Replies

The article is inaccurate. This is an email that I have sent to the author:

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:46:07
Subject: False news story: "Bush Okays Abortion Spending"

re: http://www.covenantnews.com/
and http://www.covenantnews.com/murder.htm

Dear Mr. Rudd,

Your lead story today is wrong. It is entitled:

Bush Okays Abortion Spending

And it says:

By Jim Rudd / The Covenant News

On Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported
President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign
appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The
bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be
given to other countries for abortion-family planning
activities throughout the world. The abortion-family
planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase
of $21.5 million over last year. ...

But that is incorrect. Under the Mexico City policy which
President Bush reinstated a year ago, the money MAY NOT be used
for abortion or abortion advocacy. Also, because money is
fungible, it MAY NOT be given to organizations (like Planned
Parenthood) which perform abortions or do abortion advocacy,
even for purposes unrelated to abortion. See:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,96275,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6dd58201e0.htm
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bush_abortion010326.html

The original House version of this bill retained the pro-life Mexico
City policy. However, the Senate version of this bill contained
language that would have repealled the Mexico City restrictions on
abortion funding.

Fortunately, the White House promised that President Bush would
veto a foreign aid bill that repealled the Mexico City restrictions
on abortion; see the last sentence here:
http://www.unausa.org/dc/info/dc102901.htm
and the last sentence of the 3rd-to-last paragraph here:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/2001foreignops/explanation

This pressure swayed the conference committee into adopting the
House (pro-life) language; see:
http://www.planetwire.org/details/2117

However, to get the President's "Mexico City" abortion restrictions
included, House conference committee negotiators had to agree to
an increase in total funding demanded by Senate Democrats.

The main problematic feature of this foreign aid bill, from a
pro-life perspective, is the money which it provides to UNFPA,
the UN Population Fund, which I think was increased to a total of
$37.5 million. The UNFPA claims that it does not promote abortion
(see http://www.unfpa.org/about/faq.htm#abortion )
but there is evidence that their claim is not honest
(see http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0018238.html ).
Plus, the UNFPA promotes so-called "birth control" methods such as
IUDs and "emergency contraception" that kill unborn human embryos,
though they are not conventionally called "abortions."

Unfortunately, the votes are not there in Congress for ending
UNFPA funding.

Neverthless, the bill Bush signed does not fund abortion, and
Bush has "gone to the mat" (with a veto threat) to make the bill
as pro-life as possible. It is a false and terrible smear of
President Bush to claim that he "okayed abortion spending."

Christian news organizations have a special burden to follow
the 9th Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbor."

Please post a correction on your web site.

I look forward to your reply.

In Christ,

-Dave Burton

The main problematic feature of this foreign aid bill, from a pro-life perspective, is the money which it provides to UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, which I think was increased to a total of $37.5 million. The UNFPA claims that it does not promote abortion (see http://www.unfpa.org/about/faq.htm#abortion ) but there is evidence that their claim is not honest (see http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0018238.html ).
Plus, the UNFPA promotes so-called "birth control" methods such as IUDs and "emergency contraception" that kill unborn human embryos, though they are not conventionally called "abortions."
Unfortunately, the votes are not there in Congress for ending UNFPA funding.

Neverthless, the bill Bush signed does not fund abortion,

Dave -- you've just shown in the highlighted portions above why this bill funds abortions, by funding the UNFPA. How do you then immediately turn around and justify your contention that it "does not fund aborion"?

* * * CORRECTION * * *

ncdave4life (yeah, that's me) wrote:

The article is inaccurate. ... It is entitled:
Bush Okays Abortion Spending
...But that is incorrect. Under the Mexico City policy which President Bush reinstated a year ago, the money MAY NOT be used for abortion or abortion advocacy.

So far, so good. If I'd stopped there, I'd have been correct. But I didn't stop. I erred when I continued, writing:

Also, because money is fungible, it MAY NOT be given to organizations (like Planned Parenthood) which perform abortions or do abortion advocacy, even for purposes unrelated to abortion.

Unfortunately, that "fungibility" provision of the old Mexico City policy is not in this bill. This bill severely weakens the fungibility provision, by applying it only to organizations that are involved with "coercive" abortions.

I greatly regret my error.

However, it is still true that the article accusing Bush of okaying "abortion spending" is wrong, and it is still true that Bush did his very best to make this bill as pro-life as possible. The Senate version would have permitted funding of abortions with tax dollars, as was done under Clinton. It was Bush's veto threat that got the prohibition on abortion funding back into the bill. Unfortunately, President Bush's leverage was limited. He really needed that foreign aid bill passed, so his veto threat was a pretty drastic action. He did what he could get, and the result really was probably the best we could hope for with the Senate in Democrat hands.

And here's some good news:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/606557/posts
Possible UNFPA Cuts Rile Activists
WASHINGTON (AP) - Abortion rights advocates Friday accused President Bush of bowing to conservatives when he indicated he may cut some of the $34 million Congress appropriated for a U.N. family planning agency.
The money for the United Nations Population Fund, also known as UNFPA, was included in a $15.4 billion foreign aid bill that Bush signed into law Thursday. The organization helps countries deal with reproductive and sexual health, family planning and population strategy.
Bush made a point of noting in an accompanying statement that it gives him "additional discretion to determine the appropriate level of funding for the United Nations Population Fund." ...

President Bush is da man!

-Dave