U.S. House Upholds Bush Policy Against Aid to Pro-Abort Groups

WASHINGTON (June 10) - - By a very thin margin, the U.S. House of Representatives on May 16 blocked an attack on a vital pro-life policy adopted by President George W. Bush.

By a vote of 218 to 210, the House affirmed the president's pro-life "Mexico City Policy," a ban on U.S. funding of private organizations that perform abortions or work to legalize abortion in foreign countries. (See roll call, pages 26-27.)

"The House wisely decided not to send tax dollars to groups that campaign to legalize abortion as a birth control method in Latin America and Africa," commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.

However, Johnson noted, if only four votes had shifted to the pro-abortion side, the House would have approved language challenging the President's policy.

In view of the closeness of the vote, "Pro-abortion lawmakers will certainly try again on the annual foreign aid appropriations bill, which the House probably will consider in July," Johnson warned.

White House Fights for Pro-Life Policy

President Bush ordered the restoration of the "Mexico City Policy" as one of his first official acts upon taking office in January. The policy requires that in order to be eligible under the U.S. program of aid to overseas population-control programs, private organizations must agree not to perform abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), and not to "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning" - - for example, by campaigning to weaken or repeal the pro-life laws of foreign nations.

The pro-life policy had previously been in effect under President Reagan and under the first President Bush. However, President Clinton nullified the policy, and the Clinton Administration used the foreign aid program to actively promote the legalization of abortion in foreign nations. The U.S. provides about $425 million a year for the so-called "population assistance" program, in addition to contributions to UN-sponsored population-control programs.

President Bush's restoration of the Mexico City Policy provoked a strong negative reaction from pro-abortion members of Congress.

On May 2, the House International Relations Committee added a provision to the State Department authorization bill (H.R. 1646) to overturn the Mexico City Policy. The amendment, authored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Ca.), was supported by all Democrats on the committee and by three Republicans: Reps. Jim Leach (Iowa), Ben Gilman (NY), and Amo Houghton (NY).

Following the committee's action, International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Il.) announced that he would offer an amendment on the House floor to strip the Lee provision from the bill. Hyde was joined in sponsorship of the amendment by Reps. Jim Barcia (D-Mi.), Chris Smith (R-NJ), and James Oberstar (D-Mn.).

During the weeks preceding the House vote, many House members' offices received large numbers of phone calls from supporters of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, urging the lawmakers to oppose what they called "the international gag rule." Dozens of newspaper editorial boards also came out against the President's policy, mostly in editorials that parroted the pro-abortion lobby's arguments and misstatements.

However, on May 8 the White House sent a written message to House members, warning that President Bush would veto the entire $8.2 billion State Department bill unless the pro-abortion provision was removed. The Lee provision "would allow taxpayer funds to go to international organizations which perform abortions and engage in abortion advocacy," the White House statement said.

White House lobbyists strongly encouraged Republican lawmakers to support the President's policy, especially those who had not previously expressed strong support for the policy. Nicholas Calio, director of the White House congressional relations office, told the Washington Post (May 15) that the White House was "working the issue hard," noting, "It's something the president feels strongly about."

NRLC, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Coalition, and several other pro-life groups also urged House members to support President Bush's policy.

Following an hour of vigorous debate on May 16, Congressman Hyde's amendment to strike the pro-abortion provision was adopted, 218-210. The pro-life position was supported by 185 Republicans, 32 Democrats, and one independent. The pro-abortion position was supported by 33 Republicans, 176 Democrats, and one independent.

The House then passed the State Department bill itself. While the Senate has not yet acted on its version of the bill, there is little doubt that the Senate would approve language attacking the Mexico City Policy. However, the pro-life win in the House ensures that the language will not be in any final version of the State Department bill that emerges from a House-Senate conference committee. But the separate foreign aid appropriations bill will provide another opportunity for pro-abortion lawmakers to raise the issue.

Heated Debate

Throughout the May 16 House floor debate, pro-abortion lawmakers attempted to shift the focus away from the abortion issue. They repeatedly insisted that the House was really debating whether to support overseas "family planning" programs.

But pro-life lawmakers noted that neither the Mexico City Policy nor the Hyde Amendment affected the amount spent on "family planning" programs, since funds removed from abortion-promoting groups are re-directed to other organizations that do not engage in the pro-abortion activities.

"Abortion is not family planning," said Congressman Hyde. "Family planning is helping you get pregnant or keeping you from getting pregnant. It is not killing an unborn child after you become pregnant." Hyde said the Mexico City Policy "puts a wall of separation between U.S. family planning programs and the international abortion industry."

Hyde also argued, "Would we hire casino lobbyists to run an anti-gambling campaign? It makes no sense to hire abortionists or abortion lobbyists to run programs that are aimed at reducing abortions."

Pro-abortion lawmakers branded the Mexico City Policy as an "international gag rule," arguing that it was wrong to penalize groups for advocating liberalization of abortion laws or for presenting abortion as a birth-control option.

"No one is being gagged," Hyde responded. "'If you want to talk about abortion, talk away, but not on our dime."

Pro-abortion lawmakers repeatedly referred to a 1973 law, the Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, that prohibits the direct use of U.S. foreign aid funds to pay for abortions.

But pro-life legislators responded that the 1973 law had not prevented the Clinton Administration from providing massive funding to certain organizations that actively campaign to repeal pro-life laws, or that perform abortions with non-U.S. funds, such as the London headquarters of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). The laws in effect in most of Latin America, much of Africa, and some other developing nations protect the right to life of unborn children.

Pro-life Congressman Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said funding groups that perform and lobby for abortion with non-U.S. funds is "a shell game."

"Currently 100 countries restrict abortion and it should not be the policy of the United States to undermine those laws," Cantor said.

During the debate, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), the co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, cited the IPPF Strategic Plan Vision 2000, which calls on IPPF affiliates to "increase the right of access to safe, legal abortion," and "to bring pressure on governments to remove barriers to access."

Smith said, "When we subsidize and lavish federal funds on abortion organizations, we empower the child abusers. And Planned Parenthood, make no mistake about it, both here and overseas is Child Abuse Incorporated."

In a written response, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Gloria Feldt said, "We are outraged by Representative Smith's reprehensible remarks." She suggested that Planned Parenthood would have grounds to sue Smith if it were not for congressional immunity, and concluded, "We challenge him to recant his statement and apologize to the American public," Feldt said.

A spokeswoman for Congressman Smith indicated that he did not plan to recant.

Reactions to Vote

The House vote was denounced by an array of organizations that support abortion, including the National Abortion Federation, the United Methodist Church, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Sarah Clark, director of the Population Program at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, said the vote "continues to perpetuate a terrible crime against democracy and women and children worldwide."

Cathleen Cleaver, a spokeswoman for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "This is an important step for our nation in building a culture of life. When poor women overseas cry out for help, we will no longer respond with abortion."

Yuri Mantilla, Hispanic Project advisor for the Family Research Council, said the House vote "is a measure of goodwill towards the legal and historical traditions of Latin American countries, most of which have laws defining abortion as a crime."

Resources: The entire House debate on the Mexico City Policy appears in the Congressional Record for May 16, 2001, pages H 2189-2205, available on the internet at http://thomas.loc.gov.