the 1970s because many began to apply “for consultative status” with the UN in order to assert their legitimacy and increase their lobbying power.45

In the 1990s, Father Marx signalled his intent to capitalize on the growth of global pro-family activism by seeking consultative status at the UN for HLI and the World Council for Life and Family (WCLF), in order to give their members “a stronger, more unified voice in the international community.”46 The WCLF aimed to coordinate worldwide grassroots pro- life activism, and therefore compliment the Population Research Institute, which had been established in 1989 to “pursue research and education on population and development

43 See Buss and Herman, 138, and Butler, 15. 44 Between 1992 and 1995, UN members and representatives of thousands of transnational NGOs and other interest groups met to set global agenda on issues ranging from the environment and development to human rights, population, and women’s issues at a number of world conferences. The five conferences in question were the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, also known as the Earth or Rio Summit), held in Rio De Janeiro from 3-14 June, 1992, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, 14-25 June, 1993, the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), from the 5-13 September, 1994, in Cairo, and in 1995, the World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) in Copenhagen, and Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development, and Peace, in Beijing. Office of the President of the Millennium Assembly, 55th session of the United Nations General Assembly, “Reference document on the participation of civil society in United Nations conferences and special sessions of the General Assembly during the 1990s,” Version 1, (New York, August 2001), http://www.un.org/ga/president/55/speech/civilsociety1.htm, Accessed: 12/3/2010 45 During the 1990s, “the total number of accredited NGOs” increased steadily, and by 2010 over three thousand organizations had attained consultative status. Kerstin Martens, NGOs and the United Nations: Institutionalization, Professionalization and Adaptation, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), 4. UN ECOSOC, “NGO Frequentle Asked Questions,” http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/faq.htm , Accessed: 12/3/2010. 46 Father Paul Marx, “It’s HLI’s Tenth Birthday!” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 2, (February 1991), 11. UN ECOSOC, “NGO Frequentle Asked Questions.” Father Matthew Habiger, “HLI to found new World Organization,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 3, (March 1991), 6.

272 issues…monitor population control organizations and disseminate...information throughout the world.”47 “Why shouldn’t the hundreds of millions of pro-life Christians, Jews and

Moslems have a voice in the new world order?” Marx asked HLI’s supporters.48

The UN’s NGO committee recommended HLI be added to the roster of consultative organizations in 1991, but ECOSOC (the UN’s Economic and Social Council), which had finally say over groups’ applications, denied HLI’s request and delayed any reconsideration of their case for two years.49 When HLI’s application came up for review in 1993, regular

HLI Reports contributor James A. Miller represented the group at a three hour ECOSOC hearing. Miller claimed that the atmosphere at the meeting was “hostile and contemptuous.”50

In the midst of the tense discussions, one French delegate reportedly asked whether HLI encouraged “raprochement” [sic] between people of different nationalities, after others had accused Father Marx of harbouring anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiments.51 Miller retorted: “surely an organization allegedly antagonistic to Islam would not sponsor and pay for noted Islamic speakers to address its conferences on the basic tenets of that faith.”52

47 See Dolores Reuss, “Population Research Institute Created,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 1, (January 1988), 5, and “PRI Debunks population-control advocates,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 10, (October/November 1992), 21- 22.By 1992, HLI produced or financed the publication of nine separate periodicals with a combined circulation of well over 70, 000: HLI Reports, Special Reports, Parish Notes, Escoge La Vida! PRI Review, Seminarians for Life, HLPL News (Nigeria), Celebration of Life (Singapore), and LIFE - Life is for Everyone (Philippines). Their combined circulation. HLI also claimed to ship over a ton of materials per month to dozens of countries worldwide, and had begun to invest in fax machines, which were sent to foreign branches to improve and hasten communication. See “HLI Publications spread pro-life gospel,” and “Shipping Department arms front-life troops,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 10 (October/November 1992), 14, 16. Habiger, “HLI to found new World Organization,” 6. 48 Habiger, “HLI to found new World Organization,” 6. 49 NGO expert Peter Willetts claimed that HLI’s application was shelved because the organization had, in the past, accused the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) of supporting population control projects, and urged parents not to let their “children collec[t] money” for UNICEF’s annual fundraising appeal. See Peter Willetts (editor), “The Conscience of the World,”: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations in the U.N. System, (London: Hurst and Company, 1996), 60. For details of the campaigns in question, see Dolores Reuss, “Don’t Collect for UNICEF!” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 10, (October 1988), 5. In 1993, the PRI claimed to have uncovered evidence that UNICEF was now openly supporting population control providers. See The Earth Times (18 May, 1993), 3, referenced in “Global Monitor: UNICEF’s ‘direct’ investment in population initiatives,” PRI Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, (July/August 1993), 7. 50 James A. Miller, “Molesters get NGO status, HLI is shut out,” HLI Reports, Vol. 11, No. 12, (December 1993), 3-5. 51 Miller, “Molesters get NGO status, HLI is shut out,” 3-5. 52 Miller, “Molesters get NGO status, HLI is shut out,” 3-5.

273

Despite Miller’s spirited defence, the UN once again rejected HLI’s application for consultative status on the basis of its previous objections.53

Although these initial efforts to secure NGO status proved unsuccessful, the experience informed future transnational pro-family interactions with the UN.54 Throughout

1994 and 1995, HLI, the PRI and the WCLF’s member organizations maintained a vigilant and at times vocal watch over preparatory gatherings for UN world conferences on population and women’s rights, as well as the official meetings themselves.55 PRI Review editor Jean Guilfoyle articulated the reasons for pro-family groups’ opposition to the consensus positions at the meetings in 1994 thus:

A sinister partnership of transnational government, economically-manipulated national governments, ideologically-driven nongovernmental agencies and corporate money-men linked to the pharmaceutical industry [aimed to] seduce the world…with a dogma which includes pronounced individualism, the promotion of widespread sexual promiscuity, a eugenic dedication to ‘quality

53 Willetts (ed), “The Conscience of the World,” 60. 54The WCLF’s worldwide network was divided into seven regions, administered by experienced pro-life leaders: Africa, headed by Dr. Lawrence Adekoya and Claude Newbury of Nigeria and South Africa, respectively; Australia, lead by the Endeavour Forum’s Babette Francis; Dr Marie Mascarenhas and Fr. Antonisamy administered Asia; Magaly Llaguno, Dr Carlos Perez Avendano and Astrid Tamayo de Bayer shared responsibility for Latin America; Europe was administered by Dr Olga Telupilova, Margaret Lennon, and Walter Ramm of Czechoslovakia, England and Germany respectively; and finally, Sr. Pilar Versoza of the Philippines, and Fr. Anthony Zimmerman of Japan coordinated activities in the Pacific Rim. See Fr. Matthew Habiger, “World Council Moves Forward,” HLI Reports, Vol. 9, No. 8, (August 1991), 3. HLI, meanwhile, boasted branches in Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Trinidad, Austria, Croatia, Czechoslovakia (3), Germany, Holland, Hungary, Poland (2), Solvenia, Switzerland, the UK (2), Burman, India (3), Malaysia (3), the Philippines (2), Zimbabwe, Nigeria Argentina, Brazil (20), Chile, Colombia (2), Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay. See “HLI Branches Worldwide,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 4, (April/May 1992), 14. 55 Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 189. PRI also set the stage for future pro-life, pro-family opposition to UN Conference by including a series of suggestions for readers interested in “derailing” the UN’s agenda. The tips included becoming better informed about UN politics, lobbying federal politicians to reduce funding appropriations for the United Nations, and writing letters to the editor or posting comments on internet forums to “expose” their communities to the UN’s plans. “Derailing the Agenda,” PRI Review, Vol. 5, No. 5, (September/October 1995), 2. The next year in Beijing, the Vatican again spearheaded pro-family opposition to the dominant feminist agenda at the UN Women’s Conference. In addition to participating in NGO forums, HLI and PRI were represented by close allies from the American Life League and WCLF Australia affiliate the Endeavour Forum in official debates. See “Global Monitor,” PRI Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, (May/June 1995), 7. In fact, Australian Endeavour Forum member Rita Joseph published regular reports on the UN meetings in the lead up to and during the Copenhagen and Beijing meetings. See Rita Joseph, “Slender Chance of Genuine Consensus at Beijing Conference,” PRI Review, Vol. 5, No. 5, (July/August 1995), 8-9, and Rita Joseph bio, in Rita Joseph, “Ideology Distorts Treaty Obligations,” Endeavour Forum Newsletter, No. 132, (October 2008),

274

people’ living the ‘quality life,’ and a carefully structured redefinition and breakdown of the family.56 While pro-life groups had maintained a consistent, if largely ineffectual presence at the UN since the 1970s, their leaders’ decisions to reframe their cause in terms of attacks on “family sovereignty” in the 1990s generated an ecumenical outcry among moral conservatives which increased support for the global pro-family lobby.57 Over the next decade, the evolving pro- family ideology underpinned pro-life leaders’ attempts to unite and mobilize a “tentative” pro-family coalition comprised of Catholic, Protestant, and Islamic interests.58 Moreover, conservative protestors previously regarded as little more than nuisances showed that they had learned how to stall discussions and slow the passage of progressive resolutions.59

56 Jean Guilfoyle, “The Venus FlyTrap,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 5, (September/October 1994), 13. Given HLI’s close ties to the PRI, Guilfoyle’s statement reflects decades of Father Marx’s teaching. 57 For a discussion of the importance of these definitions to moral conservatives, see Allan Carlson, PhD, “What’s Wrong with the United Nations’ Definition of the Family,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, (July/August 1994), 9 -13. Progressive observers were particularly startled when conservative conference-goers debuted the interfaith coalitions of conservative Muslims and Christians that remained a feature of UN meetings well into the twenty-first century. At the third Prepcom for the ICPD, for example, “Christians and some Muslims” reportedly objected to draft documents that included provisions approving “abortion and contraception for adolescents.” PRI Review reported that Pope John Paul II led the attack on the statements, castigating “political leaders” for “overstepping ethical bounds by advocating abortion and artificial contraception.” He was soon joined by Iranian delegate Mohammad Ali Taskhiri, who warned that his country would not endorse any resolutions from Cairo that recogniz[ed] immoral behaviours or…undermin[ed] religious and ethical values.” In advance of the Copenhagen World Summit on Social Development, which was held in between the Cairo and Beijing meetings, Australian pro-family activist and reporter Rita Joseph confirmed that the pro-life lobby viewed the new alliances with “Islamic countries and the poor countries of the South” as their “best hope” in “the coming battle against totalitarian feminism backed by the UN bureaucracy.” Jean Guilfoyle, “ICPD: The New York Finale,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, (July/August 1994), 6. In addition to the Holy See’s challenge to the terms of the ICPD draft document, the Egyptian Population Minister Dr. Maher Mahran objected to language re-defining the “structure and composition” of the family. See “Global Monitor: Egypt objects,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 4 (July/August 1994), 7. Several Islamic scholars elaborated on the Muslim teaching on contraception and abortion in PRI Review’s September/October 1994 edition. See “An Islamic Discourse,” and “Global Monitor: Islamic Leaders Object to U.N. ICPD document,” both in PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 5, (September/October 1994), 1-6. Also see Archbishop Renato R. Martino, Permanent Observer of the Holy See, speaking at Cairo ICPD, quoted in “From the Countries: Holy See,” and Shiek el Sharyie, quoted in interview and translation with Egyptian journalist Hussein al Habrouck at the ICPD, Cairo, “Islam,” both in PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 6, (November/December 1994), 15-17. Also see “Global Monitor: Vatican launches another attack on ICPD,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 5, (September/October 1994), 8; Mohammad Ali Taskhiri, ICPD, POP/CAI/14, 4, quoted in “From the Countries: Iran,” PRI Review, Vol. 4, No. 6, (November/December 1994), 17. A number of Islamic countries reportedly disagreed with the persistent feminist influence at Copenhagen. See Joseph, “From Cairo to Copenhagen,” 12. 58 Butler, 12. 59 At the UN’s 1995 World Conference for Women in Beijing, for example, representatives of eleven international feminist organizations clashed with pro-life groups when they “circulated a petition calling on the U.N. to remove the Vatican’s Permanent Observer Status” because, they said “the Vatican ‘acts as a religious body, not a state.’” See Vernon Kirby, “Radical feminism takes a great leap forward in Beijing,” PRI Review, Vol. 5, No. 5, (September/October 1995), 3.

