the H.R. 1757 bill
The latest piece of national legislation which could increase the problems of overpopulation is H.R. 1757, known more commonly as the Global Gag Rule. This is a bill which covers many different foreign fund issues including the distribution of United States family planning funds to foreign organizations which deal with contraceptive needs.
Under the current legislation, the U.S. aids various foreign programs and facilities which provide information about and supplies for birth control methods to people who wouldn't necessarily have the resources or the knowledge to obtain these things themselves. It is important to make the distinction that all of the U.S. funds go directly to preventative education and action and none of the money goes towards funding abortions. It is illegal for this to occur and it is a definite stipulation that in order for an organization to receive funds it must not use them for abortive procedures.
H.R. 1757 is a measure proposed by the conservative section of the House of Representatives which is designed to prevent the availability of abortions in the countries which the U.S. aids. The Global Gag Rule takes the current legislation to another level and prohibits the distribution of U.S. funds to any organization which, along with its contraceptive activities also performs abortions. It also cuts off funds for organizations which refer clients to other places for an abortion, educate them about abortion, attend workshops or conferences where abortion is discussed, or lobby their government to change their current stance on abortion. For exact wording, refer to Sec. 1816 of H.R. 1757. On top of this, it would also make the funds already appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund inaccessible unless (1) the UNFPA terminates all activities in China or (2) it can be shown that in the last 12 months there have been no forced abortions associated with the family planning policies in China. The U.S. has, however, been supporting the program in China through the UNFPA.
There are three major problems which stem from this policy: increased problems of overpopulation, infringement on freedom of speech, and a detrimental effect on women's health. Firstly, the rate of overpopulation is affected strongly by the efforts of these organizations. They are instrumental in their communities in the education and action against unwanted children. In many countries, simple contraceptive methods are not known and are only made available by these organizations and clinics. They have been able to decrease the number of children per family by almost one third and should they cease their activities this number would surely increase again. It is the intention of these clinics to provide their services to all including those who don't have the resources to pay for them. Because of this goal, the clinics do not charge full price for their services and therefore cannot be self-sufficient. They depend on the funds obtained from their government, if their government offers it to them, and from the U.S. Cutting off funds which are used solely for contraceptive purposes to organizations which provide both contraceptive and abortive services, as outlined in H.R.1757, would greatly reduce their ability to survive, thereby decreasing the potential contraception available in foreign countries and increasing the rate of birth and overpopulation. Also, in restricting funds to organizations should they attend conferences or workshops where abortion is mentioned, these clinics might also miss other valuable information dealing with contraception, making their facilities and knowledge out of date.
The second problem, that of the infringement on free speech, is less environmental and more to do with the political ideology of the U.S. This issue comes up because of the restriction that funds will not be given to any organization which "lobbies to alter abortion laws" (H.R. 1757). By making this a requirement, the U.S. would effectively dictate the sorts of political action a group could take in voicing its opinion in its own country by threatening their funding. This sort of subsidized censorship would never be constitutional in the United States and is definitely not in keeping with our proclaimed mission of spreading democracy throughout the world. How can the government justify this sort of activity in foreign countries when it would never be accepted here?
The third problem is that women's health would be detrimentally affected because of the following pattern: (1) Cutting of funds from organizations which engages in both contraceptive and abortive activities (2) Decrease in number of organizations which offer contraceptive education and services (3) Increased pregnancy rate (4) Increased use of abortions whether safe, legal, or neither. This inverse relationship between contraception and abortion has been widely observed and is highly predictable. In that sense, then, lawmakers are actually having the exact opposite effect that they want to- their action is leading to an increased number of abortions. This is a matter of women's health because the abortions will continue to take place but instead of being in a sanitary, knowledgeable clinic they will take place in incomplete facilities which lack information, greatly increasing the potential of serious damage to the woman. Under H.R. 1757, clinics would be required to say that "abortion is not an appropriate method of family planning" even when the woman's life was threatened by the pregnancy. This sort of legislation is irresponsible and harmful to individual lives as well as the health of our planet.
There, then, are the problems with the bill. It began in the House of Representatives under the sponsorship of Rep. Gilman and was passed there earlier this year. Last month, it was very narrowly passed by the Senate and it awaits the President's decision. Please take the time to e-mail him at "president@whitehouse.gov" or write to him at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, D.C. 20500 to voice your opinion on this important issue. His decision will be made soon so be sure your voice is heard on time.1 .
Presidential Veto Message - Oct 21, 1998: the President announced his veto of H.R. 1757, and explained his reasons thereto; H. Doc. No. 105-329.
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Funding
Act of 1999 (Introduced in the Senate) [S.B. 965] Search
for updates using Thomas
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Funding Act of 1999 (Introduced in the
House)[H.R.895] Search for updates using
Thomas
Population Action International (PAI) Publications Population Assistance