Getty Images
Women in the Philippines wait for check-ups during a medical mission organized by UNFPA.
Let's take a stroll down memory lane. Just 10 years ago, the Bush/Cheney administration requested $34 million for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), and for good reason. Since its inception in 1969, the Fund has won widespread recognition for its work in improving the lives of women in developing countries.
In explaining why the administration sought increased support for the Population Fund, Secretary of State Colin Powell explained, "We recognize that UNFPA does invaluable work through its programs in maternal and child health care, voluntary family planning, screening for reproductive tract cancers, breast-feeding promotion and HIV/AIDS prevention."
Congress agreed. The vote in the House was 357-66, while Senate support was unanimous.
In 2012, just a decade later, House Republicans intend to eliminate all UNFPA funding.
The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a 2013 State Department funding bill that includes controversial anti-abortion language. [...]
On abortion, the bill cuts off all funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and reinstates the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule. The rule says that all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. funding must refrain from performing or promoting abortion services.
For the right, UNFPA is an international menace that supports China's one-child policy. That's not true, but the facts dodn't seem to matter.
As The Hill report documented, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment that would fund UNFPA but prevent money from being used in China in support of its one-child policy or forced abortions, but Republicans rejected it. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) offered an amendment that would have funded UNFPA to provide maternal healthcare and treat genital mutilation, but Republicans rejected it, too.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) offered an amendment that would have restored UNFPA funding in countries where USAID is not present. "If we don't pass this, women will die," Lowey said.
Republicans rejected it, too.
When we talk about the Republican "war on women," we tend to think of how GOP policies effect women here in the United States. This week, we were reminded that the Republican campaign is actually international in nature.
And what about the Mexico City policy -- the "global gag rule" -- House Republicans are fighting to reinstate? The policy bans federal aid to family planning groups that offer abortion counseling. (It got its name because Ronald Reagan launched the ban in Mexico City in 1984.)
The "Mexico City" policy prohibits US dollars and contraceptive supplies from going to any international family planning program that provides abortions or counsels women about their reproductive health options. The policy isn't about money going to pay for abortions. Even those groups that use only private funds for abortion services -- where abortion is legal -- are barred from assistance. This is money going to family planning programs.
President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City policy in 1993. But President Bush reinstated and expanded it on his first day in office. Now not only are organizations that provide or counsel about abortion services affected; those that dare to take part in a public discussion about legalizing abortion are also affected (hence the name "global gag rule"). Of course, those that call for restricting abortion rights are not affected.
This policy has nothing to do with government-sponsored abortions overseas. Ten years before the gag rule was in place the law strictly prohibited that. This policy is about disqualifying pro-choice organizations from receiving US international family planning funding.
Under Bush's policy, organizations that play a vital role in women's health are forced to make an impossible choice. If they refuse to be "gagged," they lose the funding that enables them to help women and families who are cut off from basic health care and family planning. But if they accept funding, they must accept restrictions that jeopardize the health of the women they serve.
President Obama, of course, overturned the Mexico City policy in his first week in office, which is why congressional Republicans are pushing to reinstate it. If Mitt Romney is elected, it's all but certain the global gag rule will return.
Leave a Comment:
And yet, just yesterday a bunch of women Republıcan House members ınsısted that the GOP ıs the "real" pro-women party. What hogwash.
It truly is, when you are the arm candy on a rich man's sleeve. These are the kind of women who see trips to Paris, a manicured home, two closets for clothing and one for shoes, and maid full time as being totally "pro-woman". It's that Being Taken Care Of aspect that these
shallow women are advocating, which is of course, of very course, what all women secretly want. //snark//Maybe if all the women and children were to incorporate then they could become people.
Their idea of 'equal opportunity' is turning their war on women into a 'war on everyone who isn't us'. Which is what it looks like more and more every day.
It's always been a "war on everyone who isn't us." After that, it's just a matter of priorities.
I can see where this is going. It is obvious to me and hopefully to a lot of people that the goal of the GOP is to not help others. What will happen if you don't help others, they will eventually die before their time. Help can come in a lot of forms a lot of these women probably have no access to birth control. The GOP is trying to have it both ways they want these poor people to go away and die without offering a better solution like birth control to help them manage their families and the quality of life they seek. One remedy I would love to have happen is to drop a bus load of the GOP right smack in the middle of these communities and let them fend for themselves. If you feed the hungry they are less apt to be knocking on your door. This goal of letting the strong survive is against all the teachings of our most honored philosophers. If I am one of the last persons standing on this Earth I will gladly offer up my last piece of bread to my neighbor. The GOP will not and they aren't going to they are in the business of saving themselves and their few privileged friends. History repeats itself and Jesus did part the Red Sea.
Wherever there is an opportunity to "hurt some people," Republicans are there with bells on.
Don't be so hard on the poor rethuglicans, after all how can we increase the defense budget if we're spending money on women's health!
The Republican war is on babies as well. Thanks to the GOP and the Catholic Church's insistence on abstinence only education in our aid to these women and children, 15 million children die annually from hunger and disease. How can the Christian right be so wrong and so consistently cruel?
Why do republicans delude themselves into believing that they even have "family values, morals, and "faith"" - and why do they not see that they are as bad as the Taliban? They either have no understanding of what it is to be a poor or lower middle class woman with hungry children to feed, or they don't care and choose to remain ignorant of facts - either way they are stupid because they refuse to understand and immoral because they refuse to recognize the plight of "others"!
Far from being "small government" conservatives - these people don't want "the government" to help anyone except the corporate elite, while throwing everyone else under the bus in order to get into their bedrooms, "family values" - I think NOT!
Tell me again which Republicans keep insisting they have no War on Women?
Why does it seem like the Republicans are saying " Have those babies girls, we can use them. If you die from breast or cervical cancer, that's OK, we will still have your babies to use how we choose to use".
It seems the Regressives' thinking is along the lines of that state legislator who campared women to farm breeding stock. It's amazing to me that some people could have such cold-hearted view of women & children. It really is a war, albeit one where no shots are fired, no bombs are dropped. Just a refusal to help those who need it. Women & children whose only crime is their existence are left to die.
Seems like UNFPA is a good cause. I assume everyone criticizing the republicans will be writing a check today to UNFPA to help them out. If not, why not?
Yet again:
Red herrings do not point out hypocrisy
ST54, that is a good challenge. Will do.
Some of the things that have been happening in politics lately would be amusing if they didn't have an effect on the world at large.
Since when do Republicans give a damn about actually killing people, they have no problem causing actual human beings real pain, suffering and misery simply to line their own pockets and to feel as if they are imposing their moral values on reluctant sinners. The Republican Party since 1994 has been a tool of the super rich to steal the hard earned labors of the majority of the citizens of this country, it has used every illegal, immoral and unethical trick in the book to do that. Perhaps if Republicans were good at anything other than blatant theft they might actually be a majority party in this country given how dumb Americans are, but even Americans aren't dumb enough to keep having their bank accounts fleeced.
Mouzer- red herring? hypocrisy? my point is that it is easy to criticize for some one not spending some other persons ( in this case taxpayers) money- if you strongly believe in this cause- then step up and put your money where your mouth is- if so fine- if not then do not criticize
Since July 22, 2002, when Colin Powell announced no funding for UNFPA, Lois Abraham and I started asking 34 million Americans and others for at least one dollar to take a stand for the women of the world. 34 Million Friends is alive and well and very close to the 10th anniversary of our grassroots movement. I would love to talk to Rachel about this. We've raised a lovely 4.2 million and it's still going. The web site is great. Cheers, Jane Roberts