275

Finally, in 1997 HLI established C-Fam which, freed from its parent organization’s controversial baggage, became a significant player in U.S. and UN politics.60 In the final year

of Bill Clinton’s presidency for example, C-Fam director Austin Ruse spearheaded a push to

assemble a “pro-family bloc of nations,” including a motley alliance of Islamic pariah states,

the Vatican, and other conservatives, to represent its interests at the UN’s Beijing+5

Women’s Conference in 2000.61 By generating fierce debates over “abortion and

homosexuality,” C-Fam’s coalition very nearly prevented UN member states from reaching a

consensus on key women’s rights resolutions at the end of the meeting.62 The same pro-

family network deftly exploited political opportunities during President George W. Bush’s

two terms in the White House between 2001 and 2009.63 Again, it is beyond the scope of this

study to detail the relationship between Bush and pro-family NGOs, but in cooperation with

the Bush administration after 2001, the pro-family lobby not only influenced U.S. foreign

policy, but was also able to alter or prevent consensus on official UN positions ranging from

population control to women’s rights, definition of the “family” and the rights of children. 64

Chapter Summary

In conclusion, my thesis challenges historical narratives that depict the pro-life

movement as a particularly American phenomenon. I have argued that transnational pro-life

NGOs emerged as surprisingly powerful players in national and global political arenas by the

1990s due to a confluence of problems and opportunities generated by globalization.

Chapters one, two and three showed that inter-related domestic and global pressures and

60 See Doris E. Buss, “The Christian Right, Globalization, and the ‘Natural Family,’” in Mary Ann Tetreault and Robert Allen Denemark (Editors), Gods, Guns, and Globalization: Religious Radicalism and International Political Economy, (London: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2004), 60, 75. 61 Butler, 52-53, 65. Butler reports that Ruse was able to fuse together representatives of the Vatican, Sudan, Iran, Syria, and Libya; this clearly reflected HLI’s earlier pragmatic, opportunistic overtures toward Muslims. 62 Butler, 53. 63 Patterson, 421. 64 See Butler, 4-5, 13, 107, and Buss and Herman, Globalizing Family Values, xxxiv. It is worth noting that George W. Bush’s tendency to view the world in terms of “good and evil” coalesced neatly with the pro-family lobby’s worldview.

276 opportunities gave rise to the earliest global pro-life networks in the 1970s. Pope Paul VI’s

Humanae Vitae provided the ideological foundations for global pro-life activism at the same

time as world population control advocates threatened to export the sexual revolution to the

developing world. Father Paul Marx and his colleagues therefore resolved to counter these

trends as best they could, and from a very early stage demonstrated a clear pragmatism and

opportunistic spirit by using UN conferences and national battles over abortion in the United

States and Switzerland, among others, to press their agenda. When President Reagan took

office in 1981, pro-life leaders hoped he would hasten the passage of a human life

amendment to the U.S. constitution. His vacillation on the issue frustrated the pro-life

community, which resulted in a rise in direct action protests. Reagan’s stasis simultaneously

prompted HLI to seek out alternative avenues for political influence by supporting colleagues

in Ireland and the Philippines.

U.S. pro-life leaders were not content to fight their battles overseas, however, and

chapters four and five showed that HLI harnessed information gleaned from global travels

and transnational information exchanges to effect and enforce changes in U.S. population

control policies. The Reagan administration clearly recognized an opportunity to placate

restive pro-life groups by tightening existing restrictions on U.S. funding for international

family planning programs and announced the Mexico City policy in 1984. It is doubtful,

however, that the president and his advisors anticipated the long term impact of the new

policy. Due to their history of global networking, pro-life groups such as HLI were well-

prepared to lobby the government to enforce the Mexico City policy, and did so with some

success throughout the remainder of Reagan’s presidency.

Experienced pro-life leaders soon realized that unless they could stimulate resistance

to international family planning programs in target countries, their victory would be hollow

because U.S. funds withdrawn from population control NGOs were quickly made up by other

277 nations. Consequently, as chapter six shows, HLI intensified its grass roots outreach efforts, particularly in Latin America. Here, the similarities between the genesis of the U.S. pro-life movement and its Latin American contemporaries reveal a great deal about the impact of globalization on communities worldwide. A confluence of domestic political, social and economic changes, brought on or exacerbated by globalization, opened Latin American conservatives to HLI’s advances and permitted the organization to spread rapidly across the continent. This process revealed a fundamental truth about transnational pro-life networks: they were not simply U.S. exports, but grew out of very real fears and tensions within local populations. Consequently, local conservatives frequently invited U.S. pro-life leaders to their countries to provide advice and material aid.

A similar pattern emerged in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. HLI was one of the many transnational NGOs that stepped into the power vacuum created by the fall of

Communism in the former Soviet bloc. The religious resurgence promoted by Pope John Paul

II, in which HLI played a part, not only responded to the pressures of entry into the global economy and society, but directly repudiated decades of Communist rule. In Eastern Europe, as in Latin America, the flourishing pro-life community rejected the ‘modernization’ of social and sexual mores in favour of a return to traditional religious and ‘family’ values. In both instances the pressures and opportunities with which local activists had to contend helped determine the nature and trajectory of HLI’s activism and organization. Finally, when faced with political adversity in the United States after President Clinton’s inauguration, HLI’s affiliates built upon the interfaith foundations Father Marx and his colleagues had established in the late 1980s to form remarkable alliances with conservative Muslims at the UN. The

“world community” that had formed in the wake of the globalization in the 1970s crystallized during another distinct phase of globalization in the 1990s.

278

These competing world communities, variously populated by progressive and conservative organizations, became bigger players in world politics after the end of the Cold

War. In particular, the ‘dark side’ of transnational civil society, partially comprised of transnational pro-life, pro-family networks, became far more visible on the global stage, especially at the UN. Beginning in the 1970s, progressive and conservative transnational

NGOs had responded to the pressures and opportunities afforded by globalization by establishing and maintaining global networks. Global pro-life networks were also, like their progressive contemporaries, very much shaped by the political opportunities and problems they faced. The transnational pro-family alliances were quite literally outgrowths of the organizations Father Marx and his allies had begun to form in the 1970s. Although their future is uncertain, particularly since September 11, 2001 and the “War on Terror,” the pro- life alliances that united conservative Catholics and Muslims in the 1990s and early twenty- first century were indicative of broader cultural realignments occurring in local, nation, and global arenas.

What is clear is that there are striking parallels between the social, cultural and

political atmosphere of the 1970s, 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century; all

have witnessed exponential growth of conservative protest movements, resulting from a

combination of domestic uncertainties and global pressures. A period of heightened global

integration in the 1970s combined with the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War, the Watergate

crisis of the presidency, spiralling inflation and an ”energy crisis” that saw ordinary people

cueing for hours to fill their cars’ petrol tanks in the 1970s provided the context for the first

global pro-life groups. At its core, the pro-life movement constituted a response to domestic

uncertainties and wider global threats to American power. In both instances, the movement’s

leaders advocated a return to ‘traditional’ morality, and lionized the ‘natural family’ as the

basic unity of society in order to reclaim some stability in a rapidly changing world. To

279 adequately explain the pro-life movement, the global catalysts for its emergence as well as domestic causes must be acknowledged; as this thesis has shown, the two were often inextricably intertwined. The surge in global pro-family activism at the UN in the 1990s further attests to this fact. By 1992 the U.S. economy was emerging from several years of recession, but for pro-life groups who were shut out of federal politics, a new phase of globalization marked by the end of the Cold War opened new avenues for political influence.

Epilogue: Political patronage and pro-life strategies “We are reminded that even supposed political victories are temporary, and that the solution to these problems is not political, even if we have to keep up the political fight and our activist efforts," said Father Euteneuer. "We are called to prayer, fasting and conversion... only God can put a stop to the horror of abortion now.”65 Then HLI President Father Thomas Euteneuer’s response to President Barack

Obama’s decision to rescind the Mexico City Policy immediately after his January 2009 inauguration, together with the history outlined in this thesis suggest that transnational pro- life groups will not fade into obscurity, even if they face considerable political adversity in the United States.66 The circumstances that prompted earlier fundamentalist resurgences are actually remarkably similar to the economic, political, social, cultural and religious upheavals facing the United States at the close of the first decade of the twenty-first century: the global financial crisis, soaring unemployment rates and the first Democrat in the White House since

Bill Clinton—and first black president, for that matter—all elicited passionate responses from groups not historically known for their political activism.67 HLI, PRI and C-Fam have all

65 Stephan Phelan, “HLI President Criticizes Obama’s Rescinding of Mexico City Policy,” HLI Press Release, (January 23, 2009), http://www.hli.org/index.php/component/content/article/73-press-releases/378-press- release-12309-obama-mexico-city, Accessed: February 15, 2010. 66 Father Euteneuer became HLI’s president in 2000, and shepherded the organization through the first decade of the twenty-first century. See “Biography of Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,” (April 2008), http://www.vidahumana.org/english/president-hli.html, Accessed: February 15, 2010. 67 The Tea Party movement is a significant case in point, as are parallel and often intertwined moves to restrict immigration, prevent the legalization of gay marriage and of course, oppose President Barack Obama’s pro- choice position. See for example David Barstow, “Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right,” The New York Times, (February 15, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.htm?_r=1, Accessed: February 16, 2010; Peter Baker and Susan Saulny, “At Notre Dame, Obama Calls for Civil Tone in Abortion

280 issued scathing critiques of Obama’s pro-choice policies, both in the U.S. and abroad, since his January 2009 inauguration; there is, therefore, a very real possibility that pro-life

frustrations with the Obama administration will again lead to a spike of transnational pro-

family activism.68

By analysing the catalysts for and evolution of global pro-life, pro-family networks

between the 1970s and 1990s, I have complicated both the history of the U.S. pro-life

movement and studies of transnational NGOs that focus almost exclusively on progressive

organizations. Globalization not only caused problems that activists worked to remedy, but

provided the opportunities for the evolution of many such groups, irrespective of their

ideological persuasion or aspirations. To comprehend the persistence of moral conservatism

as a driving force in U.S. society and politics, historians must therefore endeavour to situate

these cultural and political phenomena within their broader global context—if the U.S. pro-

life movement was, as Ronald Reagan suggested, the “conscience of the nation,” then global

pro-family NGOs certainly aspired to be the “conscience of the world.”

Debate,” The New York Times, (May 17, 2009), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/politics/18obama.html, Accessed: May 20, 2009; David Barstow, “An Abortion Battle, Fought to the Death,” The New York Times, (25 July 2009), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/us/26tiller.html, Accessed: July 26, 2009. 68 See for example Penny Starr, “Obama’s Pro-Abortion Views Fuel Pro-Life Defiance in March for Life,” CNSNews.com, (Friday, January 23, 2009), http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/42403, Accessed: 29/8/2010. Also see PRI’s coverage of debates surrounding Obama’s healthcare bill, for example, Colin Mason, “A Brave New America; How the Obama Health Care Bill Will Lead to Coercion at Both Ends of Life,” PRI Weekly Briefing, Vol. 12, No. 22, (30 July, 2009), http://www.pop.org, Accessed: 30/7/2009.

281

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Collections

National Library of Medicine/National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

C. Everett Koop Papers

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California

Dee Jepsen Files Edwin Meese Files Gary L. Bauer Files Mariam Bell Files Morton C. Blackwell Files National Security Affairs, Assistant to the President: Chronological Files Wendy Borcherdt Files White House Office of Records Management Files

University of Notre Dame Archives, South Bend, Indiana

Father Paul Marx Papers

Wisconsin State Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin

Feminists for Life of America Papers John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe Papers Juli Loesch-Wiley Papers

Published Primary Sources

“5th International Conference on Love, Life and the Family, October 26-30, 1988, Toronto.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 8. August 1988: 11. “69 More Opponents of Abortion Jailed in Atlanta Protest.” New York Times. August 7, 1988: 20. “95 Abortion Protestors Are Freed.” New York Times. May 10, 1990: A21. “1300 Attend Eighth World Symposium.” HLI Reports. Vol. 8. No. 6. 1990: 10. “A Can of Worms.” Sisterlife. January 1974: 1. “Abortion, church power is hidden battle in vote.” St Petersburg Times. 27 October, 1991: 25A. Factiva.com. Accessed: 12/11/2009. “An Islamic Discourse.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 5. September/October 1994: 1-6.

ACT Right to Life Association. “American Aid for Abortions Stopped – International Planned Parenthood Federation.” Right to Life. Vol. 13. No. 1. South Australia: February 1985: 3. 282

Adekoya, Lawrence A. “Call to Action in Nigeria.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 8. August 1989: 5. ------. “Nigeria,” HLI Reports, Vol. 10, No. 4, (April/May 1992: 19. Ahern, Father Eugene. “Fellowship Through Fasting.” Right to Life News. East Brunswick, Vic: March-April 1981: 4-5. “AID Whitewashes Guatemalan Program.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 1-2, 4-5. Alauddin, Mohammad and Rashid Faruqee. “Population and Family Planning in Bangladesh: A Survey of the Research.” World Bank Staff Working Papers. No. 557. Washington D.C.: World Bank, 1983. “An Interview with Fr. Marx, After Casey – Where we go from here.” HLI Reports. Vol. 10. No. 8. August 1992: 1-3. “And so it goes in China.” Bulletin of the Natural Family Planning Council of Victoria, Australia. November 1983: 1

“Anti-Abortion Bill Voted, 4-0,” The New York Times, (December 17, 1981), B16.

