Comments on the February Congressional Vote on
International Family Planning
David Reister and Dev Joslin
On February 13 and 25, 1997, both houses of Congress voted to release
international family planning funds, with no
strings attached as to how the money should be spent with regard to whether
an organization practices or advocates abortion.
At the Center of International Family Planning.
Family planning is not
only about people making their own personal
choices with regard to the size of their families. It is also about human
populations and human activities reaching levels that are
sustainable. Human impacts on our planet are obviously the most dominant
impact in recent millennia. The increase in the rate
of animal and plant species extinctions in recent decades is one of many
examples of the impact of population growth. The lack
of sustainability of current human activity and current economic development
are both directly tied to human population growth.
Without zero, or negative, population growth, the problems of this planet
will continue to grow.
History behind February Vote.
During the Reagan-Bush era, presidential
control over executive branch actions dictated
that no international family planning funds would be given to organizations
that performed or even discussed abortions with their
clients. In October 1996, under pressure from President Clinton, a
compromise was reached in negotiations over the budget bill.
While the anti-abortion language was not allowed in the proposed bill, a 35%
cut in funding for international family planning was
instituted. In addition, a clause was added that allowed NO spending of
funds until July 1, 1997 and, even then, no more than
1/12 of the funds could be spent per month. However, Clinton was allowed to
present a special request to Congress that would
allow the funds to be released four months earlier, on March 1, 1997.
The Congressional vote.
It was this request for "early release," that
the House passed on February 13, by a vote of 220
to 209 (Democrats 175-27; Republicans 44-182), and the U. S. Senate passed
by a vote of 53-46 (Democrats, 42-2; Republicans,
11-44). Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey earlier had proposed an
amendment banning funds from organizations using
abortions. While this amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-194
(Democrats 37-163; Republicans, 194-30), it never came
before the Senate because of a threatened filibuster. The passage of the
"early release" bill not only allows money to be spent
four months earlier, but also means that approximately 126 million dollars
more should be made available in 1997 (4 months x 32 million per month).
The Good News and the Bad News.
As we see it, this was an important
victory on the surface, in part because it
demonstrates that enough members of Congress (including a few anti-choice
Republicans) are in favor of family planning to pass
such legislation. On the other hand, there are two negative indications
from these votes. First, the majority of both houses of the
1997 Congress appear anti-choice, at least when it comes to any connection
to the expenditure of tax dollars. Secondly, the
majority of Congress is more concerned with placing barricades before those
whose choose abortions than they are with the world
reaching sustainable population levels!
Last Modified October 26, 1997