Maintaining choice

U.N. funding should be unconditional

When Bill Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993, one of his first actions was the rescinding of a 1984 executive order made by President Reagan banning any federal money from going to family planning organizations that performed or promoted abortions in foreign countries. In the seven years since, President Clinton has never wavered in his support for a woman's right to choose until now.

Since taking control of Congress in 1994, a small group of Republicans have attempted to codify Reagan's old executive order into law using the tactic of refusing to pay back dues owed to the United Nations unless the abortion provision was agreed to. Clinton steadfastly refused to sign any U.N. dues bill with the abortion rider attached, but after years of being the U.N.'s biggest debtor the United States was in danger of loosing its seat in the U.N. General Assembly. While the General Assembly seat is only symbolically important because of the U.S.'s permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, its loss would be a major embarrassment.

In response to Secretary of State Madeline Albright's pleas to avoid such a humiliation, as part of this year's budget negotiations the president agreed to allow Reagan's executive order to officially become federal law.

This capitulation to the demands of a small group of anti-choice lawmakers is a major mistake and will be detrimental to international efforts in family planning, population control and sexually transmitted disease prevention. While many family planning organizations are pro-choice, their primary focus is not on abortion, but preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place through birth control, providing health care and information to prospective mothers and educating people about safe sex.

Providing these services in poor countries is an incredibly important task that could now be severely curtailed because most of the largest family planning organizations promote a woman's right of choice. Taking away this vital source of health care for women in third world countries because a group ideologues is against abortion is totally indefensible.

Only a small portion on any family planning organization's funds are used for the promotion or performing of abortions and that money can be raised from sources other than the government. Planned Parenthood, the biggest family planning organization for example, uses less than one percent of its total budget on abortion services.

The abortion provision, as agreed to in the budget deal, can be waived by the president if a financial penalty is taken from the total family planning funds and the president is expected to invoke the waiver if the deal becomes law. The problem with that is Clinton will only be president for another year and the next president might not be as friendly towards abortion rights as he is.

Family planning programs funded by the US government have dramatically increased the use of contraceptives, reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies and helped slow the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in many poor regions of the world. To take away the funds for all of their work because of the miniscule amount they spend on abortion related activities is absurd and dangerous to the health and well being of countless women and families in developing nations.

11-19-99