Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "286185885",
    "label": "Abortion (Memos)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286185885"
}

{
    "id": "286185885",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286185885",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Abortion (Memos)",
    "description": "These records pertain to the Bush Administration's policies on abortion.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286185885",
    "identifierLocal": "04790-004",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (George H. W. Bush Administration)",
        "Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-bpr-dompol-dpc-04790-004.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-bpr-dompol-dpc-04790-004.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-bpr-dompol-dpc-04790-004.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/286185885",
    "naId": 286185885,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/foia/2000/Batch0001/41-bpr-dompol-dpc-04790-004.pdf",
    "mediaId": "95c90d68b94a957d",
    "ocrText": "Originally Processed With FOIA(s):\nFOIA Number:\n2012-2218-F\n2012-2218-F\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the George Bush Presidential\nLibrary Staff.\nRecord Group/Collection:\nGeorge H.W. Bush Presidential Records\nCollection/Office of Origin:\nDomestic Policy Council\nSeries:\nDPC Files\nSubseries:\nOA/ID Number:\n04790\nFolder ID Number:\n04790-004\nFolder Title:\nAbortion: Memos\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nG\n18\n23\n1\n3\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nabortion-memos\nWASHINGTON\nApril 9, 1990\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID Q. BATES\nROGER B. PORTER\nBRIAN K. WAIDMANN\nKENNETH P. YALE\nJUSTINE D'ANDREA\nJOHANNES KUTTNER\nFROM:\nDANIEL R. HEIMBACH DRH\nSUBJECT:\nAbortion -- the \"Mexico City Policy\"\nAttached are excerpts taken from a legislative alert prepared by\nNational Right to Life.\nThe alert discusses a new challenge, led by the Planned\nParenthood Federation of America (PPFA), against the \"Mexico City\nPolicy.\" The Mexico City Policy provides that any private\norganization which performs or promotes abortion in foreign\nnations, or which campaigns to legalize abortion in foreign\nnations, may not receive U.S. \"population assistance\" funds.\nYou will recall that the President last year vetoed the foreign\naid appropriations bill in order to block a similar attempt.\nThe alert reports that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has\nthis year already adopted an amendment, offered by Rep. Kostmayer\n(D-Pa.), to the FY 1990-91 foreign aid authorization bill to\nnullify the Mexico City Policy. The bill may reach the House\nfloor as soon as April 23.\nThe bill also contains language that would effectively overturn\nthe Kemp/Kasten Amendment, under which the U.N. Fund for\nPopulation Affairs is ineligible to receive U.S. funds as long as\nit continues to provide support for China's coercive abortion\nprogram.\nAttachment\n8\nnational\nRIGHT TO LIFE\nSuite 500, 419 7th Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20004-2293 - (202) 626-8800\ncommittee, inc.\nLEGISLATIVE ALERT\nTo:\nBoard of Directors and State Offices, Federal Legislative Coordinators\nSelected Pro-life Contacts\nFrom:\nDouglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director (202-626-8820)\nSusan A. Smith, NRLC Associate Leg. Director (202-626-8820)\nDate:\nApril 6, 1990\nRe:\nUpcoming congressional battle on the \"Mexico City Policy\"\nand the China/UNFPA program\nSUMMARY: A fresh pro-abortion challenge is now being mounted to perhaps the\nsingle most important pro-life policy adopted during the Reagan\nAdministration-- the \"Mexico City Policy,\" which cut off U.S. funds to\nprivate foreign organizations which promote abortion or campaign for the\nlegalization of abortion overseas. Under the policy, the International\nPlanned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has received no U.S. funds since 1985.\nMoreover, in light of a recent federal court ruling, the Planned Parenthood\nFederation of America (PPFA) also faces a cutoff of all U.S. foreign aid\nfunds (about $18 million/year) as of Oct. 1, 1990. In response, PPFA has\nlaunched a last-ditch lobbying campaign for Congress to overturn the Mexico\nCity Policy. The House of Representatives will vote on the issue soon--\nprobably during the week of April 23-- with Senate action to follow soon\nthereafter. Further votes on the issue may occur throughout the session.\nIn addition, another congressional fight is imminent on whether the U.S.\nshould resume funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which\nhas received no U.S. funds since 1985 due to its involvement in China's\ncoercive population-control program. Last November, President Bush vetoed\nan entire foreign aid appropriations bill in order to block the Mikulski\nAmendment, which would have restored U.S. funding to the UNFPA. The House\nwill again consider the UNFPA issue as early as the week of April 23, with\nfurther votes likely through September.