in the trenches/population

 

6. Hotspots

FAMILY PLANNING: CONGRESSIONAL FOES AND FRIENDS

Battle lines are drawn again as Congress begins the fiscal 1998 budget process to determine funds for US and international family planning programs, as well as for US contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

First, a bit of history. The 1994 Congressional elections ushered into the House of Representatives a formidable bloc of anti-abortion, anti-family planning conservatives, as well as many who share a disdain for foreign aid of any kind. These legislators have had their impact.

Last year, international family planning programs, administered by the US Agency for International Development, were reduced 35 percent--a much deeper cut than that sustained by most other overseas development assistance programs like child survival and education.

This year, a heated legislative battle is already underway. In February, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), a powerful leader of anti-abortion forces in the House, lost an important legislative victory to population advocates that released family planning funds from restrictions imposed by Congress last year. He has already announced that "I will spend my time like you can't believe making this fight...in fiscal 1998."

The debate goes like this. Those who support family planning cite the benefits of this program: it reduces infant and maternal mortality, thus saving lives; limits the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions; and helps to stabilize population, thus easing pressures on the environment. Those in opposition say that funding for family planning does nothing more than line the pockets of abortion providers (even though the law prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions).

Another expected target is UNFPA--the largest international provider of population assistance in the developing world. US funding levels are determined under the Foreign Operations bill. Debate is likely to center on the extent of UNFPA's involvement with China's one-child family policy, and allegations of that country's policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. There is also strong anti-UN sentiment among the Congressional leadership, most notably Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

It's not just international funds for family planning at stake. The same forces at work to dismantle the overseas family planning program, are working against our nation's family planning program, or Title X (ten), signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970. Today it provides public funds for family planning services at clinics and hospitals across the country. More than 4 million people --primarily low and moderate-income women and teenagers--depend on these health services. Here, pro-choice advocates anticipate onerous policy restrictions to be introduced, such as stricter parental consent laws or abstinence-only counseling for teenagers.

To help fight the fight or stay up-to-date see Web Resources.

 

More on Population:
Table of Contents | Twelve Hundred Words or Less... | Web Resources
Activist Groups | Voices | New in the Literature
Hotspots | On the Other Hand... | Funders