Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
34428828
label
International Family Planning
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428828
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
International Family Planning
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34428828
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-026-001-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c595305323d029d9
ocrText
03/05/96
10:15
003
1305
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
February 28, P6: 29
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ANTHONY LAKE
CAROL RASCO CHR
SUBJECT:
Coercive Family Planning and Asylum
Purpose
To obtain an Administration position on proposed legislation
relating to coercive family planning and asylum.
Background
Current situation: Under current asylum law, which Justice has
defended, victims of abusive family planning practices in China
do not generally qualify for asylum. For this reason, and at
your direction, we instituted in 1994 an administrative regime
that provides protection from return for claimants who were
victims of coercive family planning practices in the past or have
a credible fear that they would suffer severe mistreatment if
returned.
Smith Amendment and State Authorization Bill: The House version
of the State Department Authorization Bill contains an amendment
offered by Representative Chris Smith that makes victims of
coercive family planning eligible for asylum. The bill is in
conference, and we may be asked for our view.
We have three options:
First, we could oppose the Smith Amendment but indicate that our
current procedures provide adequate protection and make Smith
unnecessary.
Second, we could indicate that we have no objection to the Smith
Amendment.
Third, we could indicate that we support Smith.
CC: Vice President
Chief of Staff
004
03/05/96
10:16
2
Discussion of the Options
State and Justice strongly support maintaining the current
administrative regime and opposing Smith. They argue that
enactment of Smith would send a signal to would-be smugglers and
spur a large increase in smuggling, severely taxing INS, Coast
Guard and local law enforcement resources in California and other
coastal and border states. Moreover, they argue that the
availability of judicial review under a statutory regime would
permit claimants to delay repatriation as their cases wend their
way through the courts.
State and Justice also believe that the legislation is
unnecessary and redundant given the current administrative regime
we have implemented, which provides roughly the same level of
protection from return that the Smith Amendment would provide.
Proponents of the Smith Amendment argue that it would represent a
strong affirmation of the Administration's opposition to coercive
family planning, an issue that the First Lady raised prominently
in Beijing. It would also provide successful claimants with the
opportunity to become permanent residents in the United States.
(We have asked the Congress to empower the Attorney General to
provide permanent resident status to those who are granted
protection under our administrative regime, and we expect that
Congress will provide such authority shortly.)
It is not clear that enacting Smith would cause a large increase
in smuggling, as both State and Justice predicted that the
administrative protections we are now providing would spur such
an increase, which does not appear to have happened. (On the
other hand, legislation would be far more publicly visible and
thus could prompt a greater response from the smugglers.) It is
also unclear that the availability of judicial review will create
additional incentives for the smugglers. Even without the Smith
Amendment, asylum-seekers from China already seek judicial review
and have been successful in delaying their repatriations.
RECOMMENDATION
We believe that our position against coercive family planning
weighs heavily in favor of our supporting the Smith Amendment and
justifies the risk of some increase in smuggling activity (which
we would seek to monitor and address through continued efforts to
break up the smuggling rings). For this reason, we recommend you
approve option 3, support of the Smith Amendment.
Approve
Disapprove
03/05/96
10:16
005
February 26, 1996
The Honorable William J. Clinton
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We, as individuals or representatives of major U.S. organizations, were honored to participate on
behalf of the United States in several international conferences at which world-wide consensus
was achieved on key human rights issues.
The Cairo Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Conference on Women
were notable for the degree of consensus among the world's governments that the empowerment
of women, respect for their human rights and their integration at all levels of economic and social
life are essential to achieve sustainable development. These commitments to gender equality, if
realized, would ensure that human numbers are balanced with the planet's finite resources and
that the human toll of unwanted pregnancies, disease and illness is reduced. They are essential
elements of the United States support of families worldwide.
We are, therefore, appalled by the actions taken by the Congress in passing the fiscal 1996 foreign
aid appropriations bill as an amendment to the January 26 Continuing Resolution -- which
would have the effect of destroying the U.S. international family planning program run by the
Agency for International Development. We have communicated to the leadership of the House
and the Senate our determination to see these actions reversed.