\nBACKGROUND: The \"Mexico City Policy\" is so called because it was announced\nby the U.S. delegation to an international population-control conference in\nMexico City in 1984. This policy provides that any private organization\nwhich performs or promotes abortion in foreign nations, or which campaigns\nto legalize abortion in foreign nations, may not receive U.S. \"population\nassistance\" funds. Most \"family planning\" organizations in less-developed\nnations have complied with the policy in order to remain eligible for U.S.\nfunds. Pro-abortion leaders complain that, as a consequence of the policy,\nthere has been \"a near halt in the liberalization of abortion laws in third\nworld [less-developed] countries\" (New York Times, Feb. 27, 1989).\nThe London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), a major\npromoter of abortion in less-developed countries, refused to comply with the\nMexico City Policy and has received no U.S. funds since 1984. The Planned\nParenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which has its own overseas\ndivision, also refused to comply, and in 1987 filed a legal challenge to the\npolicy. Under a court order, PPFA has continued to receive funds until this\nlitigation is resolved, but the funds which PPFA passes on to other\norganizations overseas are governed by the Mexico City Policy. On March 7,\n1990, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York dismissed\nPPFA's lawsuit. PPFA is appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of\nAppeals for the Second Circuit, where a ruling is expected by September.\nIf, as we anticipate, the Second Circuit also rejects PPFA's lawsuit, PPFA\nfaces a cutoff of all U.S. foreign aid funds as of Oct. 1, 1990.\nIn response, PPFA has stepped-up its lobbying campaign to have Congress\noverturn the Mexico City Policy before October 1. On March 28, the House\nForeign Affairs Committee voted 17-10 in favor of an amendment, offered by\npro-abortion Rep. Peter Kostmayer (D-Pa.) to the FY 1990-91 foreign aid\nauthorization bill (unnumbered), to nullify the Mexico City Policy. This\nbill will probably reach the House floor the week of April 23.\nThe House Foreign Affairs Committee also adopted another Kostmayer amendment\nwhich would authorize $1 million in family planning funds for Romania and\nrequire that these funds be channeled through the IPPF and the UNFPA. This\nwould in effect overturn the Kemp/Kasten Amendment, under which the UNFPA is\nineligible for U.S. funds because of its support for China's coercive\nprogram.\nCongressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Henry Hyde (R-I1.) will offer amendments\non the House floor to protect the Mexico City Policy and to eliminate any\nrequirement that the UNFPA receive the funds designated for Romania.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 16, 1989\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID BATES\nKEN YALE\nFROM:\nDAN HEIMBACH\nSUBJECT:\nKoop testimony\nAs indicated in the Cabinet Report of March 12-18, testimonv\nby the Surgeon General before the House Government Operations\nSubcommittee on Human Resources was expected to attract\nsignificant adverse media attention. Although it would be\npremature to make assurances about the quality of media coverage,\nI am pleased to report that Administration efforts have paid off\nto the extent that Koop was successfully persuaded to refrain\nfrom comments that would reflect adversely on the White House.\nThe Surgeon General was cooperative in withholding any\ncomment implying blame for the public exposure given his letter\nto the President in which he declined to offer a formal report\non the psychological effects of abortion on women. In this\nregard, he only sought to explain that the press had\nmisrepresented his position--that he did not say there is \"no\"\nevidence of adverse psychological health effects, only that in\nhis estimate there are no credible studies on which to arrive at\na scientifically reliable conclusion.\nIn the questioning which followed his testimony, the Surgeon\nGeneral parried several attempts to make him commit to positions\ncontrary to, or critical of, the Administration. In my estimate\nhe was successful in avoiding major controversy, and kept from\nsaying anything that might cause embarrassment for President\nBush.\nThe one weakness exposed under questioning bv Chairman\nWeiss was a possible discrepancy between a claim made to the\nPresident that \"all\" 250 scientific articles on the subject had\nbeen reviewed and judged unsound, when in fact the only paper\nwhose conclusions were accorded written analysis and criticism\nwas a paper prepared by the National Right to Life organization.\nChairman Weiss interpreted this as an unmerited dismissal of\nstudies supporting the practice of abortion. Pro-life observers\nmay just as easily interpret this as an extra effort to discredit\nevidence supporting their position and contrarv to abortion.\nGenerally speaking, the hearing went well. What began as a\npotentially inflammatory situation was headed off. As a result,\nthe hearing itself turned out to be fairly uneventful."
}