BUSH’S "MEXICO CITY" ABORTION POLICY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS

BUSH’S "MEXICO CITY" ABORTION POLICY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS

ABORTION AND ABORTION ADVOCACY WILL STILL BE FUNDED

Previously, your editor has pointed out that President G.W.B.’s decision to restore the Reagan "Mexico City" policy, limiting the provision of your tax dollars flowing to overseas population control organizations was less significant than assumed by many well-intentioned pro-life leaders, in that, while the Bush policy does limit the direct use of U.S. subsidies to perform and promote abortion, nonetheless, the pro-abortion recipient organizations still get the money to which they are not Constitutionally or morally entitled, with these funds available to offset their other expenses, so long as the U.S. Treasury dollars are assigned to a separate bank account.

Now, in reviewing the policy as enunciated in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 61, Thursday, March 29, 2001) Presidential Documents, "Memorandum of March 28, 2001: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy" over the signature of President Bush, it is clear that this is even less a pro-life victory than first believed.

"FAMILY PLANNING": YES, "ABORTION": NO --- WITH EXCEPTIONS

GWB: "The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required foreign nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds for family planning activities that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations….

"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act should not be given to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations…except as otherwise provided below...."

ABORTION FUNDING OK IF NOT "A METHOD OF FAMILY PLANNING"

"The recipient agrees that it will not furnish assistance for family planning under this award to any foreign nongovernmental organization that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient countries or that provides financial support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities. For purposes of this paragraph (e), a foreign nongovernmental organization is a nongovernmental organization that is not organized under the laws of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. ..."

FUNDING OF "POST-ABORTION" CARE IS AUTHORIZED

"Abortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of spacing births. This includes, but is not limited to, abortions performed for the physical or mental health of the mother, but does not include abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest (since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act)."

FUNDING OF POST-ABORTION SERVICES PERMITTED

"To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning programs. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion care. ..."

GWB: "SAFE, LEGAL ABORTION" REFERRAL IS PERMITTED

"([P]assively responding to a question regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained is not considered active promotion if the question is specifically asked by a woman who is already pregnant, the woman clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires a response regarding where it may be obtained safely).…"

GWB OK’S ABORTION ADVOCACY IF "FAMILY PLANNING" PERSONNEL DO IT ON THEIR LUNCH HOUR

"Action by an individual acting in the individual’s capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the organization neither endorses nor provides financial support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the individual does not improperly represent that the individual is acting on behalf of the organization. ..."

SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION

"The recipient may request USAID’s approval to treat as separate the family planning activities of two or more organizations, that would not be considered separate under the preceding sentence, if the recipient believes, and provides a written justification to USAID therefor, that the family planning activities of the organizations are sufficiently distinct so as to warrant not imputing the activity of one to the other."

ALL U.S. FUNDS MUST BE CLEANLY LAUNDERED

"Assistance for family planning may be furnished under this award by a recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient to a foreign government even though the government includes abortion in its family planning program, provided that no assistance may be furnished in support of the abortion activity of the government and any funds transferred to the government shall be placed in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support the abortion activity of the government."

DUBYA SAYS USAID SUBSIDIES WILL FUND CHILD-SPACING ABORTIONS

"The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to child spacing assistance furnished to a foreign nongovernmental organization that is engaged primarily in providing health services if the objective of the assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and children and child spacing is one of several health care services being provided by the organization as part of a larger child survival effort with the objective of reducing infant and child mortality."

http://www.conservativeusa.org/bushwatch.htm

Hello davis:

Look, most thinking people agree Bush is lukewarm (at best) on the abortion question.

Here's my solution.

At the very next opportunity, vote him out of office.

What was good for his Daddy should be good for his kid, right?

I believe he WILL be voted out of office. The intent of diseminating information is to expose the hypocracy of both Parties, and is a small effort at bringing pressure to bear on the incumbent administration.

I don't choose to live in 4 year blocks of time without activity.

article says:

ABORTION FUNDING OK IF NOT "A METHOD OF FAMILY PLANNING"

That is untrue. The bill flatly prohibits spending any of the appropriated money on abortions. Period. It says:

"none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion: Provided further, That in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects..."

The bill probably WOULD have permitted using the funds to pay for abortions (the Senate version did!) were it not for President Bush's veto threat.

The bill he signed is far from ideal, but it DOES prohibit using the funds to pay for abortions, and it would be a lot worse were it not his efforts. Note that he does not have a "line item veto," and he really needed some of the other items in that bill, so his leverage was limited. He did all that it was possible for him to do to make the bill more pro-life.

-Dave

Jethro Tull wrote:

Look, most thinking people agree Bush is lukewarm (at best) on the abortion question.

Rediculous. Bush is at least the most pro-life President since Ike, and maybe since Hoover. He enjoys the strong support of many pro-life organizations and individual pro-life activists, including me. We realize that he has consistently done whatever has been in his power to defend the babies.

Before he took office, in my sweetest dreams I would never have dared hope that a president would actually use the occasion of his first major policy address to deliver a seminar to the nation on the sactity of human life. Bush Sr. never did that. Even President Reagan, whom I love, never did that. But GWB did!

And the effect his address had was remarkable! He singlehandedly derailed a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut for the use of tax money to subsidize the destruction of human embryos for research purposes, and even the creation of human embryos soley for the purpose of destroying them for research. Even Henry Hyde was "on board" that train, until President Bush derailed it.

-Dave

. . . that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion. . . .

But who's to say they won't divert the funds to a clinic that WILL perform the abortion? (Haven't read all the replies, so I don't know if this was addressed by sinkspur and _Jim yet.)

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.