We know that you resisted these destructive actions for a very long time. Nevertheless, we
appeal to you and the Administration to do all in your power to mitigate the harm which is bound
to be done to the program in the short run and, at the same time, to communicate forcefully to
the American public the severe implications that a handful of mean-spirited and short-sighted
members of Congress have forced upon all of us.
For ourselves, we pledge to continue to work to see the United States hold to the policies and
commitments it made, under your leadership, in Cairo and Beijing.
03/05/96 10:17
006
Sincerely,
Jeanuie Rosej sto
Pegans Curlin
Jeannie I. Rosoff
Peggy Curlin
President
President
The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Center for Development and
Population Activities (CEDPA)
acheane Gemain
Darothy Ann Kelly
Adrienne Germain
Sister Dorothy Ann Kelly
Vice President
International Women's Health Coalition
Darathy L. famm
Vietorin Markell
Dorothy Lamm
Victoria Markell
Denver Post Columnist
Vice President
Population Action International
Bellasabug
allharazati
Bella Abzug
Laila Al-Marayati, M.D.
Co-Chair
President
Women's Environment &
Muslim Women's League
Development Organization (WEDO)
Susa Schem
San Snanita " Samie "Minozo
Susan Sechler
San Juanita "Janie" Munoz
Director
Pew Global Stewardship Institute
Organizational Affiliation for Identification Only
007
03/05/96 10:17
Patrina a. thank
Patricia A. Waak
National Audubon Society
CC:
The Vice President
Secretary of State
Undersecretary for Global Affairs Department of State
Administrator, Agency for International Development
Organizational Affiliation for Identification Only
03/05/96
10:18
008
February 26, 1996
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We, as representatives of major U.S. organizations committed to women's
reproductive rights, are appalled by the recent actions taken by Congress that will have
the effect of decimating the U.S. international family planning program and we are
writing to urge you to join us in condeming this assault on the health of women. Early
last year, the House leadership sought to kill the domestic family planning program
(Title X of the Public Health Service Act), but fortunately that effort went down to defeat
on the floor of the House of Representatives. Having failed there, they turned their
attention towards the international program.
We recognize and appreciate your unwavering opposition to compromising the
fundamental principals of the U.S. international family planning program. As you are
well aware, the far right in Congress held all foreign aid funding hostage for three
months into the current fiscal year, demanding re-imposition of the Reagan-era "Mexico
City" policy, also known as the international "gag rule." Having failed in their effort to
destroy the program indirectly, they moved to kill it outright by starving it of funds. If
there was any doubt that many of those who are most vehemently against abortion are
also against family planning, the record now speaks for itself. We must be prepared to
defend all federal family planning programs, national and international.
As the price for obtaining a fiscal 1996 foreign aid appropriations bill, and
averting another government shutdown, funding for the overseas family planning
program was cut from $547 million in fiscal 1995 to $72 million in this fiscal year.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Mark Hatfield pointed out that this
"calamitous formulation" will almost certainly lead to more unplanned pregnancies,
more abortions, and more maternal deaths and it is even "antithetical to the pro-life
position." We strongly agree with his conclusions that "All the antiabortion speech this
Chamber can tolerate will not reduce the number of pregnancies as swiftly or as surely
as our support for voluntary family planning".
03/05/96
10:18
009
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
February 26, 1996
Page Two
We, therefore, appeal to you and your Administration to do all that you can
within the bounds of current law to maintain an effective overseas family planning
program. At the same time, we ask for your leadership to make sure that Congress
understands that these short-sighted policies do not reflect the goals and values of the
American people, and we pledge to work with you to reverse this ill-considered course
of action.
