The United States signaled it may drop a demand for anti-abortion language that raised hackles at a U.N. women’s conference, but the top U.S. delegate insisted on Wednesday that many nations agree with Washington.

In closed-door negotiations, the Bush administration demanded that a U.N. document on women’s equality be amended to say abortion is not a fundamental right.

But that proposal sparked controversy at the women’s meeting, a two-week review session of progress since a landmark women’s conference in Beijing in 1995.

Diplomats close to the negotiations here said the Bush administration, which opposes abortion at home and abroad, probably would drop the demand, and the top U.S. delegate hinted at it in an address to participants.

“The United States recognizes the…principle that abortion policies are a matter of national sovereignty,” said Ellen Sauerbrey, who heads the U.S. delegation.

“And we are pleased that so many other governments have indicated their agreement with this position, and we anticipate that we can now focus clearly on addressing the many urgent needs of women around the world,” she said.

Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said Washington’s original goal was to ensure that the intent of the document hammered out in Beijing was clear.

“We are hearing from many delegations that they agree with us and they advise us that the amendment is therefore not needed,” Grenell said.

GLOBAL ABORTION RIGHTS?

At the Beijing meeting, abortion was treated as a health issue, and its final document said abortion should be safe where it was legal and criminal action should not be taken against women who had abortions.

But the Bush administration worried that some were trying to show documents from the Beijing meeting and another conference five years later created new international rights to abortion.

“While those documents express important political goals, they do not create rights or legally binding obligations on States under international law, including the right to abortion,” Sauerbrey told the delegates.

Some European envoys expect the United States to issue a separate statement on its opposition to so-called “sexual rights” as it did in a preparatory meeting for the conference in Geneva in December.

Barbara Crane of the group Ipas, which addresses the issue of unsafe abortion, voiced concern at the U.S. stance: “We are deeply troubled that the U.S. is using this important international meeting for what appears to be domestic political purposes.”

June Zeitlin of the Women’s Environment and Development Organization, called the proposed U.S. amendment “obstructionist,” adding, “The United States needs to stop blocking global consensus so we can all proceed to the real issue of how to achieve women’s human rights.”

Numerous delegates, especially from Europe, questioned why the United States was bringing up the issue. But Sauerbrey said earlier that the U.S. position needed to be clarified because women’s advocate groups were trying to “hijack” the abortion plank. She did not name the groups.