“Anti-Life Report: Stepped-Up Propaganda Push for ‘Safe, Legal’ Third World Abortions.” ALL About Issues. February 1989: 19.

“Argentina, a Hold Out, is Legalizing Divorce.” The New York Times. May 9, 1987: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/world/argentina-a-holdout-is-legalizing- divorce.html?pagewanted=1. Accessed: 12/10/2009.

“Argentina Weighs Depopulation Program.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 7. July 1988: 4.

Associacion Pro-Vida de Puerto Rico. ”Puerto Rico: Rescues Save Lives.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 2. February 1989: 6.

Asuzu, Dr. M.C. “Letter to the Editor: Kill Life Hordes.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 8. August 1989: 12.

Atkins, Norman D. “U.S. Flips on Population…Growth and Progress Seen as Compatible.” The Washington Post. 5 August 1984. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/4/2009. “Australia: Dissent from the Encyclical,” This Christian Century, (September 18, 1968): 1185.

Battiata, Mary. “Abortions Decrease Sharply in Poland; Drop Seen as Result of Catholic Campaign.” The Washington Post. 14 June, 1991. A19. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Billings, Dr John. “The Promotion of Birth Control by the United States Agency for International Development.” Heartbeat. Vol. 5. No. 4. Alternatives to Abortion International: Winter 1982: 8-10.

283

“Birth Control Parley Shaken as Protestors Display Two Fetuses.” Special to The New York Times. February 16, 1979: B7. Proquest Historical Newspapers: Accessed 8/10/2008. “Bishops step up fight against abortion.” The Independent – London. 5 March, 1991: 12. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. Blinkhorn, Lois. “Some Feminists Fight Abortion.” The Milwaukee Journal. Thursday, September 16, 1982: 4. Bluey, Robert B. “Conservative Spotlight: Human Life International.” Human Events. Vol. 61. Issue 8. Washington D.C.: March 7, 2005: 20. PROQUEST. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=809399941&Fmt=4&clientId=25620&RQT=30 9&VName=PQD. Accessed: 10/6/2009. Bone, Pamela. “Conservatives Start the Population Bomb Ticking Again.” The Age. 10 July 1997: 15. Factiva. Accessed 5/3/2008. Boodman, Sandra G. “How C. Everett Koop shook up his former allies on the right and surprised his new friends on the left.” The Washington Post Magazine. November 15, 1987: 30. Boseley, Sarah. “Does the Canadian Government, G8 President, Oppose Family Planning in Africa?” guardian.co.uk. March 19, 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/sarah- boseley-global-health/2010/mar/19/maternal-mortality-g8. Accessed: 20/3/2010. Bowman, Phyllis. “Fighting RU-486.” HLI Reports. Vol. 10. No. 2. February 1992: 1-2. Boyes, Roger. “How complete is the victory of the Church?” The Times. 21 April 1990. Proquest. Accessed: 14/9/2009. Broniatowski, Michael. “Polish Deputies Exchange Insults in Anti-Abortion Debate.” Reuters News. 16 May, 1991. Factiva.com. Accessed: 12/11/2009. Brown, Judie. “Judie Brown’s Action Report: Understanding AIDS.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 10. No. 6-7. June-July 1988: 22. ------. “Mexico City: Part II,” ALL About Issues, Vol. 6, No. 11, (November 1984), 10. ------. “President’s Column.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 10. No. 10. October 1988: 5 ------. Saving Those Damned Catholics. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2007.

------. “Tax Dollars Continue to Support Death.” ALL News. Vol. 1. No. 20. May 17, 1985: 4.

------. “USAID Participation in Foreign Population Control.” ALL About Issues Vol. 6. No. 5. May 1984: 20

Bush, Larry. “Behind the Anti-Abortion Lines.” The Village Voice. Nov. 25-Dec. 1, 1981: 18.

“Cardinal of Mexico Joins HLI Board.” HLI Reports. Vol. 2. No. 7. September 1984: 3.

Carlson, Allan. “What’s Wrong with the United Nations’ Definition of the Family.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 4. July/August 1994: 9 -13.

284

Casaroli, Antonio Cardinal. Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. “Letter to the Split meeting announcing apostolic blessing.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 11. November 1988: 12. Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, John. “1980 Pro Life Victories [?].” Sisterlife. March 1981: 1.

------. “AID Sends Dishonest Memo to Capitol Hill.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 6. May 1986: 1. ------. “Direct Action to Protect Lives.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 7. July 1985: 3. ------. “No Cheap Solutions.” Gaithersburg, MD: Pro-life Nonviolent Action Project, 1984. ------. Editor. “What is the Prolife Nonviolent Action Project?” Alektor. Vol. 1. No. 1 May 1982: 3. ------. “HLI Brings Church’s Teaching to Reluctant Christians.” Special Report. Vol. 35. 1987: 1. ------. “H.L.I. Fights A.I.D.S. As World Offers Condoms, Abortion.” Special Report. No. 35. 1987: 7 ------. “HLI v. IPPF Congress in Brazil.” Special Report. No. 61. 1989: 5. ------. “Pro-Life Pioneer.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 9. No. 6. November-December 1987: 39. ------. “The AIDS-Related Complex.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 4. April 1987: 6

------. “Violations of American Law Documented.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 1. January 1986: 1.

“Cherry Hill Abortion Clinic Invaded; 6 Arrested.” United Press International. 25 November, 1984. Factiva.com. Accessed: 3/4/2009. Christian Action Council. “Abortion Fight Rages Over Agency for International Development.” Action Line. Vol. IX. No. 3. April 1985: 1.

“church power in Poland – abortion.” The Economist. London: 16 May, 1992. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Clark, Matt and Mary Hager. “The Koop Controversy.” Newsweek. June 8, 1981: 101.

“Coercive Depopulation in Latin America.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 6. June 1988: 4.

Commission on Population, Republic of the Philippines. “POPCOM: About Us.” http://www.popcom.gov.ph/about_us/index.html. Accessed: 9/12/2009. Commoner, Barry. “How Poverty Breeds Overpopulation (and not the other way around).” Ramparts. August-September 1975: 21-25, 58-59.

“Correcting ex-Warsaw.” Agence France-Presse. 16 March, 1993. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Daniszewski, John. “Poland Postpones Action Banning Abortion.” The Associated Press. 17 May 1991. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

------. “Walesa Signs Law Banning Almost All Abortions.” The Associated Press. 15 February, 1993. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

285

“Death, Your Dollars and the Pathfinder Fund.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 6. No. 1. January 1984: 44-45. de Casco, Martha Lorena. “Pro-Life Nonviolent Action in Honduras.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 4. April 1987: 9. De Jong, Daphne. “The Feminist Sell-Out.” In FFL Pro-Life Feminism. Milwaukee, WI: Feminists for Life, 1980: 1-5.

“Derailing the Agenda.” PRI Review. Vol. 5. No. 5. September/October 1995: 2.

Dionne, E. J. Jr. “Determined to Lead.” The New York Times. 12 May, 1985. Factiva. Accessed: 21/8/2009. “Dismantling the Population Control Network.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 12. November 1986: 1.

"Display Ad 345 -- No Title. " New York Times. 25 Apr. 1971. BR63. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2005). Accessed: 12/8/2008.

“Doctors’ Abortion Ban Illegal, Polish Ombudsman Says.” Reuters News. 5 May, 1992. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

“Don’t Imitate the North.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 5. May 1987: 10.

“Doubling the U.S. population budget.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 6. November/December 1993: 5.

Dunn, Dr. H. P. “Contraception’s unwelcome ‘fall out.’” AD 2000. February 1991: 8.

Eckholm, Eric. “Population Growth: How U.S. Policy Evolved.” The New York Times. 11 August, 1984. Factiva.com, Accessed: 2/4/2009.

“Editorial: From Red Flags to Black Robes.” St Louis Post Dispatch. 18 May, 1991: 2B. Factiva.com. Accessed: 10/9/2009.

“Efforts to Change Democratic Party’s Abortion Plank Fail.” St Louis Review. July 11, 1980: 5. Ehrlich, Paul. The Population Bomb. London: Pan Books, 1968.

Engel, Randy. “The International Population Control Machine and the Pathfinder Fund.” International Review of Natural Family Planning. Vol. V. No. 1. Spring 1981: 1-36.

Engel, Randy. “A Pro-Life Report on Population Growth and the American Future.” United States Coalition for Life, 1972.

Engel, Randy. “The AID-Ravenholt Philosophy,” Pro-Life Reporter. Vol. 5. No. 13. Spring 1977: 7-13. Engleberg, Stephen. “Conservatives Hope to Link Abortion with Overseas Aid.” The New York Times. 24 June 1984: 4. Proquest. Accessed: 5/3/2009.

286

Engler, Michael. “mothers fathers love babies children families God.” Minnesota: Human Life Center, no date: 1-3.

“European Triumph for P.L.A.N.” ALL About Issues. November-December 1987: 16.

Faclone, Michael. “Randy Neugebauer Revealed As ‘Baby Killer” Shouter: Texas Republican Apologizes,” The Huffington Post, (22 March, 2010), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/randy-neugebauer- revealed_n_508525.html, Accessed: 22/3/2010. Faruqee, Rashid and Ethna Johnson. “Health, Nutrition, and Family Planning in India: A Survey of Experiments and Special Projects.” World Bank Staff Working Paper. No. 507. Washington D.C.: World Bank, February 1982. “Father Paul Marx visits Marxist China.” HLI Reports. Vol. 2. No. 2. February 1984: 1-2, 8. Father R.H. “Letter to the Editor: Pregnancy Aid in Poland.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 4. April 1988: 12. Felton, John. “Foreign Aid Enjoys Boomlet of Support in Hill Panel.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. Vol. 47. No. 37. 16 September 1989. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. Feminists for Life. “Feminists for Life: Creating, Growing, Encouraging Women, Loving Life.” Milwaukee, WI: no date: 1-2. Fernandez, Most Rev. Rene. Bolivia, “Gruesome News: Letter to HLI.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 11. October 1986: 12. “Filipinos Fight Marcos’ Population Legacy.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 1. January 1988: 3. Flannery, James Allen and Phil Johnson. “Latin Americans At Odds Battle Waged over Birth Control.” Omaha World-Herald. 23 February 1986. Factiva.com. Accessed: 15/03/2009. Flynn, Mark. “New Activism in Quebec,” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 4. April 1985: 6. “Focus on AIDS.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 1. “From the Countries: Holy See.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 6. November/December 1994: 15- 17. “From the Countries: Iran.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 6. November/December 1994: 17. “From the Countries: Santo Domingo – the Cardinal Objects.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 4. July/August 1993: 13. “From the Countries: U.S. Agency for International Development under fire.” PRI Review. Vol. 5. No. 1. January/February 1995: 13. “From the Countries: U.S. Department of State to be ‘streamlined.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 2. March/April 1993: 10.

287

“From the Countries: U.S. to use women to address population problem.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 2. March/April 1994: 15. Fuentes Spross, Dr. Eduardo. “Fighting Rich Anti-Natalists.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 13. December 1986: 12. “Funds for Sterilizing Latin America.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 5. May 1987: 1-3, 9. Gagnon, Edouard Cardinal. “Letter to the Editor: Foresee and Forestall.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 4. April 1986: 8. Galloway, Paul. “Anti-Abortion Crusader Follows lead of King and Ghandi.” Chicago Tribune: Tempo. Wednesday, August 20, 1986: 7. Garvey, Joe. “Bringing It All Back Home.” ALL About Issues. September 1981: 7. Geach, Tasmin. “Rescue in Britain – A Court Case.” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 2. February 1991: 3-4. Glastris, Paul. “Warning: The Surgeon General May be Good for your Health.” The Washington Monthly. March 1987: 14. “Global Monitor.” PRI Review. Vol. 5. No. 3. May/June 1995: 7. “Global Monitor: Egypt objects.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 4. July/August 1994: 7. “Global Monitor: Fashioning the citizen of the new world order.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 4. September/October 1993: 8. “Global Monitor: Islamic Leaders Object to U.N. ICPD document.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 5. September/October 1994: 1-6. “Global Monitor: Population Council testimony.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 6. November/December 1993: 6. “Global Monitor: Role of the NGOs at ICPD PrepCom III.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 4. July/August 1994: 7. “Global Monitor: The ‘Counselor’ Cometh.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 5. September/October 1994: 7. “Global Monitor: UNICEF’s ‘direct’ investment in population initiatives.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 4. July/August 1993: 7. “Global Monitor: U.S. State Department Counselor ‘counsels’ population control.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 4. July/August 1993: 7. “Global Monitor: Vatican launches another attack on ICPD.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 5. September/October 1994: 8. “Going to Jail to Stop the Bloodbath.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 5. No. 12. December 1983: 5. Gonzalez, Antonio J., Archbishop of Quito. “Letter to the Editor.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 13. December 1986: 12. Goodman, Ellen. “Ideology Exporting.” The Washington Post. 31 August 1985: A21.

