International Family Planning Spending
Approved by U.S. House.
In its first major vote on issues related to abortion, the new 105th House
approved, on February 13, a mandate to release $385 million in funds previously
allocated for international family planning. Abortion foes had previously
frozen the funding last July and had battled pro-choice forces to freeze the
funding again. The vote of 220-208 allocates funds to increase the availability
of contraceptives and family planning information, which many argued would lead
to fewer abortions and save lives.
Despite the fact that the House is considered "anti-abortion," 44 Republicans
joined 175 Democrats and one independent in approval. All five of Tennessee's
Republicans, including Zach Wamp and John Duncan, Jr., voted against the measure,
while all four Tennessee Democrats voted for.
Unfortunately for pro-choice advocates, a separate measure to limit the funds
to organizations that don't advocate legalization of abortions also passed.
Tennessee's delegation lined up again along party lines on this measure, which
passed 231-194.
The final outcome for both measures will be determined VERY SOON in the Senate,
where support for international family planning is considered stronger.
Rep. Nita Lowey, D-NY, an abortion rights advocate, said, "We should win it,
but nothing is certain in this world." Even a well-known abortion foe in the
House, Rep. Tony Hall, D-Ohio, agreed that pro-life forces had gone too far on
this issue, and that failure to release funds "would hurt millions of women and
children." In many poor areas of the world, the local organization that provides
abortions is often also the only resource available to poor women in need of
contraceptive information or prenatal care.
1. I am concerned about future.
I believe that human activities are not sustainable.
Too much human activity. Questionable future for large wild animals.
Human impact depends on product of population and per capita GNP.
Cannot stop economic development. Need to stop population growth.
Continued growth in per capita GNP requires ZPG or negative population growth.
But not coercive (like China).
To summarize, I believe that international aid for family planning
is very important.
2. Background on February Votes.
October 1996. Budget compromise.
During Reagan-Bush era: no funds for groups that performed or promoted abortions.
Clinton reversed. House wanted to reinstate.
Compromise: 35% cut in funds, no antiabortion language,
no spending until July 1, and monthly limit on spending (8% / m).
Clinton could request that funds be released on March 1.
Up or down vote. No amendments.
$385M. Extra $123 M in 1997 (32% of $385M).
Chris Smith (R-NJ) wanted to add an amendment adding the abortion ban.
3. House Vote. (Feb. 13)
220 to 209 for early release. (44R + 175D + I) to (27D + 182R).
Smith separate vote. 231 to 194 for abortion ban. (37D + 194R) to
(30R + 163D + I).
4. Senate Vote. (Feb. 25)
53 to 46 for early release. (11R + 42D) to (2D + 44R). Frist &
Thompson against.
Senate did not vote on the abortion ban. Filibuster and veto should stop.
5. Conclusion.
Bad News. Majority of both houses is anti-choice.
Good News. A few anti-choice Republicans are pro family planning.
Senate Vote.
The Senate yesterday gave final approval to President Clinton's request for
prompt and unrestricted release of funds for international family planning
programs, handing abortion rights forces a rare victory in both houses of
the Republican-controlled Congress.
The 53 to 46 vote will allow Clinton to spend $385 million in previously
appropriated family planning aid on March 1, four months earlier than Congress
set last year in a compromise aimed at avoiding stalemate over government
funding for this year.
"This is a victory for women, children and families all over the world, one
which would not have been accomplished without bipartisan support," White
House press secretary Michael McCurry said after the vote, which marked
Clinton's first legislative victory in the 105th Congress.
The House approved the early release by a vote of 220 to 209 earlier this month.
But, by a larger margin, it also approved separate legislation to link release of
the money to a restoration of restrictions on U.S. aid to organizations that
perform or promote abortions, which were imposed by President Ronald Reagan and
lifted by Clinton.
Democrats blocked immediate consideration of the House-proposed restrictions in
the Senate but may have to fight that battle again. Freshman Sen. Tim Hutchinson
(R-Ark.) introduced a similar bill, and Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
indicated he will seek a vote on it later this year, even though the measure
is likely to run into a Democratic filibuster that will be difficult to
break.
In yesterday's vote, 11 Republicans joined 42 Democrats in supporting the
legislation. Only two Democrats, both of whom are antiabortion, voted against
it. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), who was absent, is a supporter of the
measure and of abortion rights.
The bill's supporters hailed the vote as a boost for international family
planning efforts. "We will now be able to get much-needed help to the women
and families already hurt by the drastic funding cuts of the last two years,"
said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
referring to the 35 percent cutback in funding since 1995.
Yesterday's vote indicated that, while antiabortion forces lost ground in
the House in last year's elections, they gained strength in the Senate,
narrowing differences between the two houses and offering little solace to
abortion rights forces.
While praising the vote, its closeness is "a startling reminder that the new
Senate is comprised of 51 members solidly opposed to reproductive choice,"
said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive
Rights Action League.
Some of the senators who voted to release the family planning funds are likely
to support legislation imposing abortion controls, such as a bill to restrict
certain late-term abortions that will be considered later this year.
Among them was freshman Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), an abortion foe, who argued
that family planning helps prevent abortions. "This is a vote to support life,"
he said.
In brief debate on the bill over the last two days, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)
and other supporters attempted to neutralize the volatile abortion issue by
arguing, as Smith did, that family planning deters abortions by preventing
pregnancies.
Leahy contended that abortion becomes the only method of family planning in
many less-developed countries when there are no alternatives for limiting
the size of families. "Where family planning services are available, the
number of abortions goes down," he said. "The resolution is about the health
of women and children in the desperately poor corners of the world, and, if
anything, it is about preventing abortions," added Sen.
James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.).
Critics argued that, without the Reagan-era restrictions, family planning
assistance will go to organizations that promote abortion. "I support
family planning," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led the fight
against the bill, "but I cannot and will not vote to provide funds to
organizations which in the name of family planning take the lives of innocent,
unborn children."
While the Clinton administration insists that no U.S. funding is used to pay
for abortions, the money goes to organizations that make no secret of their
support for abortion, Hutchinson said. "I think it is wrong to ask pro-life
American taxpayers to foot the bill for that which they find morally
offensive and morally wrong," he added.
Yesterday's vote resulted from last year's deal to allocate $385 million
for overseas family planning, without the Reagan-era abortion restrictions,
but delay release of the funds until July 1. Clinton could seek congressional
approval to release the funds March 1 if he certified the delay was harming
family planning programs. He did so last month.
© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
Last Modified June 8, 1997
(From article by Joan Lowry, Scripps Howard News Service)
Discussion of the February 1997 Votes on International
Family Planning Programs.
David Reister.
The Washington Post. Wednesday, February 26 1997;
Page A04
Senate Votes to Release Family Planning Funds
By Helen Dewar. Washington Post Staff Writer
$385 Million Foreign Aid Can Be Used March 1