Posted on 01/21/2002 11:29:01 AM PST by truthandlife
U.S. funding for a United Nations population control program remains up in the air, with the Bush Administration under pressure from both pro-life and abortion rights activists to make a decision soon on whether to release the money - or block it instead.
Congress recently approved $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), but President Bush has the authority to determine how much, if any, of the money will be allocated.
As of last week, the White House gave no indication of what President Bush would decide.
Congress passed the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill in December, which increased UNFPA funding by 36 percent to $34 million. President Bush met with advisors last week to discuss whether to spend the money, but no decision was made.
"The way the bill is written, there's real flexibility in it, in that it says the administration can spend 'up to' $34 million," said White House spokesman Sean McCormack. "Certainly we're aware of the issues raised by some concerning UNFPA, but there's no decision made yet," McCormack added.
The UNFPA provides family planning services mostly to third-world countries and supporters of the program maintain that people in those countries would have no access to such services without the UNFPA.
However, those opposed to U.S. funding point to a study conducted by the Population Research Institute last year, which found that women who sought services at a 'model' UNFPA office in China were victims of, and bore witness to, coercive abortions and sterilizations.
"How much should the president give the UNFPA? Exactly zero," Steve Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, said. "This is an organization that helps to support and manage a program of coercive abortion and coercive sterilization in China, and PRI has the evidence to prove this.
"Were the abuses not so horrific and commonplace, UNFPA's denials would be laughable," Mosher said.
Judith DeSarno, president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, said PRI's allegations about China are untrue and provide a flimsy excuse for opposition to UNFPA funding.
"Clearly, the few individuals who continue to levy unsubstantiated allegations about UNFPA's work in China simply oppose family planning and therefore, are out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support family planning, including public funding for family planning services," DeSarno said.
Desarno said UNFPA's services are vital to third world countries. "UNFPA's programs enable women and their families around the world obtain crucial health services that reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS, unintended pregnancy, and abortion, and save lives of women and children," DeSarno said.
"I strongly urge the president to support the most at-risk women and their families around the world by honoring the overwhelming bipartisan consensus to contribute $34 million to UNFPA this year."
Peter Purdy, president of the U.S. Committee for U.N. Population Fund, wrote a letter to Bush, warning the president that blocking the funding would also be a "sharp, embarrassing rebuke," to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has voiced support for the U.N. Population Fund in the past.
Purdy added that blocking the funding would do much more harm than good to people in third world countries.
"For no good reason and without a shred of substance, a handful of family planning opponents are trying to diminish the reputation and funding of an important provider of health care services to the world's poor people who live on less than $1 a day," Purdy wrote.
An anti-UNFPA conservative coalition maintains that under law, U.S. funds are forbidden to go to any organization that participates in the support or management of a program that includes abortion or sterilization.
Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute said his organization has been joined by Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council in opposing UNFPA funding.
Ruse said he and his coalition expects Bush to at least limit the funding to $25 million like last year, or block it all together.
"I doubt that it will be an increase over last year, because the White House really cares about this issue," Ruse said. "I think there is a spirited debate within the White House -we think there are people on the president's staff that are with us, and I think there are people on the president's staff who are against us.
"There is a very healthy debate going on within the administration," Ruse said.
Unless this is an executive order, the appropriation is illegal.
Regardless of the legality of the appropriation, Bush has a decision to make. We'll find out who he really belongs to.
Whatever do you mean? Bush says he's pro-life. Isn't that good enough for you?
And oh yeah -- Clinton would've killed more children than Bush. What we need is more incrementalism.
/ sarcasm
Do you have an idea on why this decision is proving so hard for Bush? I don't mean to single you out, but I just don't understand this one. It baffles me, he claims to be pro-life and he has all the discretion in the world here. He knows as well as we do what the UNFPA does, and how it acts world wide.
Am I missing something? What is so hard about this?
patent
Call 202 456 1414 to tell the President "Zero funding for UNFPA"!
Thanks for the reminder!
In our hearts, we know he is pro-life.
He must have some important phone calls to make or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.