288

Goodsell, Paul and James Allen Flannery. “Abortion Policy Stirs Controversy.” The Omaha World-Herald. 29 September 1984. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/4/2009. Gore, Albert. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1992. Gruner, Father Hans. “Picketing in Vienna.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 13. December 1986: 12. Guilfoyle, Jean. “ICPD: The New York Finale,” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 4. July/August 1994: 6. ------. “The Future With Clinton and Gore.” HLI Reports. Vol. 10. No. 12. December 1992: 1-2. ------. “The Venus FlyTrap.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 5. September/October 1994: 13. Habiger, Fr. Matthew and Brian Hermes. “Necessity Defense Gets Rescuers Acquitted.” HLI Reports. Vol.8. No. 11. November 1990: 3, 6. Habiger, Father Matthew. “HLI to found new World Organization.” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 3. March 1991: 6. ------. “Pro-Life Mission to Eastern Europe.” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 8. August 1991: 6. ------. “World Council Moves Forward.” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 8. August 1991: 3. “Hail to the Irish!” ALL About Issues. Vol. 5. No. 10. October 1983: 11.

Hardin, Garrett. Living within Limits: ecology, economics, and population taboos. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

------. Population, evolution, and birth control: a collage of controversial ideas. San Francisco : W.H. Freeman, 1969. ------. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science. Vol. 162. 1968:1243-1248. Haring, Bernard. “The Encyclical Crisis: contradiction can and must be a service of love for the Pope.” Commonweal. 6 September 1968: 590. Hilts, Phillip J. “Population Delegates Alter Course.” The Washington Post. 25 July 1984: Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/4/2009. ------. “U.S. to Stop Funding Groups that ‘Actively Promote’ Abortion.” The Washington Post. 14 July, 1984. Factiva.com. Accessed 5/3/2009. “HLI Branch Offices Flourish.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 1. January 1985: 1.

“HLI Expanding Efforts in the US,” HLI Reports, Vol. 5, No. 2, (February 1987), 7.

“HLI Office Opened in Miami.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 4. April 1988: 11.

“HLI Publications spread pro-life gospel.” HLI Reports. Vol. 10. No. 10. October/November 1992: 14, 16.

289

“HLI Symposium United Theory and Practice.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 7. June 1986: 1. “HLI to Launch Eurolife from Poland.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 12. December 1993: 8. “HLI’s 1987 Award: Dr. Philippe Schepens.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 5. “HLI’s New Outreach in Brazil.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 11. November 1988: 3. “HLI’s People of the Month.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 8. August 1993: 11. Holden, Constance. “A ‘prolife’ population delegation?” Science. Vol. 224: 132. Factiva.com. Accessed 5/3/2009. “Holy Innocents Pilgrimage in England.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 12. December 1988: 3. “Honduras Saved by Forceful Action.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 3. March 1985: 4.

Howe, Marvine. “Volunteer Agencies Playing Larger Role in U.S. Foreign Aid.” The New York Times. March 12, 1984: A1, A8.

Hossie, Linda. “A right hook U.S. anti-abortion policy jolts family planners.” The Globe and Mail. 27 June, 1987: D3. Factiva.com. Accessed 2/4/2009. Huessy, Peter R. “The United Nations’ Flawed Population Policy.” Backgrounder. The Heritage Foundation, August 27, 1984: 3-4. Hughes, Terrance J. “The Casey decision: God and the Guillotine.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 3. February 1993: 3. Human Life International. A Tribute to the Apostle of Life Father Paul Marx, O.S.B. (Gaithersburg, MD: HLI, 1994). ------. “An Urgent Appeal to C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc. D, Surgeon General of the United States, from the 1,300 Participants in the Third Annual International Symposium on Human Sexuality.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 10-11. ------. “Ad for 1988 Conference.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 10. October, 1987: 11.

------. “Press Release: Pro-Life Group Applauds International Funding Vote.” US Newswire. January 21, 1986: 1. ------. “Prolife Missionaries to the World!” ALL About Issues. Vol. 9. No. 6. November- December 1987: 38. ------. “You are warmly invited to Yugoslavia…Symposium on Human Life and Sexuality and a Retreat at Medjugorje, August 29-September 9.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 7. July 1988: 11. “Human Sexuality Symposium Studies Family and Population Questions.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 2. Hume, Kevin. “International Congress of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, European Division, February 2-4, 1979.” Right to Life. Vol. 7. No. 1. South Australia: SA Right to Life, March 1979: 6.

290

Hurtado, Jorge Marique, Archbishop of La Paz, Bolivia. “Letter to the Editor: Forge Ahead.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 8. August 1988: 12. “In Memoriam: Harry John.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 3. February 1993: 11. “International Briefs: Impact of Election Limited.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 13. December 1986: 3. International Planned Parenthood Federation. “The IPPF and the World Population Conference 1974.” London: International Planned Parenthood Federation, 1974. “IPPF Fund Cuts by U.S. Replaced by Others.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 12. November 1986: 4. “Islam.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 6. November/December 1994: 15-17. Jamel, Mark. “Marx: New Spirit for old cause in new location.” Daily Times, St. Cloud Minnesota. November 7, 1981: 1A. “Japan: New Global Abortion Funder.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No.1. January 1988: 1-2. Jasser, Adam. “Polish Sejm postpones abortion vote.” Reuters News. 30 December 1992. Factiva.com. Accessed: 26/2009. “jcok Diary.” HLI Reports. Vol. 2. No. 9. December 1984: 4. Joseph, Rita. “From Cairo to Copenhagen.” PRI Review. Vol. 5. No. 2. March/April 1995: 5. ------. “Ideology Distorts Treaty Obligations.” Endeavour Forum Newsletter. No. 132. October 2008: http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/Newsletters/2008/ideology.html. Accessed: 10/6/2009. ------. “Slender Chance of Genuine Consensus at Beijing Conference.” PRI Review. Vol. 5. No. 5. July/August 1995: 8-9. Joyer, Paulette. “January Thoughts on Extremism.” in FFL. Pro-Life Feminism: 7. Kahn, Herman, William Brown and Leon Martel. The Next 200 Years: A scenario for America and the World. London: Associated Business Programs, 1977. Kappus, James F. “USAID Victory is the Best Anniversary Gift to A.L.L.” ALL About News. Vol. 1. No. 5. December 14, 1984: 4. Kasun, Jacqueline. “Fear of the Foreigner.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 7. July 1987: 8. ------. “Population Bomb Exploded by Facts: Spooky Stories.” Sisterlife. Vol. X. No. 3. Summer 1990: 4 ------. “Population Control is Behind the Purge at AID.” ALL About Issues. June 1983: 20-21. ------. “Refuting the Bombers: Review of Julian L. Simon’s The Ultimate Resource.” New Oxford Review. July/August 1982: 26-28. ------. “Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, March 22, 1984.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 6. No. 6. June 1984: 24-25.

291

------. The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988. ------. “U.S. Is Involved in Chinese Population Control.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 5. No. 10. October 1983: 5-6. Kaufman, Jonathon. “Pope, in Poland, Savors Victory and Looks East.” The Boston Globe. 2 June, 1991. Factiva.com. Accessed: 10/9/2009. Kaufman, Michael T. “Polish Church Awaits Pope, Bewildered by Its New Vigor.” The New York Times. 7 June, 1987. Factiva.com. Accessed: 12/2/2010. Keating, Joshua. “A Canadian Global Gag Rule?” Foreign Policy. Friday, March 19, 2010: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/19/a_canadian_global_gag_rule. Accessed: 20/3/2010. Keller, Bill. “U.S. Policy on Abortion: A Likely Target Named.” The New York Times. 14 July, 1984. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/4/2009. Kelly, Kathleen. “Post-Abortion Healing.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 11. November 1987: 8. ------. “Victim of an Abortion Profiteer.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 9. September 1987: 1- 2, 4. Kelly, Kathy. “Symposium in Split a Success.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 11. November 1988: 1-2. Kelly, Pete. “Act Now!” ALL About Issues. Vol. 5. No. 10. October 1983: 45. ------. “Prefocus: Think Tanks are Essential.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 6. No. 9. September 1984: 4. Kirby, Vernon. “Radical feminism takes a great leap forward in Beijing.” PRI Review. Vol. 5. No. 5. September/October 1995: 3. Koopman, Pater J. SSS. Foundation for the Right to Life of the Unborn Child. “Report from the Netherlands.” Vol. 7. No. 1. January 1989: 5. Koza, Patricia. “Polish abortion bill fails to satisfy pro-life groups.” The Times. 8 January, 1993. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. Kull, Bart. “McPherson States Policy: AID Supports Family Planning.” FrontLines. eptember 1984: 1-2. Kurlansky, Mark. J. “World population meetings find message getting through.” The San Diego Union-Tribune. 19 August 1984: 1-2. Factiva.com. 2/4/2009. Kurzweil, John. “Catholics of the Year.” Catholic Twin Circle. Vol. 28. No. 4. Sunday January 26, 1992: 1. Kuskey, Garvan F. D.D.S. “A Jury Saves the Unborn.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 9. Lader, Lawrence. Breeding Ourselves to Death. NY: Ballantine Books, 1971.

292

The Lambeth Conference. “Resolution 15: The Life and Witness of the Christian Community – Marriage.” 1930. The Lambeth Conference Official Website http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm. Date Accessed: 12/8/08. La Palm, Michele. “HLI Establishes Center in Poland.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 8. August 1993: 3. “Latin American Coalition Denounces Contraceptive Imperialism.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 8. August 1988: 1-2. “Latin American Leaders Protest U.S. Interference,” HLI Reports, Vol. 6, No. 7, (July 1988), 2. Lauter, David. “Walesa Seeks ‘Marshall Plan’ for Poland.” Los Angeles Times. 16 November, 1989: A1. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. “Liberation Theology and Abortion.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 6. June 1989: 9. Lindemann, Michael. “Polish Parliament Approves Strict Limits on Abortion.” The Associated Press. 24 July 1992: Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. “Literature Fuels Growth of Hispanic Pro-Life Network.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 8. No. 6. August-September 1986: 46. Llaguno, Magaly. “Help Save Latin America.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 11. December 1985: 3- 4. ------. “Struggles in Peru.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 13. December 1986: 8. Loesch, Juli. “Conference” Truth is Stronger than Faction.” P.S., Vol. III. No. 5. August- October 1982: back page. Loesch Wiley, Juli. “The Tale of a Feminist ‘Freak’:Solidarity and Sexual Shalom.” New Oxford Review. May 1990: 11. “Look At All The Good You Did in 1988!” Special Report. No. 51. 1988: 6. Malthus, Thomas R. in Kenneth E. Boulding. Malthus – population: the first essay. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959. Marr, David. “Balancing Acts.” Sydney Morning Herald. 1 February 1997: 1 Factiva. Accessed 5/3/2008. Marshall, Robert G. “AID’s Carrot is a Big Stick.” A.L.L. About Issues, Vol. 6. No. 9. September 1984: 6. ------. “How U.S. Laws Permit Tax-Funded Population Control.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 5. No. 10. October 1983: 6-8. Marx, Bernadette. “RU 486 Conference, Frankfurt, Germany.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 2. March/April 1993: 3. Marx, Father Paul. “1,000 Meet to Rescue the Future.” Special Report. No. 75. December 1990: 1-2.

293

------. “Abortion International.” Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1978.

------. “Abortion in Argentina.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 7. July 1985: 2. ------. “Abortion in Mexico – A Threat Renewed.” HLI Reports. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 1984: 1-2. ------. “Abortion in Yugoslavia.” HLI Reports. Vol. 2. No. 5. June 1984: 1.

------. “Alfonsin’s Debacle in Argentina.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 11. November 1987: 3. ------. “A.I.D.S – The First Politically Protected Plague.” Special Report. No 31. 1987: 1- 2. ------. “Alliance for the Family Set to Oppose Population-Controllers in Latin America.” Special Report. No. 32. 1987: 3. ------. “Argentina: HLI Helps Church Battle State.” Special Report. No. 27. 1987: 2. ------. “Argentina, Rich and Empty.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 13. December 1986: 1.

