House Backs Bush on UN Family Planning Funds

[Nambe]

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to block funds to a U.N. agency that offers family planning help to the world's poorest women, backing President Bush, who said the agency supported China's policy of forced abortions.

In a victory for abortion foes, the House voted 216-211 for a measure that would strip funds for the United Nations Population Fund from a bill to authorize next year's State Department programs. ---

"We do not champion human rights by cutting off UNFPA -- we all know that you can't solve problems by attacking the problem solvers," Lowey said. ---

[meegbear]

1. Figures ...

do it AFTER you visit the African continent. Smart move on their part.

[Paschall]

2. A repeat performance of last year's funding row

<snip> Despite a State Department report recommending the cash be paid, the Bush administration refused, saying the U.N. fund indirectly helped Chinese authorities force women to have abortions under Beijing's one-child policy. </snip>

CNN: China hits backs over "forced abortions," July 23, 2002

I don't suppose this "intelligence" from the bowels of the UN will find its way into the White House. Another fact-finding mission that didn't fit the administration's preconceptions:

<snip> Giving UNFPA’s official reaction to the United States’ announced withdrawal of $34 million in funding for the United Nations family planning programme, (UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya A.) Obaid said it was with “deep regret” that she was confirming the loss of funding for this year. The loss was especially troubling since the fact-finding mission sent to China by the United States had found “no evidence” that UNFPA had supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China. ... Stirling Scruggs, UNFPA’s Director of Information, also present at the press conference, described as preposterous the charges that the Fund had been involved in the practices alleged. </snip>

UN: HEADQUARTERS BRIEFING BY UNFPA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, July 23, 2002

And what happened as a consequence then?

<snip> The European Union on Wednesday pledged to fill the gap left by the U.S. decision to end funding for the United Nations' family planning organization. The 15-member group promised to increase its spending on reproductive health by $32 million. ... The $32 million package announced by the European Commission will go to 22 of the poorest countries in the world, where mortality rates vary from 500 to 1,800 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births. ... European Union aid toward sexual and reproductive health projects tripled between 1994-98, reaching $300 million a year in 2000. </snip>

UPI: EU Replaces US Family Planning Cash, August 2, 2002

[MaineDem]

3. This is very wrong!

Everything hangs on "forced abortions" in China! Women in 260 countries benefit from the UNFPA. So now those women, in 259 countries, have to go without because of the "moral highroad" these - mostly male - congresscritters feel required to take!

The UNFPA prevents I think 800,000 abortions a year. They teach women about family planning so women can have healthy babies and raise them without the inevitable poverty they would have had before.

I cry for these women.

Now, the big question is, how did my Congressman vote. Last year during his campaign I specifically asked him about funding UNFPA. Although he is anti-abortion (and I didn't support him in his primary) he stated he would never vote to cut funding for family planning. I wrote to him reminding him of that statement. I can't find the role call votes for this yet.

[CBHagman]

4. A boot in the face of families worldwide

Sometimes I think, in my heart of hearts, these guys (and most of them are, to be blunt, guys) want to punish women for sex or any other bodily function. What they don't realize is how desperately clinics and basic information are needed the world over, let alone in the poorest nations.

So that they can claim they opposed abortion, they pass legislation year after year that might prevent aid from reaching women with tubal pregnancies, STDs, and the like. God help us all. The GOP Congress certainly won't.

[goobergunch]

5. Vote No. 362-Smith (NJ) Amdt to H.R. 1950

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=362

Correct Vote: NO

Democrats voting "aye" (22):
Alexander
Berry
Costello
Davis (TN)
Doyle
Hall
Holden
John
Kildee
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
McIntyre
Mollohan
Murtha
Oberstar
Ortiz
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Skelton
Stenholm
Stupak
Taylor (MS)

Republicans voting "no" (31):
Bass
Boehlert
Bradley (NH)
Capito
Castle
Davis, Tom
Dunn
Foley
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach :-)
Gilchrest
Granger
Houghton
Johnson (CT)
Kelly
Kirk
Kolbe
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Ose
Platts
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Shaw
Shays
Simmons
Sweeney
Thomas
Walden (OR)
Wilson (NM)

Not Voting (8):
Berkley
Ferguson
Gephardt :grr:
Greenwood
Hayworth
Janklow
Jefferson
Millender-McDonald

[MaineDem]

6. Thank you

I finally found the vote on Thomas.

Mike Michaud voted No on the Smith amendment. Thankfully!

[goobergunch]

9. If it's the same day...

you can use http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.php3 ...it's usually faster than THOMAS.

[MaineDem]

10. Excellent!

Thank you. I bookmarked that. :-)

[number9]

7. Does the House do anything other than have

regularly scheduled Bush Butt kissing sessions? I can not believe they represent anyone, even rw'ers. There is no way a country elected this group of slow witted nimwits. No way.

argh - rant over

[CBHagman]

8. Part of it's uncompetitive races, and part of it...

...is low voter turnout. Some people don't even realize there are midterm elections.

We've got to turn out everybody in force in 2004 and raise hell until all the votes are counted.