Additional pro-life gains found in budget deal
We were made immediately aware of some of the pro-life wins and losses after Republicans and Democrats reached an 11th hour agreement April 8 on the FY11 budget.
We learned a ban against taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia was reinstated. We also learned that although Planned Parenthood was not defunded, US senators would be forced to vote on the measure, keeping PP in the news another week or 2 and potentially giving pro-lifers fodder in the 2012 elections.
But, I wrote, we did not yet know the outcome of other pro-life measures included in the House’s original budget for FY11: UNFPA defunding, Title X defunding, and restoration of the Mexico City policy.
Well, now that the dust has settled, here’s the news on those 3. As expected, neither UNFPA nor Title X were defunded, nor was the Mexico City policy reinstated. That’s the bad news.
The good news is the budgets for UNFPA and Title X were reduced, as was funding to international “family planning groups”:
- Section 2120(e) (page 380, lines 10-17): adjusts UNFPA funding to $40 million (FY08 level). UNFPA is the UN population control agency associated with China’s brutal one child policy. [Note: $55 million was appropriated for UNFPA in FY10.]
- Section 2120(e) (page 380, lines 8-10): adjusts international population control/family planning funding to $575 million but does not reinstate the Mexico City Policy. Without the Mexico City Policy these funds can be directed to foreign non-governmental organizations that promote and commit abortion. [Note: $648 million was appropriated for international population control/family planning in FY10.]
- Section 1810(a)(2) (page 311, lines 22-25): adjusts Title X domestic family planning funding to $300 million (FY08 level). [Note: $317 million was appropriated for the Title X program in FY10.]
Note that funding for all 3 line items was scaled back to Bush-era levels.
But also note re: UNFPA that President Bush withheld all funding Congress allotted to the coercive organization for 7 years, from 2002 through 2008. So UNFPA actually got no US funding in 2008, even though $40 mil was set aside. In fact, over the course of those 7 years, Bush withheld a total of $244 million from UNFPA. One of President Obama’s first acts after taking office was to restore UNFPA funding – on January 23, 2009.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
DC abortions reinstated? How do they just do that?
so, we are issuing bonds payable by our grandchildren, to kill other people’s children, around the world? Do we wonder when people get upset with the US gov’t?
“We learned a ban against taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia was reinstated”
I must misunderstood this
Well…those are better than nothing, but they’re not exactly jumping-up-and-down victories. We need more pro-life senators in the worst way.
Alice, you’re right. That’s why I couldn’t bring myself to write “wins” or “victories.” These were just “gains.”
I don’t get it. WHY are we paying for any international abortions at all?? USaid gives millions of dollars per year to The Marie Stopes Foundation who actively sell abortions via television commercials in other countries. Why doesn’t congress just ban it all together? I appreciate what they are trying to do but realistically a reduction from 55 million to 40 million, 648 million to 575 million and 317 million to 300 million is not all that relatively great. Is it that they think they can’t do any better or are they copping out on us?
I’m still very encouraged. Ten years ago the pro-life movement was quiet and demoralized. Today, we’ve taken back our rightful place as a force to be reckoned with. At the same time, the politicians who are in PP’s pockets are coming under scrutiny; politicians who are using PP as a money launderer to get our tax money into their own hands via campaign contributions! Like roaches, they can run when we turn the light on, but they can’t hide.
They will say to the mountains, “fall on us.”
I think that the entire “plan” to defund Planned Parenthood was a sham to gain pro-life votes. If it was really about ending abortion, why didn’t the Republicans try to prohibit any organization that performed abortions from receiving Title X funding? The whole rhetoric about “defunding Planned Parenthood” looks like a rhetorical strategy designed to gain votes.
@ Austin
Well maybe, just maybe, the Reps goal is to start with PP as a first step into taking on other abortion orgs. I don’t know for sure but perhaps it would be easier for them to start with defunding PP and then send a message to other abortion clincs rather than take them all on at once. Sometimes it’s better to move slowy, then to try to accomplish a lot at one time.
Considering all of the stories that have been coming out about Planned parenthood lately, this might be good timing to take them on as an example for the entire abortion industry.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52962.html
It seems that singling out Planned Parenthood has resulted in unexpected dividends for them: a 500% increase in online donations.
It seems that singling out Planned Parenthood has resulted in unexpected dividends for them: a 500% increase in online donations.
joan @ 3:17 pm,
How much is that in dollars?
In the larger scheme of things, it’s probably a fairly modest sum of money. More than anything, it’s important symbolically as a reminder that there are still plenty of people who care about affordable reproductive health and are able and willing to put their money where their mouths are. That’s encouraging, above and beyond the fact that Planned Parenthood managed to survive the Republican chopping block.
joan,
If the increase in donations is, in your opinion, “a fairly modest sum of money” then PP’s supporters are NOT putting “their money where their mouths are”, they still want pro-lifer’s money (via federal funding) put in PP’s coffers. Symbolic support has never balanced a budget so they need to start sending the cold, hard cash to take the burden off of pro-lifers who morally object to abortion.
This is being discussed at today’s Jivin’ J, so I don’t want to duplicate the comments here… Maybe you could still look for the answer to my question: How much is that in dollars?
Too bad all those tiny children didn’t survive Planned Parenthood’s chopping block.
If a 500% increase in donations works out to “a fairly modest sum of money” then the only thing it’s symbolic of is the fact that even abortion supporters don’t really want their money going to Planned Parenthood.
Joan,
If that’s the case I guess PP doesn’t need federal money after all, if PP supporters want funding they should do it themselves, now that we know they’re capable, and leave abortion opponents out of it.
your body, your choice, your responsibility: you pay.
Keep your uterus out of my wallet!
Keep your church out of my wallet.
Alice, had there been more prolife Senators, Bush’s war in Iraq would have never happened.
Abortion fans are so obsessed with religion; they’ve got to bring it up no matter what the thread is about.
I said what I said ninek, because yor bro ken stated that he doesn’t want to contribute financially to something he doesn’t support i.e. abortion. I simply stated that if that is the case then why should I be financially supporting something that I don’t believe in. It was simply to demonstrate that in some way we all contribute financially to something we don’t agree with.