Fellow Advocates,
You may want to call to support Rep. James C. Greenwood (R., Pa.), a leading
proponent of abortion rights. This issue affects our efforts.
Philadelphia Inquirer
National
Wednesday, February 12, 1997
Aid for family planning is nearing a showdown in Congress
Antiabortion activists seek to overturn a Clinton order. Abortion-rights
groups have also mobilized.
By Chris Mondics INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Shortly after taking office in 1993, President Clinton issued
an executive order releasing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for
family planning to groups that also promote and fund abortions overseas.
Now, antiabortion activists led by Rep. Christopher H. Smith, the New Jersey
Republican who has made a career out of seeking to overturn legalized
abortion, are pushing legislation to reverse that decision. The legislative
battle, scheduled to play out tomorrow in the
House of Representatives, is shaping up as a key test on the volatile issue
of reproductive rights.
Smith has the backing of major antiabortion groups, but abortion-rights
groups have mobilized as well, speaking in equally urgent terms and
pressuring members of Congress to vote down Smith's proposal. They're asking
allies to instead opt for a Clinton administration
plan that would greatly expand family planning money for birth control in
developing nations, contending that lack of information about contraceptives
causes the number of abortions to balloon.
Clinton's proposal would boost funding for overseas family planning this
year by about $123 million from its current $420 million.
Smith's opponents say that his resolution, though likely to pass the House,
probably won't pass the Senate. If it does, Clinton is likely to veto it. It
is unclear, meanwhile, whether the Clinton administration measure will pass
in the House.
If both measures stumble, which is a distinct possibility, the overseas
family planning services would continue to be funded at low levels, forcing
the shutdown of many overseas clinics, abortion-rights activists say.
``If the Congress persists as it has for the last two years in trying to
derail this program, all of the progress over the last 20 to 30 years to
reduce fertility rates is likely to be reversed and the consequences in
human suffering for women and infants and our ability to preserve life on
this planet will be seriously affected,'' said Rep. James C. Greenwood (R.,
Pa.), a leading proponent of abortion rights.
Tomorrow's vote would mark the first test of the abortion issue for the
105th Congress. It would also be the first ``pure'' vote on the abortion
issue in 10 years, according to Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America. Past abortion votes have been on bills
combining abortion and other issues such as the federal budget, clouding
allegiances and blurring ideological lines, she
said.
``It is a real clear-cut issue -- do you support family planning or not?''
she said.
At the heart of the controversy is a decision by Clinton two days after
taking office in 1993 to lift some restrictions imposed by former Presidents
Ronald Reagan and George Bush on aid to groups that fund abortions abroad or
lobby to lift legal restrictions on abortions.
Under the Reagan-Bush policy, such groups could receive federal funds only
if they limited their activities to promoting birth control.
Several major family planning groups, including the International Planned
Parenthood Federation, declined to accept that condition and went without
federal aid.
Clinton amended the rule to allow family planning agencies to receive U.S.
assistance for promoting and supplying contraceptives, but not for abortions.
Smith charges that such a distinction is a ruse, contending that the federal
funding for family planning simply frees up other money for the groups to
promote abortions.
``We insist that a wall of separation be established between abortion and
family planning,'' he said. ``The dirty little game that is being played now
is that these organizations will take the money and then use their money to
fund abortions.''
His resolution would greatly increase federal funding for international
family planning agencies -- $713 million -provided they agree not to fund
abortions or promote legalization, a stipulation that major international
family planning agencies say they can't accept.
Family planning groups ``have come to understand that it is medically
unethical if a physician can't tell a woman honestly about whatever medical
information is appropriate for her condition,'' Feldt said. ``Then that
woman is not able to give informed consent and the voluntary nature of the
program is jeopardized.''
Both sides have been locked in a public relations struggle. Smith and other
abortion opponents in a news conference Monday contended that Third World
governments, with the aid of family planning agencies, have embarked on
coercive policies to control population. Abortion-rights advocates held
their own news conference, pointing to the Russian Family Planning
Association, a group that promotes birth control and improved abortion
procedures. They said the agency has helped reduce the abortion rate in
Russia by supplying birth-control information as well.
According to Feldt, family planning agencies that fund abortions would do
so, whether they get federal money or not. However, without the federal
money, they simply won't be able to promote effective birth control, she
said. The result would be more abortions, she said.
``There simply is no other program that brings more benefits for less money
on both humanitarian and economic [ grounds ] ,'' she said.
Margaret Tuchman (55yrs, Dx 1980)- NJ-08540
[log in to unmask]
