President Ronald Reagan enacted the Mexico City Policy in 1984, which prohibits taxpayer funding to international abortion groups that promote or commit abortion.
Since then it has been on again, off again, depending on the ideology of the president in power. Presidents Bush 41 and 43 upheld it; Presidents Clinton and Obama struck it.
And pro-aborts don’t like that. They’re whining it’s unfair for the international abortion industry not to know if US taxpayers will be aiding and abetting preborn baby killing….

Of course the solution is to permanently ensconce the Mexico City Policy into law, so pro-aborts can rest assured they’ll have extend their bloody mitts elsewhere for handouts, perhaps to the Taliban or Al-Queda, more their kind of thugs.
But no, that ain’t gonna happen. With their people in power, the abortion industry is planning the opposite, to enshrine taxpayer funding of international abortion groups into law.
A DC friend forwarded the following CQ article, not available online without subscription:

Anti-abortion groups are warning that a Democratic attempt to permanently repeal a prohibition on U.S. aid to overseas organizations that promote or perform abortions could imperil the fiscal 2010 State Department funding bill or a potential omnibus spending package.
The provision would overturn the “Mexico City” policy that dates to 1984, a perennial source of rancor between abortion foes and groups concerned about overpopulation. President Obama issued a memorandum repealing the policy during his first week in office….

A permanent repeal became part of the Senate fiscal 2010 State-Foreign Operations spending bill (S 1434) when Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., offered an amendment that the Appropriations Committee adopted with little fanfare in early July.
Lautenberg said he offered the amendment to end the uncertainty that foreign aid recipients face whenever control of the White House shifts between parties. The restriction was originally put in place by the administration of Ronald Reagan, lifted by President Bill Clinton days after taking office, then reinstated by President George W. Bush shortly after his inauguration.
“Health care providers across the globe should be able to care for the health of women and families without ideological obstacles blocking the way,” Lautenberg said.
Family planning advocates have long said the rule restricts health care and social service groups operating in the developing world.
But groups that oppose abortion rights say it’s inappropriate to include such a measure in a spending bill, in part because it would constrain the president’s authority to determine conditions on foreign aid.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said that if the Lautenberg amendment is included, his organization will use the vote on the underlying spending bill to evaluate a lawmaker’s anti-abortion credentials.
“If the leadership want to use this as a vehicle to make a permanent change in the president’s authority and foreign policy, there are senators that are going to have a lot of other ideas . . . and maybe Sen. Reid should plan on spending a couple of weeks on this,” Johnson said, referring to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “Lautenberg has opened that door.”
House Takes Different Tack
By adopting the Lautenberg amendment and wading into the abortion debate, the Senate is taking a different tack from the House. In fact, the House version of the bill (HR 3081) states that nothing in the legislation would make any change to restrictions in funding abortions overseas.
Johnson said that even though the House bill increased funding for family planning programs that are no longer constrained by the Mexico City policy’s prohibitions, his organization decided not to oppose the bill because it left the opportunity for a future president to re-impose the policy.
That conciliatory approach may have smoothed the way for the House bill’s passage by a vote of 318-106 in July.
Abortion-rights advocates say that the inclusion of abortion language in the House bill would have been much riskier than it was in the Senate, where there are proportionately more lawmakers in favor of overturning the policy.
But the abortion-rights advocates also say that a permanent repeal of the Mexico City policy would be worth any attendant controversy that accompanies the proposal.
“The flip-flopping of our international reproductive health politics creates uncertainty and confusion for the partners of the U.S. government, and it leaves the global health needs of women up to shifts in political whims,” said Laura MacCleery, governmental relations director for the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Source: CQ Today Print Edition
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2009 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.