------. “Argentina: Sex Ed, Birth Control Plans Go Down in Flames.” Special Report. No. 55. 1989: 5.

------. “Award for Dr. Siegfried Ernst.”HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 7. July 1991: 5.

------. “Behind the Scenes at HLI.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 7. July 1987: 4-5.

------. “Bishops Defend the Family.” Special Report. No. 57. 1989: 1-2.

------. “Bishops Promote NFP.” Special Report. No. 69. June 1990: 3.

------. “Brazil: Sleeping Giant Drifts Toward Death.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 1. January 1987: 2. ------. “Canadian Church Sounds Uncertain Trumpet Against A.I.D.S.” Special Report. No. 29. 1987: 1-2. ------. Confessions of A Prolife Missionary: The Journeys of Father Paul Marx. Gaithersburg, MD: Human Life International, 1988.

------. “Contraception – the Gateway to Abortion.” A.L.L. About Issues. Vol. 5. No. 11. November 1983: 20-21.

------. “Contraception vs. Family Planning.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 3. February 1993: 5. ------. “Dear Friend.” Special Report. No. 33. 1987: 1.

------. “Dear Friend of the Babies.” Special Report. No. 28. 1987: 2, 6.

------. “Dear Loyal Supporter.” Special Reports. No. 64. 1990: 1.

“Doctors’ Conference Planned for East Bloc.” Special Report. No. 70. July 1990: 7.

------. “Fr. Marx Founds Two New HLI Centers in Poland.” Special Reports. No. 37. 1988: 1-6.

294

------. “Father Marx, Joan Andrews Help Launch Rescue Movement in South America.” Special Report. No. 59. 1989: 1.

------. “Filipino Constitution Protects Unborn.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 3. March 1987: 1-2. ------. “From Contraception to abortion.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review. Vol. LXXXIII. No. 5. February 1983: 12-13.

------. “Good News for Pro-Life Poles.” Special Report. No. 59. 1989: 7.

------. “Help Eastern Europe!” Special Report. No. 65. 1990: 7.

------. “Help Keep Abortion Illegal in Vocation-Rich Nigeria.” Special Report. No. 61. 1989: 7.

------. “Historic Prolife Conference in Slavonski Brod.” Special Report. No. 74. November 1990: 3.

------. “H.L.I. Battles PP South of the Border.” Special Report. No. 46. 1988: 3.

------. “HLI Fights to Stop Abortion in Nigeria.” Special Report. No. 61. 1989: 5.

------. “HLI Invades Brazil Again.” Special Reports. No. 24. 1986: 5.

------. “HLI Meeting Shows Need for East Bloc Pro-Life Work.” Special Report. No. 49. 1988: 4.

------. “HLI Peru Reaching Millions.” Special Report. No. 62. 1989: 7.

------. “HLI Poland on the Move.” Special Report. No. 73. October 1990: 8.

------. “HLI Shores Up U.K.” Special Report. No. 36. 1987: 3.

------. “H.L.I.’s Most Exciting Opportunity in Years.” Special Report. No. 44. 1988: 7.

------. “H.L.I’s Urgent Needs.” Special Report. No. 40. 1988: 8.

------. “Huge Mexico City Symposium Mobilizes Latins to Fight Anti-lifers.” Special Reports. Vol. 32. 1987: 3.

------. “I Need Your Help.” Special Report. No. 46. 1988: 7-8.

------. “International Roundup: Chile.” Special Report. No. 46. 1988: 6.

------. “International Roundup: Colombia.” Special Report. No. 46. 1988: 6.

------. “It’s HLI’s Tenth Birthday!” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 2. February 1991: 11.

------. “Let’s Computerize Poland’s Pro-Life Effort.” Special Report. No. 51. 1988: 7-8.

295

------. “More Printing Paper Needed in Eastern Bloc.” Special Report. No. 51. 1988: 8.

------. “Need in Yugoslavia: One More Child.” Special Report. No. 49. 1988: 5.

------. “Our Chance to Beat ‘Planned Barenhood’ in Brazil.” Special Report. No. 49. 1988: 7. ------. “Planned Barenhood/Banned Parenthood.” Washington D.C.: HLI, 1988: 1-13.

------. “Planned Parenthood and Reds V. Church and NFP.” Special Report. No. 37. 1988: 2.

------. “Poland – A Nation on the Cross.” Special Report. No. 37. 1988: 1.

------. “Poland’s Endless Martyrdom.” Special Report. No. 37. 1988: 1.

------. “Population Control in China.” HLI Reports. Vol. 2. No. 3. March 1984: 1-2, 8.

------. “PP Federation of Canada to Sue Father Paul Marx for Libel.” ALL News. Vol. 1. No. 16. April 19, 1985: 6.

------. “Pro-Life Missionary Aids Ecuador’s Activists.” Special Report. No. 67. April 1990: 2.

------. “Pro-Life Missionary Invades the “Giant of Africa.” Special Report. No. 69. June 1990: 1-3.

------. “Pro-Life News from Poland and Lithuania.” Special Report. No. ??? 1989: 4.

------. “Relaxed AID Policy Can Kill Honduran Children.” HLI Reports. Vol. 2. No. 6. July 1984: 1.

------. “Religion and Population in Africa.” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 1. January 1991: 2.

------. Special Report. No. 22. 2.

------. Special Report. No. 55. 1989: 8.

------. “Symposium Declaration Exposes Condom King Koop.” Special Report. No. 32. 1987: 3.

------. “The Aftermath of Abortion.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 10. September 1986: 3.

------. “The Conquest of the Soul.” HLI Reports. Vol. 8. No. 11. November 1990: 1-2, 7.

------. “The Death Industry is Gaining Ground And Fight Heats Up as Referendum Nears.” LoveLine. April 1983: 6.

------. The Death Peddlers: War on The Unborn. Collegesville, MN: St John’s University Press, 1971.

296

------. “The Struggle for Africa.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 11. November 1989: 1-2.

------. “The Truth Can Hurt.” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 5. May 1991: 1-2.

------. “USAID Assaults Nigerian Values.” HLI Reports. Vol. 8. No. 5. May 1990: 3-4.

------. “Victories and Further Struggles in the Philippines.” Special Report. No. 29: 5.

------. “World Bank Funds Forced Abortion in China.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 3. March 1985: 1. ------. “World Conference a Huge Success.” Special Report. No. 46. 1988: 1.

------. “World Conference in Toronto: Maybe Our Finest.” Special Reports. No. 50. 1988: 2.

------. “You Did It Again!” Special Report. No. 48. 1988: 6.

McCormack, Ellen. “June 23 Letter to the Editor: Answers on Abortion.” The New York Times. July 12, 1980: 16. Proquest, Accessed: 23/2/2009

McKay, Susan. “HLC Controversy Deepens.” National Catholic Register. Vol. LVI. No. 49. December 7, 1980: 10.

McKinsey, Kitty. “Polish women balk at ban on abortions.” The Toronto Star. 25 April, 1991: F1. Factiva.com. Accessed: 12/11/2009.

Meehan, Mary. “The other right-to-lifers.” Commonweal. 18 January 1980: 13-14.

------. “Will Somebody Please Be Consistent?” Sojourners. November 1980: 14.

Meislin, Richard J. “UN Parley Urges Ban on Promoting Use of Abortion, US and Vatican Victory.” The New York Times. August 12, 1984: 1, 8. Proquest. Accessed: 2/4/2009.

Menaker, Drusilla. “After 33 years of Legal Abortion, Some in Poland want it Outlawed.” The Associated Press. 8 May, 1989. Proquest. Accessed: 12/11/2009.

------. “Ban on Abortion in Poland Goes into Effect, Medical Underground Predicted.” The Associated Press. 16 March, 1993. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Meng, Kwang-ho. “Korea: Sex Selection by Abortion.” HLI Reports. Vol. 1. No. 4. September 1983: 10.

Miller, James A. “Molesters get NGO status, HLI is shut out.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 12. December 1993: 3-5.

Moore, Elizabeth. “Playboy and NARAL Host Fundraiser.” in Feminists for Life. Pro-Life Feminism, (Milwaukee, WI: Feminists for Life, 1980): 1-5.

297

Morrison, David. “PRI Petitions to withdraw Norplant ®: Group seeks FDA’s disapproval of contraceptive on medical grounds.” PRI Review. Vol. 6. No. 4. July/August 1996: 1-3. Morrow, Father James. “HLI Flourishes in Britain.” HLI Reports. Vol. 8. No. 3. March 1990: 3.

Mosher, Steven. Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese. New York: The Free Press, 1983.

------. “Chinese Officials Invade Family Life.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 10. October 1987: 3

------. Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2008.

------. “PRI Special Alert: PRI Mourns the Passing of Father Marx, Our Founder and Chairman,” PRI Weekly Report, (20 March, 2010), http://www.pop.org Accessed: 20/3/2010. Nathanson, Bernard. “From the Victim’s Viewpoint.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 4. National Office of Post-Abortion Reconciliation and Healing. “Reclaiming Fatherhood: A Multifaceted Examination of Men Dealing with Abortion – Resource People.” http://www.menandabortion.info/l1-resource4.html. Accessed: 20/1/2010. National Organization for Women, “Highlights from NOW’s Forty Fearless Years.” http://www.now.org/history/timeline.html. Accessed: September 13th, 2007. ------. “National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose.” October 29, 1966: http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html. Accessed September 13th 2007. National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. Washington D.C.: National Security Council, 1974. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf. Accessed: 10/6/2009. Nelson, Jack. “Reagan Wins Landslide Victory.” The Los Angeles Times. November 5, 1980. http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_761593934/reagan_wins_landslide_victory.html. Accessed: 12/01/2009.

“New Filipino Bill of Rights May Protect Unborn.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 10. September 1986: 1-3. “New U.N. Ambassador Linked to Population Control Aid.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 11. No. 2. February 1989: 19. Newman, Barry. “Quiet Crusade: As Pope’s Visit Nears, The Church in Poland Hews to Its Strategy – Essentially United It Intends to Outlast Regime, Make Totalitarianism Less Total – Rulers Offer to the Vatican.” The Wall Street Journal. 1 June 1987. Factiva.com. Accessed: 17/8/2009. “Next HLI World Conference in Toronto.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 7. July 1988: 5.

298

Nixon, Pat. “U.S. Pro-Lifers Meet Pro Abortionists But Dead Baby Crashes Historic Meeting.” The Uncertified Human. Vol. 7. No. 1. June 1979: 3. Nordheimer, Jon. “Abortion Battle Catches Dublin Leader Unawares.” New York Times. April 27, 1983: A2. Proquest Accessed: 4/12/08. ------. “Irish to vote tomorrow on Anti-abortion measure.” New York Times. Sept. 6, 1983: A13. Proquest. Accessed: 4/4/08. Nowlan, D. “The Irish Solution.” Populi. Vol. 7. No. 2. 1980: 9-14. O’Brien, Mary. “Meeting in the Radical Middle.” Sojourners. November 1980: 22. O’Dowd, Niall. “US Cash boost for pro-life.” Sunday Press. August 1, 1982: 1.

Office of the President of the Millennium Assembly, 55th session of the United Nations General Assembly. “Reference document on the participation of civil society in United Nations conferences and special sessions of the General Assembly during the 1990s.” Version 1. New York, August 2001: http://www.un.org/ga/president/55/speech/civilsociety1.htm. Accessed: 12/3/2010.

“Opposition to Population Control.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 6. June 1987: 1-2. O’Reilly, William M. “Bangladesh’s Big Brother.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 7. No. 9. September 1985: 17. ------. “Incentives for Sterilization in Bangladesh.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 6. June 1985: 6-7. ------. “The Shell Game.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 6. No. 4. April 1984: 18. Osborn, Fairfield. Our Plundered Planet. London: Faber and Faber, 1948.

“Our Gross National Product.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 4. No. 9. October 1982: 36.

“Our Tax Dollars do What?” ALL About Issues. Vol. 4. No. 9. October 1982: 36.

“Overcrowded Mexico City offers a grim warning to the world.” Time: The Weekly Magazine. Vol. 124. No. 6. August 6, 1984.

Overduin, Daniel. “Editorial.” We Respect Life. Vol. 6. No. 6. March/April 1978-Vol. 7. No. 1. May/June 1978: 7.

------. “Population Tribune – Bucharest – August, 1974.” Right to Life. Everard Park, South Australia: SA Right to Life Association, October 1974: 1.

Pantin, Anthony. Archbishop of Trinidad. “Letter to the Editor: Faithful Muslims.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 7. July 1989: 10.

299

“Partial Text of Roman Catholic Bishops’ Birth-Control Statement.” The Minneapolis Tribune. November 16, 1968: 22.