Sincerely,
Jackie DeFazio, President, American Association of University Women
Laura W. Murphy, Director of Washington Office, American Civil Liberties Union
Fernando M. Trevino, Executive Director, American Public Health Association
Frances Kissling, President, Catholics for a Free Choice
Janet Benshoof, President, The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
Eleanor Smeal, President, The Feminist Majority
Jodi Jacobson, Co-Director, Health and Development Policy Project
Kate Michelman, President, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action Leagué
Julia R. Scott, President, National Black Women's Health Project
Judith M. DeSarno, President/CEO, National Family Planning and
Reproductive Health Association
Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, National Women's Law Center
Kathryn J. Rodgers, Executive Director, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
R. James LeFevre, Interim Co-President, Planned Parenthood Federation
of America, Inc:
Jane M. Johnson, Interim Co-President, Planned Parenthood Federation
of America, Inc.
Robin Chandler Duke, National Chairperson, Population Action International
Werner H. Fornos, President, Population Institute
Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club
Jeannie I. Rosoff, President, The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Judith L. Lichtman, President, Women's Legal Defense Fund
Diane Dillon-Ridgely, President, Zero Population Growth
pc:
Brian Atwood, Administrator, USAID
03/05/96
10:19
010
Fiscal 1996 Funding for International Population Assistance
What Happened?
The House of Representatives, under a renewed threat to shut down the government, forced the Senate to
acquiesce to, and the President to sign, its version of a Continuing Resolution to extend funding to federal
programs that are still without a regular appropriation through March 15, 1996.
Attached to the CR was funding-for the remainder of the fiscal year-for foreign assistance, including the
humanitarian assistance programs of the Agency for International Development, with an overall budget cut
in the order of 25%. The legislation, however, singles out the family planning/reproductive
health/population program for special and disastrously harsh treatment.
No funds can be made available until after July 1, 1996. Since AID has been unable to
release any "population" funds since the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1,1995), this
means that the program will be deprived of support, altogether, for three quarters of fiscal
1996.
For the remainder of this fiscal year, and for fiscal 1997 in its entirety, the funds can only be
allocated month by month and on an equal-amount basis
Even after those restrictions, the program's budget is to be cut by 35%, in excess of the
Agency's overall reduction.
The net effect of all of the above is a reduction in the family planning/reproductive health/population
budget from $547 million in 1995 to $72 million in 1996.
How did this happen?
In the currently chaotic situation in Congress, a small, determined and well-placed group of members can
exercise a disproportionate amount of power. While their individual motivations surely varied, it is fair to
say that many had demonstrated their hostility to family planning and reproductive health programs over
the years. objected to US participation in the Cairo and Beijing conferences and opposed their
recommendations.
On the other hand, while most members of Congress (as does the public at large) support these programs
domestically and internationally. they are often not very knowledgeable about the issues. and they are
easily distracted by rhetoric and preoccupied with other matters. Key members of both parties in the
Senate, a valiant handful of Democrats and Republicans in the House, and the White House resisted the
assault on the international family planning program for many. many months. In the end, their
responsibility to keep the government open and functioning had to prevail.
What now?
In the political arena. few set-backs need to be permanent, or long-lasting. What Congress does. Congress
can undo. or amend. The President has the "bully pulpit," and the Administration has the power to mitigate
some of the harm.
The same allies who fought so hard for the program are still there, and they are not likely to abandon their
convictions. The great majority of members-and the general public-were clearly not even aware of the
issues. The detailed provisions were negotiated at the eleventh hour and they, and their implications, are
not easily explained or understood. Most members. and the public, know little of the deep hostilities which
have. historically. motivated attacks on family planning and women's reproductive health programs, and
they can hardly be expected to readily grasp the implications of (purposely) arcane funding provisions in
the absence of media coverage and correct interpretation of the facts.
in short. the situation is dire but. at least partially. retrievable-and it must be retrieved.
The Alan Gurtmacher Institute
February 1996
03/05/96
10:19
011
THE WASHINGTON POST
Friday, February 2, 1996
JUDY MANN
Extracting Their Pound of Flesh
c
ongressional opponents of family planning
abortion. The Senate refused to go along with the
scored a major victory last week by passing
Smith language, the White House said it would veto
legislation that will strangle U.S. support for
any bill with this language, and a stalemate on the
international contraceptive services.
whole foreign aid package ensued.
