On 09/16/03 Insight carried an article by Diana Ray titled:
"Could U.N. Trump U.S. Constitution?" Go to:

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=108904
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP) is a
U.N. nongovernmental organization (NGO) devoted to
advocating for legal abortion both nationally and inter-
nationally. It recently filed a lawsuit in federal court
against President George W. Bush contesting opposition to
abortion in U.S. foreign policy and citing international
treaties and agreements to support the case. A federal
judge dismissed the case in July, but the center filed
an appeal that now sits in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York City waiting to be argued. Wilkins
calls it an exceptionally dangerous lawsuit.

The lawyers for CRLP assert that the Mexico City Policy
initiated by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, ignored by
President Bill Clinton and reimposed by President Bush in
2001, interferes with the organization's abortion work and,
in so doing, interferes with its right of free speech. Of
greater concern, it also asserts the power of customary
international law on the issue of abortion rights.
[...]
"...that Paragraph 75 of Section II of CRLP's complaint
notes the "ongoing political, legal and social movement in
the United States to overturn Roe v. Wade," the case that
made abortion a constitutional right. The complaint then
states that to prepare against the eventuality that Roe
might be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the
attendant result that the Constitution no longer would be
interpreted to protect the alleged right of a woman to kill
her unborn child by abortion, the plaintiffs have been
working "to guarantee" that "the right to abortion" is
"protected as an internationally recognized human right"
in "customary international law" and treaties.
[...]
Although some law experts view CRLP v. George W. Bush as
mere eccentricity, others see it as a left-wing effort to
advance its political agenda through judicial legislation.
Wilkins and others point to this lawsuit as the first hard
evidence that activists intend to use customary interna-
tional law to try to force nations worldwide, including the
United States, to recognize rights inconsistent with their
own governing domestic laws. They have targeted "basic
provisions of our Constitution," Wilkins says, "and it's a
potential disaster, depending on what the judge rules."
[...]
While CRLP focuses on the free-speech aspect of its
case, Wilkins and others see it as a dangerous under-
mining of national sovereignty. According to Wilkins,
"CRLP claims that the U.S. Supreme Court can no
longer change its mind on regulating abortion because,
internationally, customary law demands abortion. It
asserts that the president and Congress no longer have
authority over how to spend U.S. funds abroad." Indeed,
in its brief, CRLP says: "By working to establish the
right to abortion as a human right in treaties ratified
by the U.S. Senate, CRLP advances its mission of protect-
ing women's access to abortion from interference or
prohibition by the states."
[....]
As CRLP alleges in its complaint, "One mechanism for
securing United States ratification of treaties protec-
tive of abortion as a human right is to obtain ratifi-
cation of such treaties by as many other nations as
possible. When a critical mass of nations ratifies a
treaty, the United States becomes increasingly isolated
in the international community and among its geopolitical
allies. Moreover, generally recognized international legal
norms may, if endorsed and accepted by the vast majority
of nations, become part of customary international law and
thus binding on the United States even if it does not ratify
or endorse those norms. Thus, it is essential to CRLP's goal
of protecting abortion rights in the United States by inter-
national law that it be able to engage in unfettered political
speech and advocacy to obtain ratification by foreign govern-
ments of treaties that protect abortion rights, and endorsement
by foreign governments of international human-rights norms that
protect abortion rights."
[....]
_________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack comments:
Another example of just how little the U.S. Constitution
and the Bill of Rights mean to the Culture of Death. They
would try to misuse the courts to force their religious
concepts on the entire world. Worshiping at the alter
of Abortion, there is no tactic too sleazy for their
activities.

Aren't some of you PARs a wee bit scared by such
ideas?????????