Penados, Msgr. Dr. Prospero, Archbishop of Guatemala, President of the Episcopal Conference. “An Open Letter to President Reagan.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 8. No. 1. (February 1986). 1-2.

Peterson, Bill. “Abortion Foes Gain Key Federal Posts; Abortion Foes Launching Effort to Alter U.S. Policies, Programs.” The Washington Post. March 6, 1981. First Section. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/lnacademic/delivery. Accessed 27/11/2007 ------. “For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon is Over.” The Washington Post. July 21, 1981: First Section. Lexis Nexis, 27/11/07.

“Philippine Resistance: On Population and Sustainable Development.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 2. March/April 1993: 7.

“Pill Abused in Bangladesh.” HLI Reports. Vol. 3. No. 4. April 1985: 4.

“PLAN.” HLI Reports. Vol. 1. No. 5. November 1983: 3.

“Planned Parenthood’s Depopulation Network.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 5. May 1987: 1-3, 9.

“Plus News: Poland Abortion Bill.” The Chicago Sun Times. 7 January 1993: 3. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

“Poland: Abortion Debate Seems Headed for a Referendum.” Inter Press Service Global Information Network. 17 November 1992. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

“Poland abortion law stalled.” The Las Vegas Review Journal. Associated Press. 18 December 1992: 16a. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

“Poland ends subsidies for birth control pills.” New York Times Abstracts. 9 May, 1991: page 11, Column 1. Factiva.com. Accessed: 12/11/2009.

“Poland’s Parliament proposes further tightening abortion bill.” 6 April, 1991: Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

“Poland’s revolution has its finale in the Vatican.” The Independent – London. 6 February, 1991: 9. Factiva.com. Accessed: 24/6/2009.

“Poles file 2 abortion-rights bills Protection, referendum proposals counter opponents’ measures.” The Dallas Morning News. 31 March 1992. 11A. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

“Poles Seek Vote on Abortion Ban.” Times-Picayune. 3 December 1992: A27. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

300

“Polish senators ban abortion despite protests.” Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings Ltd, 1 October 1990. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Pope Pius XI. “On Christian Marriage, Castii Conubii: Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Christian Marriage.” December 31, 1930: Papal Encyclicals Online, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM. Accessed: 28/8/2007.

“PRI debunks population-control advocates” HLI Reports. Vol. 10. No. 10. October/November 1992: 22.

“PRI Outguns Guttmacher in reports duel.” PRI Review. Vol. 6. No. 3. May/June 1996: 3.

PRI. “PRI Board of Directors Mourns Passing of Pro-Life Pioneer, Fr. Paul Marx.” 22 March, 2010. http://pop.org/201003221194/pri-board-of-directors-mourns-passing-of- pro-life-pioneer-fr-paul-marx. Accessed: 23/3/2010.

PRI Staff. “Norplant alleged to cause blindness: Abuse of women in Bangladesh, Haiti documented.” PRI Review. Vol. 6. No. 3. May/June 1993: 5-7, 11.

PRI Staff. “Slowing the juggernaut: U.S. Congress cuts population control funding by one- third.” PRI Review. Vol. 6. No. 3. May/June 1996: 1.

Price, Joyce. "Koop Urges Early Sex Education to Fight AIDS." Washington Times. Section A. 23 October 1986: 1, 10.

“Pro-Life Mission: Teach Life in All Nations.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 6. June 1989: 1.

“Pro-Lifer Calls her Sit-In Civil Disobedience.” Alektor. Vol. 1. No. 1. (May 1982: 8.

Pullella, Philip. “Walesa Thanks Pope for helping Poland move towards democracy.” Reuters News. 5 February, 1991: Factiva.com. Accessed: 24/6/2009.

Ratner, Herbert. “Killing is Not the Easy Way Out.” Special to The Wanderer. September 22, 1977: 1.

Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984. ------. “Letter to Father Marx re: HLI Symposium.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 6. June 1988: 12. ------. “Letter to HLI Irvine Conference.” April 19, 1988. HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 6. June 1988: 12. “Reagan Supports Both Hatch and Helms Proposals.” National Right to Life News. May 10, 1982: 4. Reid, T.R. “Anti-Abortionists Focusing Fire on President’s Foreign Aid Bill.” The Washington Post. 6 May 1984: A2. Proquest. Accessed: 27/11/2007.

301

------. “Reagan is Favored by Anti-Abortionists.” The Washington Post. April 12, 1980. First Section. http://www.lexisnexix.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/lnacademic/delivery. Accessed: 27/11/07. “Reject Contraceptive Imperialism, Vatican Urges.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 9. September 1988: 3. “Rescue, HLI Conference Coincide.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 12. December 1988: 1-2. Reuss, Dolores. “Don’t Collect for UNICEF!” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 10. October 1988: 5. ------. “Institutionalization of Natural Family Planning.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 10. October 1987: 9. ------. “Population Research Institute Created.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 1. January 1988: 5. Reuters News Agency. “Pontiff Salutes Poland in Easter Day Message.” The Globe and Mail. 20 April, 1981: P3. Factiva.com. Accessed: 21/8/2009. Rich, Vera. “Poland: Split Over Abortion.” The Lancet. Vol. 339. No. 8788. 1 February 1992: 295. Factiva.com. Accessed: 12/10/2009. Richman, Sheldon. “The Environment: A Pretext to Control Births.” PRI Review. Vol. 4. No. 2. March/April 1994: 1. Rogers, David. “House Votes $14.6 Billion Foreign Aid, Withholds New Capital for World Bank.” The Wall Street Journal. 15 November, 1989. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. “Saga of John family fortune takes new turn – and bright – Harry and Erica John – De Rance Foundation – Editorial.” National Catholic Reporter. January 15, 1993. FindArticles.com. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n11_v29/ai_13382185 Accessed: 3/9/2007. Sallot, Jeff. “Half-Speed Ahead: Poland votes tomorrow in the first semi-free election in 60 years.” The Globe and Mail. 3 June, 1989. Proquest. Accessed: 12/11/2009. “Saluting – Senator Kasten of Wisconsin.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 5. No. 7. July 1983: 11. Sassone, Robert L. “Population Explosion: More Baloney or Bang?” ALL About Issues. June 1981: 6. ------. Population Handbook. California, 1978. “Save the Filipino Babies!” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 11. October 1986: 11. Scheidler, Joseph S. Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion. Lake Bluff, IL: Regenery Books, 1985. ------. “Full Steam: Letter to Father Marx.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 11. October 1986: 10

302

Schepens, Dr. Philippe. “Sophisticated Evil.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 1. January 1987: 12 ------. “The Fall and Decline of Medicine: a diagnosis and proposals for therapy.” News Exchange of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life. Vol. 9, Yr. 9. 1983: 3. Schwalm, Steve. “Post-election pro-life prospects.” HLI Reports. Vol. 12. No. 12. December 1994: 1. “Second International Symposium on Human Sexuality Brings Experts to Montreal.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 5. Special Symposium Issue. 1986: 1. Sherwin, William. “Population Control Worldwide.” Right to Life Assocation N.S.W. c. 1991: 6. “Shipping Department arms front-life troops.” HLI Reports. Vol. 10. No. 10. October/November 1992: 14, 16. Simon, Julian. “Myths of Overpopulation.” The Wall Street Journal. 3 August, 1984. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/4/2009. Simon, Julian L. “Population Growth is not bad for humanity.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 6. November/December 1993: 1. Simpson, Victor L. “For John Paul, a decade of activism.” Houston Chronicle. 15 October, 1988. Proquest. Accessed: 15/11/2009. ------. “John Paul’s Decade.” The Associated Press. 9 October, 1988. Proquest. Accessed: 15/11/2009. ------. “Vatican - East Europe.” The Associated Press. 19 February 1991. Factiva.com. Accessed: 17/8/2009. Skrzylewski, Wladyslaw Bernard. O.P. “Truth on Abortion in Poland.” HLI Report. Vol. 2. No. 3. March 1984: 6. South Australian Right to Life. “News Release: Abortion Turned Down in Switzerland.” We Respect Life. Vol. 6. No. 4. (November/December 1977: 6. “Special Report.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 2. (March/April 1993: 9.

Special to The New York Times, “Swiss Voters Uphold Abortion Ban.” New York Times 1923- Current file. September 26, 1977. pg 4. http://www.proquest.com. Accessed May 14, 2008. Styczen, Rev. Tadeusz. “Letter to the Editor: 800 Models.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 6. June 1988: 12. Stylinksi, Adrezj. “Parliament Votes To Restrict Abortion, But Rejects Full Ban.” The Associated Press. 7 January, 1993. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. Svetchuk, Liz. “Father Marx’s Leave from the Human Life Center Prompts Controversy.” The Catholic Sentinel. Vol. 111. No. 45. Friday November 21, 1981: 1 Sweeney, Paul. “Father Marx: Long Fight; Education is Best Weapon.” ALL About Issues. Vol. 4. No. 9. October 1982: 6.

303

“SWITZERLAND VOTING ON ABORTION REFORM: Weeklong Balloting Will Decide Fate of Amendment Seeking Relaxation of Requirements.” New York Times 1923-Current file. September 24, 1977: pg. 48. http://www.proquest.com. Accessed May 14, 2008. Szymanski, Zbigniew. “Poland.” HLI Reports. Vol. 10. No. 4. April/May 1992: 16. Tarnowski, Andrew. “Jewish Leaders Attack Pope for Comparing Abortion to Holocaust.” Reuters News. 5 June 1991. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. ------. “Polish Catholics Called to Prayer on Eve of Abortion Debate.” Reuters News. 15 May, 1991. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009. Taussig, Victor. “Letter to the Editor: HLI – Argentina.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 1. January 1987: 12. “The Depopulation of Latin America.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 5. May 1987: 2. “‘This is Our Victory!’ says A.L.L. Prez as USAID cuts of IPPF Funding.” ALL News. Vol. 1. No. 5. December 1984: 2. Tupta, Michael and Jean Tupta. “Natural Family Planning – At the Heart of Family Life.” HLI Reports. Vol. 9. No. 10. October 1991: 14-15. Turner, Wallace. “Stanford Ousts PhD Student Over His Use of Data on China.” The New York Times. February 26, 1983: 7. Pro Quest. Accessed: 13/11/2008. United Nations, Department of Technical Cooperation for Development. Report of the International Conference on Population, 1984, Mexico City, 6-14 August 1984. New York: United Nations, 1984. UN ECOSOC. “NGO Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/faq.htm. Accessed: 12/3/2010. UNFPA. The United Nations and Population: Major Resolutions and Instruments. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications Inc, 1974.

United States Coalition for Life. “United States Coalition for Life Special Report on the United Nations World Population Conference Tribune, Bucharest, Romania, August 19-30, 1974.” Export, Pennsylvania: USCL, 1975: 1-46.

“USAID cuts off $10 million to UN but illegally pays out $36 million.” ALL News. Vol. 1. No. 15. April 5, 1985: 1. “USAID Director Under Fire, Conservatives Demand Resignation.” ALL News. Vol. 1. No. 16. April 19, 1985: 1.

“USAID Grant to NFP Group Blocked by House Committee.” ALL News. Vol. 1. No. 28. August 23, 1985: 6.

“USIA pushes environmental propaganda.” PRI Review. Vol. 3. No. 6. November/December 1993: 6.

“U.S. to cut funds for planning group.” The New York Times. 14 July 1984: 13. Factiva.com. Accessed 5/3/2009.

304

Versoza, Sr, Pilar “Appeal from Pro-Life Philippines. ”HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 10. September 1986: 1-3.

------. “Crucial Time in the Philippines.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 11. October 1986: 12.

------. “News from HLI-Manila.” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 3. March 1987: 8.

Vida Humana Internacional. “How and Why VHI Was Created.” Miami, FLA: VHI. http://www.vidahumana.org/english/how-why-vhi.html. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

------. “Meet Our Director, Mrs Magaly Llaguno.” Miami, FLA: VHI. http://www.vidahumana.org/english/director-vhi.html. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Vida Humana Internacional. “How and Why VHI Was Created.” Miami, FLA: VHI. http://www.vidahumana.org/english/how-why-vhi.html. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Vogt, William. Road to Survival. New York: William Sloane Associates, 1948.

White House Office of Policy Development. “US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 10. No. 3. September 1984: 574-579. Wagman, Paul. “U.S. Program To Sterilize Millions.” St Louis Dispatch. Friday April 22, 1977: 1. Ward, Olivia. “Population control: life or death.” The Toronto Star. 21 December 1986: Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/4/2009.

Weinraub, Bernard. “Abortion Becoming a Top Issue in Congress,” The New York Times. March 13, 1981: Section A, Page 18, Column 3. http://www.lexisnexis.com. Accessed: 27/11/2007.

“White House Hails Polish Dialogue, Notes Bush’s Interest.” Reuters News. 23 January, 1989. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

White House Office of Policy Development. “US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population and Development, (July 13, 1984).” Population and Development Review. Vol. 10. No. 3. September 1984: 574-579.

Whitton, Evan. “The Road to Rome.” Sydney Morning Herald. 22 November, 1986: 41. Factiva.com. Accessed: 21/8/2009.

Willke, J.C. “Irish HLA is World’s First.” National Right to Life News. Vol. 10. No. 17. September 29, 1983: 1, 11.

Winkler, Andrzej. “Letter to the Editor: Hunting for the Essentials.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 3. March 1989: 12.

------. “Letter to the Editor: Your Provoking Gift.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 9. September 1988: 12.

305

Withers, Kay. “Abortion emerges as an issue in Poland’s election campaign.” St Petersburg Times. 9 May, 1989: 12A. Proquest. Accessed: 12/8/2009.

Woo, Elaine. “Obituary: Dr. Hassan Hathout dies at 84; Islamic leader fostered interfaith relations.” Los Angeles Times. April 27, 2009: http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-hassan-hathout27- 2009apr27,0,7586240.story. Accessed 12/6/2009.

“World Bank Calls for Quadrupling of Expenditures for Population Programs to $7.6 Billion by 2000.” Family Planning Perspectives. Vol. 16. No. 5. Sep. - Oct., 1984: 234-236.

“World Bank Strategy.” HLI Reports. Vol. 4. No. 12. November 1986: 3.

“World Conference Shows Growing Prolife Strength.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 6. June 1988: 1.

World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life. “Why was the Federation Founded?” http://www.euthanasia.com/belgium.html#federation. Accessed: 12/10/2009.

“World in Brief.” Atlanta Journal and Constitution. 31 March, 1992: A8. Factiva.com. Accessed: 2/6/2009.

Wren, Christopher. “Asia Urged to End Population Surge; U.N. Parley in China Proposes Goal of 1% Annual Growth by Close of the Century.” The New York Times. November 2, 1981: A13.

------. “China Adds Compassion to Its Birth Control Drive.” The New York Times. May 18, 1984: A2.

------. “China Defends Abortion in Birth Control Efforts.” The New York Times. July 4, 1984: A2. Wykes, Thomas V., Jr. “Be An HLI Volunteer in Your State!” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 2. February 1987: 7.

Zahn, Gordon. “Choosing Life.” Sojourners. November 1980: 20.

Zeidler, Dan. “UN Funded Sex Education Program Rejected by Honduras: Program Considered ‘Amoral.’” HLI Reports. Vol. 5. No. 9. September 1987: 3.

Zimmerman, Father Anthony. Catholic Viewpoint on Overpopulation. Garden City, NY: Hanover House, 1961.

Zimon, Damon. Bishop of Katowice. “Letter to the Editor: We Join You.” HLI Reports. Vol. 6. No. 12. December 1988: 12.

Zivkovik, Marijo. “H.L.I’s Press At Work.” HLI Reports. Vol. 7. No. 2. February 1989: 8.

------. “Zagreb, Croatia.” HLI Reports. Vol. 11. No. 3. March 1993: 10.

306

Secondary Sources

Ahmed, Shamima and David Potter. NGOs in International Politics. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2006. Ali, Tariq. The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity. London: Verso, 2002. Appleby, R. Scott. “Catholics and the Christian Right: An Uneasy Alliance.” in Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning. Editors. Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Inc., 1997: 93- 114. Ashley, Benedict M. “The Loss of Theological Unity: Pluralism, Thomism, and Catholic Morality.” in Mary Jo Weaver and R. Scott Appleby. Editors. Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995: 63-87. Barry, Ursula. “Abortion in the Republic of Ireland.” Feminist Review. No. 29. Summer 1988: 57-63. Bellucci, Mabel. “Women’s Struggle to Decide Their Own Bodies: Abortion and Sexual Rights in Argentina.” Reproductive Health Matters. Vol. 5. No. 10. November 1997: 99-106. Bender, Thomas. A Nation Among Nations: America’s Place in World History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. ------. Editor. Rethinking American History in a Global Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Beyer, Peter. Religion and Globalization. London: Sage Publications, 1994. Blanchard, Dallas A. The Anti-abortion Movement and the rise of the religious right: from polite to fiery protest. New York: MacMillan, 1994. ------. The Anti-abortion Movement: References and Sources. New York: G.K. Hall and Co, 1996. Blofield, Merike. The Politics of Moral Sin: Abortion and Divorce in Spain, Chile and Argentina. New York: Routledge, 2006. Bloom, Jack M. “The Solidarity Revolution in Poland, 1980-1981.” The Oral History Review. Vol. 33. No. 1. Winter - Spring, 2006: 33-64. Boli, John and George M. Thomas. Editors. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999. Boulding, Elise. “Foreword.” in Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield and Ron Pagnucco. Editors. Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the States. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997: ix-xi.

307

Brown Thompson, Karen. “Women’s Rights are Human Rights.” in Khagram, Riker and Sikkink Eds. Restructuring World Politics: 96-122. Bruce, Steve. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2002. ------. Politics and Religion. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2003. Brzezinksi, Zbigniew. Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. New York: Basic Books, 2007. Burgerman, Susan. Moral Victories: How Activists Provoke Multilateral Action. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Buss, Dori, and Didi Herman. Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003. Buss, Doris E. “The Christian Right, Globalization, and the ‘Natural Family.’” in Mary Ann Tetreault and Robert Allen Denemark. Editors. Gods, Guns, and Globalization: Religious Radicalism and International Political Economy. London: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2004: 57-78. Butler, Jennifer S. Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized. London: Pluto Press, 2006. Caryl, Christian. “1979: The Great Backlash.” Foreign Policy. June 22, 2009. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/18/the_great_backlash_1979?obref=o binsite. Accessed: 24/6/2009. Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000. ------. “Toward a Sociology of the Network Society.” Contemporary Sociology. Vol. 29. No. 5. September 2000: 693-699. Cavanagh, John R. The Popes, the Pill, and the People: A Documentary Study. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965. Cmiel, Kenneth. “The Emergence of Human Rights Politics in the United States.” The Journal of American History. Vol. 86, No. 3. December 1999: 1231-1250. Cohen, Susan A. “Abortion Politics and U.S. Population Aid: Coping with a Complex New Law.” International Family Planning Perspectives. Vol. 26. No. 3. Sep., 2000: 137- 139, 145. Cole, Anna-Britt. “From Anti-Natalist to Ultra-Conservative: Restricting Reproductive Choice in Peru.” Reproductive Health Matters. Vol. 12. No. 24. November 2004: 56- 69. Connelly, Matthew. Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008. Crane, Barbara B. “The Transnational Politics of Abortion.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 20. Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning. 1994: 241-262.

308

Crane, Barbara B. and Jason L. Finkle, “The United States, China, and the United Nations Population Fund: Dynamics of US Policymaking.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 15. No. 1. March 1989: 23-59. Critchlow, Donald T. Intended Consequences: birth control, abortion, and the federal government in modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ------. Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005. ------. The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective. University Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. Croll, Elisabeth. Endangered Daughters: Discrimination and Development in Asia. London: Routledge, 2000. Cuneo, Michael. “Life Battles: The Rise of Catholic Militancy within the American Pro-Life Movement.” in Weaver and Appleby. Eds. Being Right: 270-299 ------. The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Dallek, Robert. Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984. Davison Hunter, James. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books, 1991. DeMars, William E. NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wildcards in World Politics. London: Pluto Press, 2005. Demerath, N.J. III. “Crisscrossing the Gods: Globalization and American Religion.” in Bruce Mazlish, Nayan Chanda, and Kenneth Weisbrode. Editors. The Paradox of a Global USA. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007: 81-102. Diamond, Sara. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1989. ------. “Watch on the right: no place to hide.” The Humanist. September 1, 1993: 1-6, http://www.thefreelibrary.com. Accessed: 6/7/2009. Dixon-Mueller, Ruth, and Adrienne Germain. “Population Policy and Feminist Action in Three Developing Countries.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning (1994): 197-219. Doan, Alesha E. Opposition and Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies of Political Harassment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007. Donaldson, Peter J. and Charles B. Keeley. “Population and Family Planning: An International Perspective.” Family Planning Perspectives. Vol. 20. No. 6. Nov-Dec 1988: 307-311, 320.

309

Draper, Elizabeth. Birth Control in the Modern World: the Role of the Individual in Population Control. London: Penguin Books, 1965. Dryzek, John S. “Transnational Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy. Vol. 7. No. 1. 1999: 30-51. Eberts, Mirella W. “The Roman Catholic Church and Democracy in Poland.” Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 50. No. 5. Jul., 1998: 817-842. Edwards, Michael and David Hulme. Editors. Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World. West Hartford, Connecticut: 1996. Edwards, Lee. “The Other Sixties: A Flag Waver’s Memoir.” Policy Review. No. 46. 1988, Fall: 58-65. Engel, Jeffrey A. “A Better World…but Don’t Get Carried Away: The Foreign Policy of George H.W. Bush Twenty Years On.” Diplomatic History. Vol. 34. No. 1. January 2010: 25-46. Finkle, Jason L. and Barbara B. Crane. “Ideology and Politics at Mexico City: The United States at the 1984 International Conference on Population.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 11. No. 1. March 1985: 1-28. Finkle, Jason L. and Barbara B. Crane, “The Politics of Bucharest: Population, Development, and the New International Economic Order” Population and Development Review. Vol. 1. No. 1. September 1975: 87-114. Finkle, Jason L. and Alison C. McIntosh. “The New Politics of Population.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 20. Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning. 1994: 3-34. Flowers, Prudence. Compromise and Conflict in the Fight to End Legalized Abortion in the United States, 1971-88. Melbourne, Australia: School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne, 2008. Foner, Eric. “AHA Presidential Address: American Freedom in a Global Age.” American Historical Association, 2001: http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_History/Efoner.htm. Accessed: 3/5/2009. Foroohar, Manzar. “Liberation Theology: The Response of Latin American Catholics to Socioeconomic Problems.” Latin American Perspectives. Vol. 13. No. 3. Religion, Resistance, Revolution. Summer, 1986: 37-58. Green, John C., Corwin E. Smidt, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and James L. Guth. “Bringing in the Sheaves: The Christian Right and White Protestants, 1976-1996.” In Smidt and Penning. Eds. Sojourners in the Wilderness. 1997: 75-92. Gusfield, Joseph S. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. ------. The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

310

Hadley, Janet. “God’s Bullies: Attacks on Abortion.” Feminist Review. No. 48. The New Politics of Sex and State. Autumn 1994: 94-113. Hartmann, Betsy. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. New York: Harper and Row, 1995. Haskell, Thomas. “Taking Exception to Exceptionalism.” Reviews in American History. No. 28. March 2000: 151-166. Hawkins, Darren. “Human Rights Norms and Networks in Authoritarian Chile.” in Khagram, Riker and Sikknink. Eds. Restructuring World Politics: 47-70. Hertzke, Allen D. “The Role of Religious Lobbies.” in Charles W. Dunn. Editor. Religion in American Politics. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 1989: 124-136. Hervieu-Legeer, Danielle. Translation Roger Greaves. “Faces of Catholic Transnationalism: In and Beyond France.” in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and James P. Piscatori Editors. Transnational Religion and Fading States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997: 104- 120. Hesketh, Thomas. The Second Partitioning of Ireland? the abortion referendum of 1983. Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin : Brandsma Books, 1990. Hoover, Dennis R. “The Christian Right under Old Glory and the Maple Leaf” in Smidt and Penning. Eds. Sojourners in the Wilderness: 193-216. Hopgood, Kenneth. Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006. Htun, Mala. Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce and the Family Under Latin American Dictatorships and Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72. No. 3. Summer 1993: 22-49. ------. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. London: Simon and Schuster, 2002. ------. Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.