Led by House Republicans and backed by the
Pressure to get a foreign operations appropriation
Christian Coalition and other right-wing groups that
bill mounted steadily after Oct. 1, when checks to
oppose abortion. these efforts ironically will lead to
larael and Egypt weren't delivered, foreign aid
an additional 200,000 illegal and unsafe abortions,
missions weren't getting their funding, their
according to Nils Daulaire, deputy assistant
contractors weren't being paid and population
administrator for policy and child health policy
programs weren't being funded at all, according to
adviser at the U.S. Agency for International
Victoria Markell, vice president of Population Action
Development.
International, a nonprofit, research-based advocacy
Damage to family-planning programs will be far
organization that receives no federal funding.
more extensive than it appeared from early news
The Smith language was cut out of the final bill
reports about the temporary budget agreement.
last Thursday in the face of growing public outrage
The legislation will decrease by 35 percent the
over the prospect of yet another government
amount of money available to spend on international
shutdown. The ideologues had to come up with
family-planning programs-that is, it will cut the
some formulation that will restrict
budget by nearly $200 million. USAID will not be
population-planning spending as much as they
permitted to spend any of its appropriation for
could." Markell says. Neither the Senate nor the
family planning until July 1, nine months after the
White House wanted the blame for another
start of the fiscal year, which. in Daulaire's words,
government shutdown
will cause a "tremendous disruption in services." It
It's such an attack on women and children,"
is the only international assistance program that is
Markell says. "How in the world can you pretend to
restricted in this way. After July 1. spending cannot
care about child survival when we know that women
exceed 6.7 percent per month of the total
and mothers are going to die without access to
appropriated, which means that only a small amount
family planning? She cites a World Health
of the whole will actually be spent before Oct. 1,
Organization statistic that 90 percent of children in
when a new fiscal year begins.
developing countries who lose their mothers in
Daulaire projects that as many as 5,000 more
delivery will die by their first birthday. "We know
women will die over the next year as a result of unsafe
that if women have fewer children, the children they
abortions and mistimed pregnancies. and that roughly
have live longer and are healthier and everyone
500.000 additional births will result, putting further
benefits."
stress on child-survival programs that are strained
"One of they key priorities of our family-planning
already. Further, he says, the piecemealing
program is to reduce abortions worldwide,"
restrictions imposed by Congress will increase
Daulaire says. Yet when it became clear that the
administrative costs by four to five times, costing U.S.
Smith language gutting family-planning services
taxpayers $750,000 to $1 million more.
would not pass, "they decided that the way to
Most of the campaign against family planning has
extract a cost was by severely restricting AID's
been carned out in the guise of preventing U.S.
ability to provide family-planning services around
foreign aid funds from paying for abortions.
the world. They understood very clearly that this
although that practice has been banned since 1973.
language would mean not just a 35 percent
This current fight began last year when House
reduction in funding but was really much harsher."
Republicans voted for a measure sponsored by Rep.
What is clear from this exercise is that the
Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ.) that would have
conservative Christian bloc of House Republicans is
prevented any foreign nongovernmental
targeting international contraceptive and
organization from receiving any U.S.
family-planning services, not just abortion services.
family-planning money if It attempted to provide
And the people who will suffer are women and
information about aboruon or lobby its OWD
children in the poorest parts of the world. Is that
government to change regulations regarding
the Christian way?
03/05/96
10:20
012
Sen. Mark Hatfield on the FY 1996 International Family Planning Debacle
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Mark Hatfield (R-OR) has made two
Senate floor speeches expressing his outrage about the "compromise" that he and the rest
of the Senate were forced to accept as the price for averting another partial government
shutdown and enabling enactment of the FY 1996 foreign aid appropriations bill. Below
are excerpts from his statements.
