U.S. Money, Overseas Abortion - Congressional Democrats are seeking ways to bypass a federal policy

National Catholic Register ^ | July 8-14, 2007 | TOM McFEELY

[Coleus]

U.S. Money, Overseas Abortion

Congressional Democrats are seeking ways to bypass a federal policy restricting money from overseas groups that perform or promote abortion.

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats have been relatively cautious about flying their pro-abortion colors since they assumed control of both Houses of Congress in January.  But the passage June 21 by the House of Representatives of a measure that would provide tax-funded contraceptives to pro-abortion family planning groups proves the Democratic Party remains closely allied with the abortion lobby, pro-life leaders said after the vote.  “The Democratic leadership is strongly committed to promoting abortion, but they wish to do it incrementally,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

And, Congressional pro-lifers say, the passage of the House measure highlights the importance of President George Bush’s commitment in May to veto any anti-life legislation that crosses his desk.  “President Bush, God bless him, has drawn a clear line in the sand,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.  The House measure on contraceptives is intended to circumvent the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding of international groups that perform or promote abortion.  That policy requires foreign nongovernmental organizations “to agree as a condition of their receipt of federal assistance for family planning activities to neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

It was first announced by the Reagan administration at a 1984 U.N. conference on population in Mexico City.  In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee approved a foreign aid spending bill June 28 that would allow the government to give contraceptives but not money to international groups barred from receiving U.S. aid because of their abortion policies.   Instead of introducing legislation directly targeted at overturning the entire Mexico City Policy, the House Democratic leadership included a measure in this year’s state/foreign operations appropriations bill that would allow pro-abortion groups like International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world’s largest private abortion business, to receive contraceptives purchased by the federal government.

The measure was attached to the appropriations bill by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs. The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. The measure’s backers argue it is not intended to circumvent the Mexico City Policy’s ban on promoting abortion.   According to a June 5 e-mail Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., a sponsor of the bill, sent out in support of the measure, giving tax-funded contraceptives to pro-abortion groups would “help reduce unintended pregnancies, and, accordingly, reduce the number of those that often result in abortion.”  Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, sent a letter June 18 to House members urging them to reject the measure.

In the letter, which contained a detailed rebuttal of the arguments put forward by the measure’s backers, Cardinal Rigali said that “logic and common sense dictate that we cannot reduce abortions by supporting groups dedicated to promoting abortions. Such a policy is simply at war with itself.”  During the June 21 House debate of an amendment Smith and pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., introduced to delete the contraceptives measure from the appropriations bill, Smith said that since the reinstitution of the Mexico City Policy, U.S. provision of contraceptives to many developing countries has increased substantially.   Smith also noted that International Planned Parenthood Federation’s 1992 policy statement, “Vision 2000,” formally commits the organization to “bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortions.”

Said Smith, “So it couldn’t be more clear that if we provide either cash or in-kind contributions to abortion organizations we empower and enable the campaign to expand abortion. Instead, we should direct our funds and in-kind assistance including commodities and contraceptives to organizations committed only to family planning.” Smith and Stupak’s amendment was defeated by a 223-201 vote, and the entire appropriations bill was subsequently passed by the House, 241-178.   Abortion lobbyists were delighted by the outcome.  “Today’s vote marks an important first step toward reversing a seven-year policy to block reproductive health services for women overseas,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said, The Washington Post reported June 22.

Lowey’s office did not reply to questions submitted by the Register via e-mail about pro-lifers’ concerns that the contraceptives measure was a ploy to help groups like International Planned Parenthood Federation promote abortion overseas.

Sustainable Vetoes

Smith said that contrary to suggestions by some Democrats that the party is becoming more open to pro-life views, the party’s Congressional leadership has demonstrated their continuing dedication to promoting abortion.  “They are so hostile to life — Nancy Pelosi in particular,” Smith said.   Ray Flynn, the former mayor of Boston who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See during the Clinton administration, agreed that pro-life Democrats like himself continue to be denied any influence in the party.  Smith said that the Congressional Democrats would introduce a lot more pro-abortion bills if they weren’t confronted by Bush’s veto commitment.

He also said pro-lifers command the House and Senate votes required to sustain any pro-life vetoes by Bush. And, he said, Congressional pro-lifers will welcome every opportunity they get to vote down abortion-related bills by upholding Bush’s vetoes.  “My feeling is, ‘Make my day. You people are so obsessed with destroying unborn children’ — we want the American public to see that,” Smith said.   National Right to Life’s Johnson predicted that the Democrat leadership may back off from much of its pro-abortion legislative agenda because of Bush’s veto commitment.   He said it’s uncertain whether the Democrats will expend much effort on trying to repeal the pro-life riders that are attached annually to other appropriations bills to prevent federal spending on abortion-related initiatives, for fear of triggering presidential vetoes that would stall their spending bills.

“The Democrat leadership wants to make it known that they can make these appropriations trains run on time so that they can govern in an orderly way,” Johnson said. “And when they attack these pro-life provisions, they are in effect blowing up their own railroad bridges.”

[Coleus]

.

[kittymyrib]

Bumper sticker: Abort Democrats in ‘08

[airborne]

Let them use their own money.

[advertising guy]

killing babies at will.......God help us,in Christ’s anme....amen

[Enterprise]

Democrats support it when people go around the law to get an abortion. Would they also support it if people went to Nevada to get a concealed carry permit, and make it mandatory that their home state accept it as valid?

[AliVeritas]

ping