Hutcheson, Richard G. God in the White House: How Religion Has Changed the Modern Presidency. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1988. Iriye, Akira. Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Jacobson, Harold K. Networks of Interdependence: International Organizations and the Global Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. Jenkins, Philip. Decade of Nightmares: The end of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ------. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

311

Jessup, Phillip C. Transnational Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Johnson, Stanley P. World Population and the United Nations: Challenge and response. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Jones, Bruce, Carlos Pascual, and Stephen John Stedman. Power & responsibility: building international order in an era of transnational threats. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009. Jurkovich, James M. and Wilbert M. Gesler. “Medjugorje: Finding Peace at the Heart of Conflict.” Geographical Review. Vol. 87. No. 4. Oct., 1997: 447-467. Khagram, Sanjeev, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink. Editors. Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. Khagram, Sanjeev. “Restructuring the Global Politics of Development: The Case of India’s Narmada Valley Dams.” Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink. Eds. Restructuring World Politics: 206-230. Khagram, Sanjeev, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, “From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational Advocacy Groups Restructuring World Politics.” in Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink. Eds. Restructuring World Politics: 3-23. Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Keeley, Charles B. “Limits to Papal Power: Vatican Inaction After Humanae Vitae.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 20 Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning. 1994: 220-240. Keohane, Robert O. Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. London: Routledge, 2002. Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence. 3rd Edition. NY: Longman, 2001. Klaiber, Jeffrey L. “Prophets and Populists: Liberation Theology, 1968-1988.” The Americas. Vol. 46. No. 1. Jul., 1989: 1-15. Kriesberg, Louis. “Social Movements and Global Transformation.” in Smith et al. Eds. Transnational Social Movements: 3-18. Kulczcki, Andrzej. “Abortion Policy in Postcommunist Europe: the Conflict in Poland.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 21. No. 3. September 1995: 471-505. Leathers, Charles G. “Liberation Theology, the New Religious Political Right, and Veblen's Ambivalent View of Christianity.” Journal of Economic Issues. Vol. 18. No. 4. Dec., 1984: 1155-1175. Leinesch, Michael. Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.

312

Levicoff, Steve. Building Bridges: The Prolife Movement and the Peace Movement. Eagleville, PA: Toviah Press, 1982. Levine, Daniel H. and David Stoll. “Bridging the Gap between Empowerment and Power in Latin America.” in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and James Piscatori. Editors. Transnational Religion and Fading States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997: 63- 103. Luker, Kristin. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Martens, Kerstin. NGOs and the United Nations: Institutionalization, Professionalization and Adaptation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. Martin, William. “The Christian Right and American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy. No. 114. Spring 1999: 66-80. ------. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books, 1996. Mathews, Jessica T. “Power Shift.” Foreign Affairs. Vol. 76, No. 1, (Jan-Feb 1997): 50-66. Mazlish, Bruce, Nyan Chanda and Kenneth Weisbrode. Editors. The Paradox of a Global USA. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007. McAdam, Doug. Freedom Summer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. McClory, Robert. Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church. New York: Crossroad, 1995. McGirr, Lisa. Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. McGreevey, John T. Catholicism and American Freedom: A History. New York: W.W. Norton, and Company, 2003. McLaughlin, Loretta. The Pill, John Rock, and the Church: The Biography of a Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and company, 1982. Medjugorje Web. “Overview of Medjugorje.” http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm. Accessed: 2/6/2009. Mehra, Malini. “Working Paper # 244: The Mexico City Policy: An Examination of the Conservative Assault on U.S. International Population Policy and Women’s Reproductive Rights.” (Michigan State University: July 1994). Merton, Andrew H. Enemies of Choice: The Right-to-Life Movement and Its Threat to Abortion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1981. Moen, Matthew C. “Ronald Reagan and the Social Issues: Rhetorical Support for the Christian Right.” The Social Science Journal. Volume 27. No. 2. 1990: 199-207. Moghadam, Val. “Transnational Feminist Networks: Collective Action in an Era of Globalization.” International Sociology. Vol. 15. No. 1. March 2000: 57-85.

313

Montieth, Richard S. John E. Anderson, Maria Antonieta Pineda, Roberto Santiso, Mark Oberle. “Contraceptive Use and Fertility in Guatemala.” Studies in Family Planning. Vol. 16. No. 5. Sep. - Oct., 1985: 279-288. Moreno, Dario. The Struggle for Peace in Central America. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 1994. Motley Hallum, Anne. “The Transformation of the Christian Right in Central America.” in Smidt and Penning. Eds. Sojourners in the Wilderness: 217-231. Nathansen Milwertz, Cecilia. Accepting Population Control: Urban Chinese Women and the One-Child Policy. Padstow, Cornwall: TJ Press, 1997. Nelson, Paul J. “Agendas, Accountability, and Legitimacy among Transnational Network Lobbying the World Bank.” in Khagram, Riker, Sikkink, Restructuring World Politics, 131-142. Noonan, John T. Noonan. Editor. The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970. Olsen, Frances Elisabeth. “Feminism in Central and Eastern Europe: Risks and Possibilities of American Engagement.” The Yale Law Journal. Vol. 106. No. 7. May, 1997: 2215- 2257. Owen Lynch, Christopher. Selling Catholicism: Bishop Sheen and the Power of Television. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1998. Pach, Chester. “The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. Vol. 36. No. 1. Presidential Doctrine. Mar., 2006: 75-88. Paige, Connie. The Right-to-Lifers: who they are, how they operate, where they get their money. New York: Summit Books, 1983. Patterson, James T. Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Payne, Charles M. I’ve Got the Light of Freedom: the organizing tradition and the Mississippi Freedom Struggle. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. Abortion and Woman’s Choice: The States, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom. New York and London: Longman, 1984. Powderly, Kathleen E. “Contraceptive Policy and Ethics: Lessons from American History.” in Ellen H. Moskowitz and Bruce Jennings. Editors. Coerced Contraception: Moral and Policy Challenges of Long-Acting Birth Control. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996: 23-33. Price, Richard. “Review Article: Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics.” World Politics. Vol. 55. No. 4. July 2003: 579-606. Princen, Thomas and Matthias Finger. Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the local and the global. London: Routledge, 1994.

314

Reichley, A. James. Religion in American Public Life. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1985. Robinson, Kathryn. “Who’s Making the Choice? Population Policy, Women’s Rights, and Australian Overseas Aid.” Just Policy. No. 3. June 1995: 44-50 Robison, Kristopher K. Edward M. Crenshaw, and J. Craig Jenkins. “Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist Transnational Terrorism.” Social Forces. Vol. 84. No. 4. June 2006: 2009-2026. Rowland, Deborah. The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Women’s Rights in America. Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing, 2004. Saikia, Jaideep and Ekaterina Stepanova. Terrorism: Patterns of Internationalization. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2009. Salamon, Lester. “The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73. No. 4. July/August 1994: 109-122. Schlesinger, Arthur M. A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965. Schoen, Johanna. Choice and Coercion: Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public Health and Welfare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005. Schreiber, Ronnee. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Shibley, Mark A. “Contemporary Evangelicals: Born Again and World Affirming.” Annals, AAPSS. Vol. 558. July 1998: 67-87. Shiffman, Jeremy and Ana Lucía Garcés del Valle. “Political History and Disparities in Safe Motherhood between Guatemala and Honduras.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 32. No. 1. Mar., 2006: 64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20058851. Accessed: 12/11/2009. Sikkink, Kathryn. Mixed Signals: U.S. Human Rights Policy and Latin America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Unviersity Press, 2004. Sikkink, Kathryn. “Restructuring World Politics: the Limits and Asymmetries of Soft Power.” in Khagram, Riker and Sikkink Eds. Restructuring World Politics: 301-318. Silliman, Jael. “Expanding Civil Society, Shrinking Political Spaces: The Case of Women’s Nongovernmental Organizations.” in Jael Silliman and Ynestra King. Editors. Dangerous Intersections: Feminist Perspectives on Population, Environment, and Development. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1999: 133-162. Simon, Julian L. The Ultimate Resource. Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1981. Sittman, Matthew. “The Conscience of a President.” In Paul Kengor and Peter Schwiezer. Editors. The Reagan Presidency: Assessing the Man and His Legacy. New York: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005: 71-91.

315

Skjelsbaek, Kjell. “The Growth of International Nongovernmental Organizations in the Twentieth Century.” International Organization. Vol. 25, No. 3. Transnational Relations and World Politics. Summer, 1971: 420-442. Slack, J. Andrew and Roy R. Doyon. “Population Dynamics and Susceptibility for Ethnic Conflict: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 38. No. 2. Mar., 2001: 139-161. Solinger, Rickie. Abortion Wars: a half century of struggle, 1950-2000. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Soper, J. Christopher. “Divided by a Common Religion: The Christian Right in England and the United States.” in Smidt and Penning. Eds. Sojourners in the Wilderness: 171- 192. Sparrow, Bartholomew H. “Realism’s Practitioner: Brent Scowcroft and the Making of the New World Order, 1989-1993.” Diplomatic History. Vol. 34. No. 1. January 2010: 141-175. Sprang, Jennifer E. Abortion and Divorce Law in Ireland. London: McFarland and Company Inc, 2004. Steinbock, Bonnie. “The Concept of Coercion and Long-Term Contraceptives.” in Ellen H. Moskowitz and Bruce Jennings. Editors. Coerced Contraception? Moral and Policy Challenges of Long-Acting Birth Control. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996: 53-78. Strenski, Ivan. “The Religion in Globalization.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion Vol. 72. No. 3. September 2004: 631-652. Szymanski, Anne-Marie E. Pathways to Prohibition: Radicals, Moderates, and Social Movement Outcomes. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. Tan, Andrew T. H. A Handbook of Terrorism and Insurgency in South East Asia. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007. Tetreault, Mary Ann. “Contending Fundamentalisms: Religious Revivalism and the Modern World.” in Tetreault and Denemark. Eds. Gods, Guns, and Globalization: 1-30. Thelen, David. “Of Audiences, Borderlands, and Comparisons: Toward the Internationalization of American History.” The Journal of American History. Vol. 79. No. 2. September 1992: p. 432-462. Thomas, Daniel C. “Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy.” in Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink, Restructuring World Politics: 71-95. Tribe, Laurence H. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992. Troy, Gil. Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Tyrrell, Ian. Transnational Nation: United States History in Global Perspective Since 1789. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.

316

------. Reforming the World: The Creation of America’s Moral Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. ------. True Gardens of the Gods: Californian-Australian Environmental Reform, 1860- 1930. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. ------. Woman’s world/Woman’s empire: The Women’s Christian Temperance Union in International Perspective, 1880-1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Vallier, Ivan. “The Roman Catholic Church: A Transnational Actor.” International Organization. Vol. 25, No. 3. Transnational Relations and World Politics. Summer 1971: 479-502. van der Linden, Marcel. “Transnationalizing American Labor History.” The Journal of American History. Vol. 86. No. 3. December 1999: 1078-1092. Warwick, Donald P. Bitter Pills: Population policies and their implementation in eight developing countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ------. “The Politics of Research on Fertility Control.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 20. Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning. 1994: 179-193. Weiss, Thomas G. and Leon Gordenker. Editors. NGOs, the UN, and Global Governance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., 1996. Welch, Claude E. Jr. Editor. NGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Weyland, Kurt Gerhard. The Politics of Market Reform in Fragile Democracies: Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. Whaley Eager, Paige. Global Population Policy: From Population Control to Reproductive Rights. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Wilcox, Clyde. “Evangelicals and the Moral Majority.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 28, No. 4. Dec. 1989: 400-414. ------. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Religious Right in American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. ------. “Popular Backing for the Old Christian Right: Explaining Support for the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade.” Journal of Social History. Vol. 21, No. 1. Autumn, 1987: 117-132. ------. “The Christian Right in Twentieth Century America: Continuity and Change.” The Review of Politics. Vol. 50, No. 4. Fiftieth Anniversary Issue: Religion and Politics. Autumn 1988: 659-681. Wilcox, Clyde, Sharon Linzey, and Ted G. Jelen. “Reluctant Warrioris: Premillenialism and Politics in the Moral Majority.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 30. No. 3. Sep. 1991: 245-258.

317

Willetts, Peter. Editor. “The Conscience of the World”: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organisations in the U.N. System. London: Hurst and Company, 1996. Wills, Gary. Under God: Religion and American Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990. Wilmoth, John R. and Patrick Ball. “The Population Debate in American Popular Magazines, 1946-1990.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 18. No. 4. December 1992: 631-668. Woods, Ngaire. The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006. Wulf, Deidre and Peters D. Willson. “Mexico City: Consensus Amidst Controversies.” International Family Planning Perspectives. Vol. 10. No. 3. September 1984: 81-15. Wuthnow, Robert. The Struggle for America’s Soul: Evangelicals, Liberals and Secularism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989. Yarnold, Barbara M. Abortion Politics in the Federal Courts: Right Versus Right. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1995. Yoder, John H. “The Wider Setting of ‘Liberation Theology.’” The Review of Politics. Vol. 52. No. 2. Spring, 1990: 285-296. Youngblood, Robert L. “President Ramos, the Church, and Population Policy in the Philippines.” Asian Affairs. Vol. 25. No. 1. Spring, 1998: 3-20. Życinski, Józef. “The Role of Religious and Intellectual Elements in Overcoming Marxism in Poland.” Studies in Soviet Thought. Vol. 43. No. 2. Polish Philosophy at the Crossroads Mar., 1992: 139-157.