"This is a near calamitous formulation of these programs, and it may very well
provoke a result entirely antithetical to the 'pro-life' position." (1/26/96)
"I cannot for the life of me understand the action of the House. I believe it is wrong.
It puts a gun to our heads I speak as a pro-life Senator." (1/26/96)
"What we did is bar access to family planning services to approximately 17 million
couples, most of them living in unimaginable poverty. We opened the door to the
probability of at least 14 million unintended pregnancies every year, tens of
thousands of deaths among women and the probability of at least 4 million more
abortions that could have been averted if access to voluntary family planning services
had been maintained." (2/6/96)
"The family planning language in [the CR] is not pro-life. it is not pro-woman, it is
not pro-child, it is not pro-health, and it is not pro-family planning. It inflicts the
harm of a profound misconception on very poor families overseas who only ask for
help in spacing their children through contraception, not abortion." (2/6/96)
"All the antiabortion speech this Chamber can tolerate will not reduce the number of
pregnancies as swiftly or as surely as our support for voluntary family planning."
(2/6/96)
10:20
013
S884
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
February 6, 1996
last year. They pleaded with Congress.
None of us would normally tolerate a
conservative interpretation of this pro-
They pleaded with the Republican Con-
cut of this magnitude, made without
hibition. and seeks instead to prevent
gress: "Take action right now because
the benefit of any debate, particularly
abortions by offering alternatives. De-
it is going to be easier to do it now
on a program which enjoys such strong
mand has always exceeded supply. and
than it will be in the year 2001 or 2002
bipartisan support. And yet we did it.
unmet needs continue to grow.
when it is just about ready to go
Stated differently. and more impor-
We urgently need to correct the mis-
under." This had not been anticipated
tant, what we did is bar access to fam-
take we made in H.R. 2880. We need to
to occur until 1997.
ily planning services to approximately
restore. with rhetoric and with re-
What we learn now through the news-
17 million couples. most of them living
sources, support to AID's family plan-
papers. the chief actuary giving this re-
in unimaginable poverty. We opened
ning program. For those of us who take
port last year. is the Medicare hospital
the door to the probability of at least
R prolife position, this is the most ef-
trust fund lost $35.7 million. In other
14 million unintended pregnancies
fective way to reiterate our profound
words, it took in that much less than
every year, tens of thousands of deaths
opposition to the practice of abortion.
we had anticipated.
among women and nearly a million
All the antiabortion speech this Cham-
He was not sure when part A would
deaths among infants and young chil-
ber can tolerate will not reduce the
be depleted, but he did say that it
dren annually. Indeed. we embrace the
number of unintended pregnancies as
could be earlier than 2002.
probability of at least 4 million more
swiftly or as surely as our support for
In any case, according to the acto-
abortions that could have been averted
voluntary family planning.
ary. this recent finding does not help
if access to voluntary family planning
1 intend to do what I can to rectify
the trust fund. It gives more insecurity
services had been maintained. This 16
this situation as soon as possible, and
to the people on Social Security and it,
what we did.
urge my colleagues to join in this ef-
of course, emphasizes what we were
These numbers, which are calculated
fort.
trying to say when we passed this Bal-
through statistics from organizations
anced Budget Act of 1995 which saved
like UNICEF and the World Health Or-
AGRICULTURAL MARKET
Medicare.
ganization are as disturbing as they
TRANSITION ACT
So I hope that the President comes
are astounding. particularly to those of
around to a point of view of cooperat-
us who are faithfully and assertively
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the
ing with the Congress to a greater ex-
pro-life. To doubt these numbers may
Nation's farmers look ahead to the new
tent than he has on the saving of Medi-
bring temporary relief to people of cop-
planting season. I rise today in support
care, because this is one time the Re-
science, but doubters should consider
of moving forward on much-needed
publican Congress is way ahead of the
the experience of families in the former
farm bill legislation.
White House.
Soviet Union where family planning
Over the past year, I have met with
I yield the floor. and 1 suggest the ab-
services have been unavailable for dec-
farmers, businesses, bankers. and com-
sence of a quorum.
ades.
munity leaders across Minnesota. They
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
The abortion rate in Russia spans
have told me of the urgent need to de-
clerk will call the roll.
from a conservative estimate of 4 abor-
velop a farm bill which will show them
The legislative clerk proceeded to
tions per woman to a shocking high of
the direction farm policy will move
call the roll.
12 abortions for some women over their
over the next couple of years.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
reproductive years. Since there have
Clearly. our farmers and agri-
unanimous consent that the order for
been virtually no, and I suggest that
businesses deserve a reasonable and re-
the quorum call be rescinded.
you underscore when you are listening
sponsible roadmap of the Nation's long-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
as well as when I speak, no planning
term agricultural policy. If Washington
objection. it is BO ordered. The Senator
services available in Russia. abortion
continues to delay action. decisions
from Oregon.
has become the chief method of birth
about planting. equipment purcl
control.
fertilizer and seed sales, and credit
The framers of the family planning
hang in the balance. And as a
t,
FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM
language in H.R. 2880 ensured, perhaps
our agricultural economy will suffer.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President. 2
unintentionally. that the gruesome ex-
This current predicament is a perfect
weeks ago. the Senate was compelled
perience of Russian women and fami-
example of how Government inter-
to pass H.R. 2880. the Balanced Budget
lies will be replicated throughout the
ference in the area of agriculture has
and Downpayment Act. to avert an-
world starting now.
taken its toll on the productivity of
other Governmental shutdown. As I ob-
In each of the last two foreign oper-
our farmers, agribusinesses, and the
served on the day of consideration. we
ations appropriations bills. I have
other sectors of our economy which de-
did so under great duress, being forced
made sure that adequate money has
pend on them.
to set aside our right and duty to
been devoted to starting family plan-
By expanding the role of Government
amend the legislation.
ning programs in Russia. Similar pro-
60 deeply into the business of farming,
Of particular concern to me remains
grams in Hungary have shown a 60-per-
Washington has taken much of the de-
the harsh treatment given to the Agen-
cent reduction in the abortion rate
cisionmaking authority away from the
cy for International Development's
there, 8 years after the introduction of
real experts-those who have planted
family planning program. Though It
family planning. We had hoped for such
plowed, and harvested for genera
was known at the time that the formu-
success in Russia, but now the future is
tions-and handed it over to bureau
lation of this account was nearly ca-
uncertain.
crats. some of whom are thousands 0
lamitous, closer examination of the
The family planning language in H.R.
miles away from America's heartland.
provision has revealed that the situa-
2880 is not prolife. It is not prowoman.
I have always said with pride the
tion is far worse than had been imag-
it is not prochild, it is not prohealth.
Minnesota's farmers are among the
thed at that time.
and it is not profamily planning. It in-
most productive in the world. Histori
The provisions that passed the Sen-
flicts the harm of a profound mis-
cally. Minnesota agriculture ha
ate and the House balts family plan-
conception on very poor families over-
ranked first in sugarbeet production
ning assistance programs until July 1
seas who only ask for help in spacing
third in spring whest and sunflowe
of this year. Following July 1, funding
their children through contraception,
production. fourth in barley and os
may be provided at 65 percent of the
not abortion.
production. sixth in corn production
fiscal year 1995 level, apportioned on a
Some of our celleagues appear un-
third in swine products, and BE
1
monthly basis for 15 months.
aware that the prohibition on funding
turkey processing. Of course, Mir
What this means is that only 14 per-
abortions with U.S. foreign aid money
nesota has always been among the N1
cent of what was available for obliga-
has been in place since 1973. AID's ex-
tion's leaders in milk and cheese pro
Lion in fiscal year 1996 for family plan-
cellent family planning program. wide-
duction. It is also quickly becoming
ning will be available for obligation
ly recognized as the most efficiently
leading exporter of raw and valu
this entire fiscal year-14 percent.
run in the world. has taken a strict and
added products.
