Pro Choice? I don’t think so…

March 6, 2009

Yesterday 55 Pro-ChoiceAbortion Senators voted against a measure that would “require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” 

In other words, a majority of United States Senators apparently approve of funding forced abortions and sterilizations.  Three Republicans joined 52 Democrats in defeating the amendment designed to stop funding involuntary abortions.  Only three Democrats voted in favor of the amendment to stop funding such atrocities.

Exactly what about these organizations can possibly be considered beneficial for women, let alone pro “choice”?  Obviously, “choice” involves at least two alternatives; forced abortion does not qualify.  These women are essentially raped and their children are murdered.  We fund this? 

So can the mainstream American media continue to use the term “Pro Choice” to describe liberals while in the same breath using the term “Anti Abortion” to describe the conservatives on this issue?  The label “Pro Choice” has become a farce, at least in the United States Senate.


5 Responses to “Pro Choice? I don’t think so…”

  1. jonolan Says:

    Not exactly, Naturallawyer. The wording of Senate Amendment 607 to H.R. 1105 was somewhat problematical:

    On page 927, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 929, line 20, and insert the following:

    (b) Availability of Funds.–Funds appropriated under the heading “International Organizations and Programs” in this Act that are available for UNFPA and are not made available for UNFPA because of the operation of any provision of law, shall be transferred to the “Global Health and Child Survival” account and shall be made available for family planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities, subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

    (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds in China.–None of the funds made available under “International Organizations and Programs” may be made available for the UNFPA for a country program in the People’s Republic of China.

    (d) Conditions on Availability of Funds.–Amounts made available under “International Organizations and Programs” for fiscal year 2006 for the UNFPA may not be made available to UNFPA unless–

    (1) the UNFPA maintains amounts made available to the UNFPA under this section in an account separate from other accounts of the UNFPA;

    (2) the UNFPA does not commingle amounts made available to the UNFPA under this section with other sums; and

    (3) the UNFPA does not fund abortions.

    (e) Report to Congress and Dollar-for-Dollar Withholding of Funds.–

    (1) IN GENERAL.–Not later than 4 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives indicating the amount of funds that the UNFPA is budgeting for the year in which the report is submitted for a country program in the People’s Republic of China.

    (2) DEDUCTION.–If a report submitted under paragraph (1) indicates that the UNFPA plans to spend funds for a country program in the People’s Republic of China in the year covered by the report, the amount of such funds that the UNFPA plans to spend in the People’s Republic of China shall be deducted from the funds made available to the UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year in which the report is submitted.

    (f) Rule of Construction.–Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the President to deny funds to any organization by reason of the application of another provision of this Act or any other provision of law.

    It was more than a little broadly worded, since it forbade any funds to China at all, for any purpose.

    I think this was a case of a decent idea being shot down due to poor construction of the Senate Amendment in question more than an avowal of a pro-abortion stance by the Senate.

  2. thenaturallawyer Says:


    Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I’ll admit I didn’t go past the amendment description to analyze the actual text. However, after some digging, your post also does not tell the full story.

    The amendment doesn’t forbid “any funds to China at all, for any purpose.” It prohibits funds from being given to the UNFPA for a country program in China. And why is that?

    It seems the UNFPA has a long and sordid past in China. From Congressional testimony in 2001:

    Our lead witness today, Josephine Guy, just returned from one of UNFPA’s 32 model counties. She will testify and present videotaped evidence of forced abortion, of the destruction of houses belonging to families who have had unauthorized children, and of similar abuses that have been associated with the People’s Republic of China population control program. Other witnesses will testify that this new evidence is consistent with the history of the program and with the current situation in the rest of China.


    The Communist regime in Beijing is among the most repressive in the world, systematically abusing the human rights of its citizens. Forced abortions are but one element of Beijing’s campaign to control the Chinese people. It is for these reasons that Congress years ago put in place safeguards to prevent U.S. funds from supporting UNFPA’s China program. By reducing America’s contribution to the UNFPA dollar for dollar by the amount the organization spends in China and by establishing a separate account for U.S. funds that cannot be commingled with UNFPA’s China account, Americans have not underwritten any of the organization’s initiatives, however benign, in China.

    Let me stress again, not a dime of U.S. taxpayers’ money is currently going to support UNFPA activities in China. By establishing these safeguards, we have permitted the UNFPA to continue its valuable work in other areas. Currently, the UNFPA channels over $280 million in donations annually from over 100 nations to millions of families, women, and children worldwide who require reproductive health care. UNFPA’s efforts are directed at reducing infant and maternal mortality rates, promoting safe deliveries, empowering women and meeting the needs of mothers, alleviating the abject poverty that stunts the growth of so many children, and countless other worthy causes

    And here is the best quote:

    Finally, for decades the UNFPA has, and there is no doubt about this, vigorously endorsed, extolled, and shamefully encouraged the most anti-woman, Taliban-like policy in the world: forced abortion. The UNFPA has been a party to egregious human rights abuses against the Chinese people, especially women and children. Their monetary support and systematic whitewashing of the crime of forced abortion and forced sterilization in China is an indictment against them. They should be brought to the Hague, as should the dictatorship in China, for these crimes against women.

    I find the claim that the amendment is “a decent idea being shot down due to poor construction . . . more than an avowal of a pro-abortion stance by the Senate” to be quite suspect, especially given the UNFPA’s history and how the vote went down along party lines.

    Even so, I appreciate your bringing the language of the amendment, and by extension, the deplorable actions of the UNFPA in their complicity with forced abortions in China, to my attention. It is unfortunate to learn what my tax dollars are going to these days.

  3. jonolan Says:

    True, naturallawyer, and an amendment that limited them to not funding eugenics – solely my choice of wording – programs in China might have passed, whereas a blanket prohibition against a nation who holds the largest amount of US debt wasn’t goin to.

  4. thenaturallawyer Says:

    Once again, referring you to the language you quoted, there is no “blanket prohibition against a nation” at play here. The prohibition is against the UNFPA. I find it a dubious claim that it is concern for the Chinese that drives liberals in the United States Congress to fund forced abortions and sterilizations in China through the UNFPA.

    Imagine a health organization that is known for providing outstanding healthcare and treating diseases in third world countries, but after providing healthcare, it sells the most vulnerable citizens (orphans, etc.) into slavery. What do you make of someone who says “well gee, we can’t let those poor citizens of third world countries go without healthcare, so we’ll just have to tolerate the unsavory slavery aspect and fund the operation anyway”? Perhaps you might find that justifiable. I do not.

    The democrats in the United States Congress that defeated the amendment in question cannot claim that they are funding forced abortions through the UNFPA in China out of concern for the Chinese. I find that to be twisted and without justification. Furthermore, it cannot be said that it was poor draftsmanship that doomed the amendment, since the amendment was intended to implement the policy as it stood in 2001, when UNFPA was also prohibited from using funds in China because of its activities there (at least, that’s what I got from the 2001 Congressional testimony I quoted in my last post). I don’t see any logical reason for defeating this amendment other than a love for abortion.

  5. thenaturallawyer Says:

    Just one additional point… Re the fact that China is the “nation who holds the largest amount of US debt”: I find this fact morally irrelevant. My original post was a commentary on the immorality of funding forced abortions and sterilizations (anywhere). The morality or immorality of funding forced abortions is irrelevant to whether the forced abortions take place in a creditor or debtor nation.

    If China tells America “we have an economic advantage over you, therefore you must fund our forced abortions”, I would hope that our legislature would draft a formal resolution telling China to fund its own evil policies, thank you very much. If China brings about economic repercussions, so be it. One should never do evil that good will result (evil is still evil).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: