• List of All Updates
• Look up legislation on Thomas
• Sign up for the NOW Action Alert list

Int'l Family Planning/Population Assistance Programs Up for Key Vote

"In the balance are the lives and well-being of many thousands of women and children and American credibility as the leader in family planning programs around the world.... If we delay support for family planning by even four months, denying safe and effective contraception to couples who depend upon these programs, we will see a rise in unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths and a tragic recourse to unsafe and unsanitary methods to terminate those pregnancies."

In addition to the delay in the funding, the 105th Congress had also slashed budgets by 35% and directed that funds, when made available in July, 1997, be allocated only in 8% increments each month for 13 months. The House vote is expected to occur the week of February 11th, with the Senate vote to possibly occur the same day or soon thereafter. Between 30 and 40 members of the House have not indicated how they will vote; House leaders favoring early release of funds include Republicans James Greenwood (PA), Benjamin A. Gilman (NY), Tom Campbell (CA), and John Porter (IL) with Democrats Nancy Pelosi (CA), Nita Lowey (NY, and David Obey (WI). Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) are trying to move the upper body towards a vote; the Senate has become ideologically more conservative with several additional abortion opponents.

Family planning advocates held a press conference in late January with the Rockefeller Foundation which reported on progress made by family planning programs around the world and outlined the dangers that may result if U.S. funding is curtailed. The report noted that we are facing an era when the largest generation in history will be entering child-bearing years with 800 million adolescents coming of age in the year 2000. The foundation criticized U.S. withdrawal of family planning support as "actions...very much against the best interest of the human race."

Over the 30 year period that these programs have been in operation, population growth has slowed, maternal and child health has improved and parents now have a better opportunity to feed, educate, and provide for their children. In developing countries where there has been an availability of family planning services, the use of contraceptives increased from 10 percent to 50 percent since 1960. Many clinics also provide Pap smears, prenatal care, and vaccines.

Advocates say that the $190 million cut already made in U.S. funding is estimated to result in four million additional unplanned pregnancies, two million unplanned births, 134,000 infant deaths, 8,000 deaths among women in pregnancy and childbirth, and 1.6 million abortions. (Another half billion women die each year in pregnancy and childbirth because of a lack of medical services.) The United Nations reports that by the year 2050 there will be about one half billion fewer people in the world than previously expected if current trends persist. But without family planning services in poor nations, the cycle of poverty, resource depletion, low wages, unemployment, and civil unrest may grow. These conditions will affect the whole world, including the United States, population experts assert.

Attacks on family planning programs are unprecedented in ferocity and intensity with the National Right to Life Committee, the Christian Coalition joining forces with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Mail against family planning from their grassroots to Congress has been extraordinarily heavy. Their approach is premised on a 'big lie' which asserts that these funds are being used to promote a worldwide abortion campaign, a clever deceit which attempts to re-insert debate about the Mexico City policy. This policy stipulated that no funds be awarded to any organization that also, with its own non-US money, provides abortion-related information or services or advocates the legalization of abortion. The authorization for family planning funds last year came through without the Mexico City policy. But Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) who is sponsoring an alternative resolution plans to re-inject the Mexico City policy -- a move which may well bog down the debate. The international family planning assistance program has barred the use of U.S. funds since 1973 for provision of abortion services or lobbying on abortion. All these activities by abortion rights opponents are clearly intended to disrupt and eventually kill both international -- and eventually domestic -- family planning services.

Representatives Dick Armey (R-TX) and Richard Gephardt (D-MO) are sponsoring H.J. Res. 36, the primary vehicle for accepting the President's finding. Specifically, that vote will be on whether to accept or reject the presidential finding and is scheduled to occur on Thursday, Feb. 13th. In the Senate, S.J. Res. 14 sponsored by Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Tom Daschle (D-SD) resolution, will be taken up -- possibly on the same day as the House vote. These are the two resolutions that you are urged to ask Congressmembers to support.

D & X Abortion Ban Language Evolves

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-ND), minority leader, has invited Republican Senators Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME) and John Chafee (RI) and several Democratic abortion rights supporters to develop a "middle ground" for this issue which is perceived as politically costly. (Although no incumbent running for re-election who voted against the ban lost election.) Three working groups examining different language are expected to report back to him some version which stipulates the D & X procedure can only be performed when there is an "extreme threat" to the life or health of the woman or when there is severe fetal anomaly. The legislation is expected to be introduced this month.

Senate abortion opponents, led by Rick Santorum (R-PA) and 31 co-sponsors, have introduced S. 6, to ban "partial birth" abortions, with essentially the same language as considered last Congress. Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-FL) introduced a bill in the House with language identical to the Senate. President Clinton vetoed that bill with the message that it did not allow sufficient opportunity for D & X abortions to be performed to preserve the life and health of the woman. Congress failed to override the veto.

Reports from various states are also revealing. In Alabama, abortion opponents plan to ask the state legislature to ban abortions involving any fetus that tests show can live on its own or on life support. They would also ban D & X abortions and require a 48-hour waiting period in all cases. Specifically, the proposed language requires doctors to test for "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the unborn child outside the body of his or her mother with or without artificial support." Or another version bans "abortion of any fetus that is capable of living on its own." The only exceptions are to save a woman's life or to avoid irreversible impairment of any of her major body functions. This approach is an serious advance in abortion rights opponents' strategy to elevate the rights of the fetus over the rights of the woman. Other states are moving quickly to consider D & X abortion bans.

Bill to Restore Abortion Rights for Military Women

Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban Attacked

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) introduced H.R. 445 to completely exempt any government employee (police, military, etc.) who was convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, while Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) is sponsoring a bill, H.R. 26, which makes the ban apply only to misdemeanor offenders from a future date of enactment (all past misdemeanor offenders would be exempted). Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) has introduced the Barr bill in the Senate in response to complaints from several police departments in Minnesota. The International Brotherhood of Police Officers in Georgia is challenging the law as well, according to USA Today, which also reported that 40 out of 8,300 Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies could be affected.

A few other police officials and organizations have objected to the ban, although some police organizations are supportive, such as the National Black Police Association. Three Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies have filed a lawsuit to block enforcement of the ban; reportedly, these deputies had their guns confiscated and were re-assigned to civilian duties after being involved in domestic violence incidents. Law enforcement spokespersons say that in some cases police officers will lose their jobs if not allowed to carry firearms. Some sources claim that records of misdemeanor convictions are not always maintained for police personnel and that searching files for thousands of officers would be an onerous task.

Domestic violence program advocates are concerned about these efforts to exempt police as some studies indicate higher rates of domestic violence offenses among law enforcement professionals than is found among the general public. One 1992 study published in the journal Police Studies surveyed more than 300 volunteers at a law enforcement conference; more than 40 percent reported at least one episode of physical aggression during a conflict with their spouses or companions in the previous year.

Ban proponents argue that police officials, of all professionals, should not be above the law and they note that weapons are used in 30 percent of domestic assaults, with incidents involving guns 12 times more likely to result in death.

More State Welfare Plans Adopt Family Violence Provisions