I used to be an active member of AI. I would not think of helping them since they changed position on abortion. There are, however, several other organizations with similar objectives, as listed at the end of this article. az
Consistent Life Pleads
with Amnesty International
by Rachel MacNair
Vice President, Consistent Life
Updated October 17, 2007
Being a long-time Amnesty International member and having registered for their national conference, I was passing out leaflets as people left the final plenary there. Approached by a worried-looking woman who asked if I had coordinated this with the authorities, I cheerfully say no, but that I was a member who had registered. She took a copy and left, while I passed out more to people who took them in the friendly fashion to which activist audiences would be accustomed. Then she came back and told me it was against the rules for anyone to pass out leaflets having to do with policy; if I wanted to discuss policy, the place for that was the session voting on resolutions the next day. Knowing that meeting was already covering nine resolutions in only three hours, and that the idea that an individual could bring up a concern on an item not already on the agenda was absurd, I simply asked her if AIUSA was therefore censoring people. And she answered: “Yes.”
This vignette was the clearest example of how the decision moving AI in the direction of abortion as a “right” has moved. Technically, the three points of the new policy are that pregnant victims of rape or incest are entitled to abortion; that while it need not be legalized it should be decriminalized; and that medical care after botched abortions should be provided. That last point is unobjectionable, of course, except for the fact that the other two points limit governments' ability to prevent the botched abortions they're supposed to provide aftercare for.
I did in fact have a long conversation with one of the people on the International Executive Committee which is making the abortion decision, on the day previous to the leafleting censorship. It was a very satisfying conversation, except for two things. One was that it clearly should have happened near the beginning or middle of the “consultation process” on the policy, rather than near the end, and something like it would have if their efforts were sincere. He didn't know basic things - for example, that women who've had abortions are one of the largest constituency groups in the pro-life movement. The other problem was that the very next morning, in the workshop on implementing the new policy, he reversed what he had said that evening about the discussion still being on-going though the final vote was imminent. He and the other panelists said that this was essentially a done deal, and we should go ahead and plan for it. In fact, one remark he made about how staff people have had the ability to say the decision was only under consideration up to now sounded to my ears like the decision was actually settled long ago. The “consultation process” was a ruse to make it look legitimate, and I was unable to ascertain whether they knew they were fooling people with that or whether they had actually fooled themselves into thinking so as well.
Word is that polling of the UK membership showed the majority wishing the organization to remain abortion-neutral (see
http://www.lifenews.com/int237.html). The U.S. members were not all aware that there even was a web-based vote, such as it was, hidden on the web page members-only section with no publicity, and a deadline of December 1. How it turned out, the Board members never said, even though they were clearly process-oriented people and a solid vote would have strengthened their case considerably when they claimed the membership was for it. One staff person for membership mentioned to me that there was a need for education on the new policy since a lot of members didn't understand it well. When I pointed out that if they didn't understand it, that means they also didn't decide it, she had no answer.
Consistent Life had also sent four people to the AI Midwest regional conference. Though not allowed to have an official table or to leaflet there either, they did have a table nearby through the university. They report attempts to try to get reconsideration of last year's vote to consider the new abortion policy were not satisfying in terms of having confidence that full democracy is being practiced.
There was a student from Marquette Students for Life who leafleted the first day, out on the street where AI had no authority. But she found that very few conference attendees were going in and out there, since they were staying at the same hotel where the conference was. So attendees had an added layer of protection against being faced with leaflets. Someone with Democrats for Life found the same thing on the morning of the last day, but he went up to the conference itself and leafleted for about 15 minutes before he was caught at it. We had different leaflets; mine was a copy of the on-line petition that had been signed by 661 AI supporters as of March 12, 2007. I did get leaflets to most of the crowd at the anti-genocide rally for Darfur, where of course I was one of many leafletters; that crowd included attendees and people in town. I also did get a copy of the petition into the hands of each member of the US Board of Directors, who had also received a lengthier letter from Consistent Life on the topic at their last Board meeting in New York.
There are two issues here: one is the abortion policy itself, and one is how much it's being decided by members and supporters as opposed to being decided by an elite who knows what's good for us. One Board member, in explaining the policy, said that AI was normally out in front on progress in human rights, but here was a case where they were lagging behind other groups such as the European Court. But of course the dispute here is over what would constitute “being out in front” on using violence to solve problems. They also commented that they expected some problems at first just as they had with the death penalty, but they're expecting that to subside over time. To the consistent-life mind, the analogy to the death penalty opposition is particularly distressing; it would be more consistent, after all, to take a position against abortion for that reason, and “be out in front” that way.
So the decision is made - evidence suggests that it always was - and many of those of us AI supporters who are heartsick about it no longer have a voice inasmuch as it can be said that we ever did. We therefore suggest the following organizations (which have no position on abortion) for those who wish to re-direct their human rights donation budget elsewhere:
We are hoping to also find some alternatives for those student groups who no longer wish to affiliate with AI but would like to continue their good work. Suggestions are welcome.
It would be good to include a note to let these groups know that they are getting funds re-directed from AI and why, to make it less likely that they will move in a pro-abortion direction in the future.
If you wish to drop a line to AI:
- Amnesty International USA
5 Penn Plaza, 14th floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 807-8400
Fax: (212) 463-9193
admin-us@aiusa.org
- Amnesty International International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London WC1X 0DW, UK
Phone: 44-20-74135500
Fax: 44-20-79561157
English
Français
Amnesty International
Linear Mode
