|
NRL News
Democrats
in Congress Launch Attack on Ban on WASHINGTON (June 26, 2007) – The U.S. House of Representatives on June 21 narrowly approved legislation that would provide certain types of U.S. government assistance to private organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries. However, the pro-abortion provision still has considerable obstacles in front of it — including a threatened veto by President Bush. The pro-abortion language, authored by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), was approved as part of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2764). Under the Lowey language, the agency that administers foreign aid programs, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), would be required to provide contraceptive supplies to overseas organizations even if they promote abortion as a method of family planning. The Lowey language would severely weaken a vital pro-life policy (called the “Mexico City Policy”), which was originally adopted by President Reagan and announced at a 1984 population conference in Mexico City. The policy was reinstated by President Bush in 2001. Under this policy, in order to be eligible for U.S. “population assistance,” a private organization must sign a contract promising not to perform abortions (except to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest), lobby to change the abortion laws of host countries, or otherwise “actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.” Pro-life Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) offered an amendment, which was strongly supported by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), to remove the Lowey language from the bill, but the amendment failed, 205-218. The complete roll call on the Smith-Stupak Amendment appears on pages 18-19 of this issue, and in the NRLC House Scorecard, which is posted on the NRLC website at www.capwiz.com/nrlc/home/ The Smith-Stupak Amendment was supported by 180 Republicans and 25 Democrats; it was opposed by 12 Republicans and 206 Democrats. Prior to the vote, House members received a letter signed by the National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, League of Conservation Voters, and Sierra Club, urging them to vote against the pro-life amendment. The White House issued a statement on June 19, warning that the bill would be subject to a veto if it was sent to the President with the pro-abortion Lowey provision. The statement referred to a letter sent by the President to Speaker Pelosi on May 3, in which he said, “I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.” (See “National Right to Life Applauds Blanket Pro-Life Veto Warning by President Bush,” June 2007 NRL News, page 21.) Following the rejection of the Smith-Stupak Amendment, the appropriations bill passed the House by a vote of 241-178, far less than the two-thirds margin that would be required to override a veto. During the House debate, the chief author of the pro-life amendment, Rep. Smith, said that the Lowey language was part of a campaign in which “scores of countries throughout the world are literally under siege in a well-coordinated, exceedingly well-funded campaign to legalize abortion on demand, putting women and children at risk. Most of the pressure is coming directly from foreign nongovernmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London. IPPF and its country affiliates perform abortions and lobby aggressively for abortion on demand.” The chief cosponsor of the amendment, Rep. Stupak, argued that preservation of the Mexico City Policy was necessary to maintain “a clear wall of separation between abortion and family planning. By directing support to organizations that agree not to promote or perform abortion as a method of family planning, we ensure that U.S.-supported programs are not in the abortion business.” Following the House vote rejecting the Smith-Stupak Amendment, Nancy Keenan, president of the pro-abortion group NARAL, said, “Today’s vote marks an important first step toward reversing a seven-year policy to block reproductive health services for women overseas.” “If this bill were signed into law, the United States would undermine international — and even domestic — consensus that abortion is not family planning,” commented Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Poor women in developing nations want food, clean water, housing, and affordable medicine for themselves and their familieis, not ‘assistance’ to abortion their own children.” |