10:21
yo 15:53 FROM:
14:b1bee
014
3-16-96 FRI 16:38 AGIDC
The Radical Right's Real Agenda: Eliminate Family Planning
With the January 26ᵗʰ enactment of the current Continuing Resolution, the right-wing
faction of the House scored their most impressive victory in their campaign against women's
reproductive health and rights they effectively wiped out funding for the U.S. international
family planning program.
Blocked in their afforts w abolish Title X (the domestic family planning program) or to
restore the Reagan-era international gag nic (the "Mexico City" policy). they went after the
politically more vulnerable international family planning program. singling it out for decp,
unconscionable cuts. which both the Senate and the Administration were forced to accept. or else
face a third government shutdown. At stake in all of this is the health - indeed, the very lives -
of women, children and families throughout the world.
This is an attack on women everywhere. at home and overseas. In the most fundamental
way. it seeks to undermine women's ability to lake charge of their own lives and health care
needs.
House extremists have committed the altimate hypocrisy: their stealth attack on family
planning - which enables women to avoid resurting to abortion in the first place - only
sentences women in the developing world to more unwanted pregnancies and thus. more
abortions.
Family planning is a part of most couples' daily lives and should be. at a minimum. the
common ground upon which both sides of the abortion issue can agree. in the words of pro-
life Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR). "All the antiabortion speech in this chamber can tolerate
will not reduce the number of pregnancies as swifily or as surely as our support for voluntary
family planning" (Senate floor statement. 2/6/96).
The right wing's relentless campaign against family planning is antithetical to their own
chetoric on the family. Enabling couples to plan when to have children and how many is at
the very cora of promoting personal responsibility and "family values."
When a mother's health suffers, so does that of her children. The so-called "pro-family"
faction. by exacting deep cols in the program. has virtually ensured that more of the world's
families will experience firsthand the tragedy of maternal and/or infant death.
By champloning "child survival" programs while similtaneously gutting family planning
assistance, the mdical right has made clear their disregard for women: save the children, but
lot the mothers fend for themselves. They just don't get it. Child survival and family
planning programs go band-in-hand: taken together. these programs promote the well-being
of the entire family.
FEB-12-96 MON 17:37 AGIDC
015
Me
Meching OMB Gordon Adams]
DebbyFine
-
February 8, 1996
- AID
y mail
DPC
-
check
Fift
\
Bebsy M. repulling " together carl
Resel
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Hu
Speaker of the House
United States House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
We, as individuals or representatives of major U.S. organizations, recently participated on behalf of the
United States in soveral international conferences at which worldwide consensus was achieved on key
human rights issues.
We are. therefore, appalled at the actions of the House of Representatives and its leadership in taking
steps that could have the effect of destroying the family planning program of the Agency for
International Development. The facts spcak for themselves: in singling out this program for
extraordinary budget cuts- from $547 million in 1995 10 $72 million in 1996 - and special, punitive
funding restrictions, the House dealt a grievous blow to the health and welfare of women. children and
families worldwide. Furthermore, it put in question the good faith of the United States participation and
commitments at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo (1994), the Social
Summit in Copenhagen (1995) and the Fourth World Conference on Women (1995).
For women. the ability to decide whether or when to have children is key to their health and well-being.
To deprive them of this ability is to condemn them to repeated and often hazardous childbearing or to
lead them to have recourse to abortion usually under dangerous conditions. In both cascs women's lives
are lost that could have been saved.
For children, to be born in a family ready and able to care for them adequately should be a birth right,
and it is essential to their ability to thrive and even to survive. Depriving their parents of the help that
could have made this birthright a reality is devastating and cruel indeed.
For families. the right and responsibility to bring children into the world and to see them grow up
healthy. adequately fed and educated enough to enable them to participate fully in the economic and
social life or their communities is central to their very existence. To deprive them of this right, to
undermine that responsibility is a blow. an attack on families everywhere.
We cannot urge you strongly enough to rectify this action which can only do irreparable harm to millions
of innocent children. women and couples.
