The Parliament that Failed

On April 1, 2010, the Parliament of Kenya approved the proposed draft of a new constitution, having rejected all proposed amendments. That approval cleared the way for final approval by referendum of the people.

Justice Minister Mutula Kilonzo lost no time in declaring a major victory, “one of the most historic events in the history of the country,” he stated, and a “truly amazing event for the future of this country…. We urge everyone to vote for it.” Assistant minister Kilemi Mwiria even warned members of Parliament against “poisoning’’ the people to reject the draft.

Others called the approval a disaster. Parliament member Musa Sirma described it as the saddest day for Kenya: by failing to make changes to the draft, “we have failed Kenyans because we did not capture their aspirations and wishes. It is a big shame. We shall make sure that it does not go through.” Minister Naomi Shaban accused Parliament of failing to show the leadership necessary to make necessary amendments. “We did not do our work and as a House we have failed the nation.”

The failure was intentional and flagrant as members of Parliament the day before had, when the time came to vote on amendments, simply exited the chambers to prevent the 145 requisite number to be present for a vote. “MPs use dirty tricks to defeat changes” was the title of a Daily Nation article reporting on the political antics.

Parliament’s failure came at a historic opportunity for Kenya to memorialize its sovereign vision into a legal standard and guide for generations to come. Ironically, the very existence of those generations is now threatened by the inclusion of a highly controversial provision that would allow for abortion on demand.

In a sleight-of-hand approach, the constitution first recognizes the right to life from the moment of conception, and then creates an exception that swallows the rule: abortion is allowed when, in the “opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.” Practically speaking, of course, such an “opinion of a trained health professional” will be available for the asking.

An amendment was proposed on Wednesday, March 30, to delete the provision allowing abortion. The amendment itself was amended, and at 6:06 PM a vote was called for. By the time the vote was ready to be taken 9 minutes later, there were only 52 members still in the chamber, preventing a vote and leaving intact the provision allowing for abortion.

The abortion provision flies in the face of what the people of Kenya want, according to a March 2010 poll conducted by Synovate, as reported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach: a whopping 77% of Kenyans believe that life begins at conception, while 69% oppose legalizing abortion. Contradicting the will of the people, the abortion exception was allowed to remain in the constitution under the guise of the concern for mothers.   

The Guise of “Maternal Mortality”

The Kenyan Parliament is not alone in trying to justify abortion based on a claimed concern for maternal mortality. The same rationale is cited by abortion advocates worldwide, as US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton did on March 30, 2010. Following a meeting of G-8 foreign ministers in Canada, she was asked whether maternal health should be a G-8 priority, and whether abortion should be a part of it. In her answer she stated: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

But as American founder John Adams declared, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” The fact is that abortion does NOT protect mothers’ health, but puts it in greater jeopardy, as explained by no less an authority than Dr. Byron C. Calhoun (MD, FACOG, FACS, MBA), Professor and Vice-Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at West Virginia University at Charleston. Dr. Calhoun recently told Howard Center Vice-President Larry Jacobs:

The real issue regarding maternal mortality in Africa and other developing countries in maternity care rests in the lack of trained and skilled birth attendants with access to emergency or higher levels of care.  Reproductive rights (translated abortions) is NOT safe, actually has HIGHER rates of maternal mortality when compared by appropriate gestational age controls, is associated with INCREASED risk for breast cancer (in first pregnancies ending in elective abortion), is associated with INCREASED risk for preterm birth by 30-60%, is associated to INCREASED risk for death by all causes, and is associated with significantly INCREASED risk for psychological damage (including suicide and major depression).

The New Threat of Social Imperialism

But pushing the agenda for abortion on demand—or, in United Nations speak, “reproductive health services”—are foreign powers as hostile to the true welfare of Africa as were the imperial powers that carved up the continent a century and a half ago. These new imperialists include some of those same powers, which now offer foreign aid with strings.

I remember vividly one courageous African delegate who walked out of a UN negotiation several years ago shaking her head as she told me that a powerful European nation had just threatened to cut off foreign aid to her country if she did not vote the “right way” on a family-related issue that included abortion. Last year, another African delegate told me with great emotion that UN agencies are destroying the family structure in his country.

The anti-life and anti-family agenda is driven also by powerful NGOs (non-governmental organizations) whose money talks in Africa, money that pays salaries and expense accounts and more to highly placed officials willing to do the bidding of these NGOs. I have seen this repeatedly at African Union meetings in Johannesburg and Addis Ababa. Africa is again in the cross-hairs of foreign powers.

The Future of Africa Depends on the Strength of African Families

But African nations, and right now Kenya, must resist this dangerous encroachment and take steps to protect its unborn and the families that will raise them. The strength of Africa is in her families. “In every conceivable manner,” stated Alex Haley, “the family is link to our past, bridge to our future.” What Equatorial Guinea’s constitution calls the “African spirit of family” is affirmed in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights:

The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical health and moral. The State shall have the duty to assist the family which is the custodian of morals and traditional values recognized by the community.