Sincerely.
CC:
Minority Leader
Chairman. Committee on Appropriations
Ranking Minority Member. Committee on Appropriations
FEB-12-96 MON 17:36 AGIDC
1
016
P.07
February 8, 1996
The Honorable Robert Dole
Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-230 Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Majority Leader:
We. as individuals or representatives of major U.S. organizations, recently participated on behalf of the
United States in several international conferences at which worldwide consensus was achieved on key
human rights issues.
We are, therefore, appalled at the action taken by the Congress as part of the January 26th agreement on
the fiscal 1996 foreign aid appropriations bill. It targets the family planning program of the Agency for
International Development essentially for destruction by imposing extraordinary budget cuts on it --
from $547 million in 1995 to $72 million in 1996 and for other special, punitive funding restrictions.
In doing so, it dealt a grievous blow to the health and welfare of women, children and families,
worldwide. Furthermore, the Congress put in question the good faith of the United States participation
and commitments at the Conference on Population and Development in Cairo (1994), the Social Summit
in Copenhagen (1995) and the Conference on Women in Beijing (1995).
For women, the ability to decide whether or when 10 have children is key to their health and well-being
and to deprive them of this ability is to condemn them to repeated and often hazardous childbearing or to
lead them to have recourse to abortion usually under dangerous conditions. in both cases women's lives
are lost that could have been saved.
For children. to be born in a family ready and able 10 care for them adequately should be a birthright, and
it is essential to their ability to thrive and even to survive. Depriving their parents of the help that could
have made this birthright a reality is devastating and cruel indeed.
For families. the right and responsibility to bring children into the world and to see them grow up
healthy. adequately fed and educated enough to enable them to participate fully in the economic and
social life of their communities are central to their very existence. To deprive them of this right, to
undermine that responsibility is a blow. an attack on families everywhere.
We cannot urge you strongly enough to reconsider this action which can only do irreparable harm to
millions of innocent children. women and couples. Especially in light of the fact that the Senate long
fought and resisted House efforts to cripple the U.S. international family planning program, we urge you,
even at this late date. to rectify this current situation which would create so much unwarranted pain and
suffering.
Sincerely,
cc:
Minority Leader
Chairman. Committee on Appropriations
Ranking Minority Member. Committee on Appropriations
10:23
FEB-12-96 MON 17:36 AGIDC
4
017
P.06
February 8, 1996
The Honorable William J. Clinton
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We. as individuals or representatives of major U.S. organizations. were honored to participate on behalf
of the United States in several international conferences at which world-wide consensus was achieved on
key human rights issues.
The Cairo Conference on Population and Development used the Beijing Conference on Women were
notable for the degree of consonsus among the world's governments that the empowerment of women,
respect for their human rights and their integration at all levels of economic and social life are essential
to achieve sustainable development. These commitments to gender equality, if realized, would ensure
that human numbers are balanced with the planet's finite resources and that the human toll of unwanted
pregnancies, disease and illness is reduced. They are essential elements of the United States support of
families worldwide.
We are, therefore. appalled by the actions taken by the Congress in passing the fiscal 1996 foreign aid
appropriations bill -- as an amendment to the January 26 Continuing Resolution - which would have the
effect of destroying the U.S. international family planning program run by the Agency for International
Development. Wc have communicated to the leadership of the House and the Senate our determination
to see these actions reversed.
We know that you resisted these destructive actions for a very long time. Nevertheless, we appeal to you
and the Administration to do all in your power 10 mitigate the harm which is bound to be done to the
program in the shon run and. at the same time. to communicate forcefully to the American public the
severe implications that a handful of moan-spirited and short-sighted members of Congress have forced
upon all of US.
For ourselves. we pledge to continue to work to see the United States hold to the policies and
commitments it made, under your leadership, in Cairo and Beijing.
Sincerely.
cc:
The Vice President
Secretary of State
Undersecretary for Global Affairs
Administrator. Agency for International Development