At least 28 African constitutions likewise expressly recognize the central role of the family, which is described, for example, as:

• The fundamental element of society[1]

• The basic[2]—or natural and fundamental[3]—unit of society

• The basic cell of society,[4] or the basic nucleus of social organization[5]

• The basis of society,[6] or the natural and moral basis of the human community[7]

• The foundation of society,[8] or the natural and moral foundation of the human community[9]

Africa leads the way for the rest of the world in affirming these universal truths about the family. In no other region on earth do so many countries constitutionally proclaim the irreplaceable position of the family. And in nearly all of these African constitutions, there is also a promise to protect and assist the family. Kenya would be well served to follow suit.

To strengthen the families of any nation is to strengthen the nation itself. The Regional Conference of the Family in Africa, held in July 2004 in Benin, stated:

Recognition that the family is the basic and most fundamental unit of society, a dynamic unit engaged in an intertwined process of individual and group development, justifies the need to place the African family at the core of society which needs to be strengthened as part of Africa’s development process.[10]

The Conference further declared that it is “imperative” that “the African family be well positioned to play a crucial role in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals.”[11]

Later that year, in December 2004 at the United Nations General Assembly plenary meeting devoted to observance of the Tenth Anniversary of the International Year of the Family, Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke in similar terms about the role of the family worldwide. 

Concern for the wellbeing of families dates back to the earliest days of the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the family to be the “natural and fundamental group unit of society ... entitled to protection by society and the State” (resolution 217 A (III), article 16, para. 3)…. 

The International Year of the Family was meant to intensify this focus and to promote greater awareness of what families contribute to economic development and social progress in all societies all over the world. Indeed, the Year’s most far-reaching achievement was to raise the profile of a family perspective, which had never received attention commensurate with its importance….

This anniversary is an opportunity to reaffirm the importance and centrality of the family. But it should also incite us to do more to address the challenges that families face…. In spite of strains and adversity, families are proving resilient, often in remarkable ways. They are doing their best to pull together and to continue serving as a source of strength and inspiration for their members. But they need help. Governments need to do more to help families adapt and thrive, so that they can, in turn, fulfil their social, cultural and economic roles.[12]

The Example of the Cape Verde Constitution in Protecting the Family

Here again Africa leads the way in having one of most impressive national commitments to strengthen the family in the constitution of Cape Verde:

Families have the fundamental right to educate their children according to the ethical and social principles resulting from their philosophical, religious, ideological, aesthetic, political, or other convictions.

All young people shall have the right to special protection by the family, the society, and the state, permitting the development of their personality, their physical and intellectual capacities, and their full integration in social, cultural, political and economic life.

The family is the fundamental element and the basis of all society.

The family must be protected by society and by the State to create conditions for the accomplishment of its social function and for the personal fulfillment of its members.

The State and social institutions must create conditions to assure the unity and stability of the family.

For the protection of the family, the State shall have the following duties:

• To assist the family in its mission of guarding the social values recognized by the community;

• To promote the social and economic independence of family units;

• To cooperate with parents in the education of their children;

• To define and execute, in consultation with associations representing families, a family policy of general, national scope.

Fathers and mothers shall have the right to the protection of society and the State to accomplish these duties in regard to their children.

Fatherhood and motherhood constitute the highest social values.

All children shall have the right to the special protection of the family, society, and the State to guarantee conditions necessary for the whole development of their physical and intellectual capacities, and special care in case of orphans, abandoned children, or the emotionally deprived.

For their own sake and for their future generations, the Kenyan people should not settle for a constitution that fails to protect their most precious assets: life, motherhood, and family.

[1] Cape Verde, Madagascar, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles.

[2] Côte D’Ivoire, Gabon, Mauritania, Mozambique, Uganda.

[3] Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Namibia, Malawi.

[4] Burkina Faso.

[5] Angola.

[6] Chad (“natural and moral base”), Comoros, Rwanda, Somalia.

[7] Central African Republic, Senegal.

[8] Andorra, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Libya.

[9] Niger.

[10] Plan of Action on the Family in Africa 1.1.

[11] Ibid. 3.31.

[12] A/59/PV.67. The speech continued: “One major challenge is to integrate family concerns with broader development and poverty eradication efforts. We must not forget that the family is a vital partner in efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and the many other objectives set by the international community during the last decade. Strong, healthy family structures are essential for human well-being as well. Families are often our first line of support. Policies and programmes must recognize such contributions. The United Nations, for its part, will continue to draw attention to family issues and to support Governments and civil society in their efforts to address them.”