 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Wednesday, May 09, 2001
The House of Representatives may have the opportunity today to overturn the first official action taken by President Bush -- the imposition of a gag rule on family planning agencies around the world that receive U.S. funding.
Under the Bush provision, which reprises the policy first implemented by President Ronald Reagan, family planning organizations that accept American dollars cannot provide abortions, cannot tell their patients about the availability of legal abortion, and cannot lobby or testify on the issue within their own governments.
It is an offensive and potentially counterproductive approach. Agencies that refuse the money will be limited in their ability to provide contraception and basic health care to poor women in developing countries, leading to more unwanted pregnancies and possibly more abortions. Without information about safe and legal abortions, more women might end up injured or even killed by back alley practitioners.
Today that policy is expected to come before the House in the form of an amendment to the State Department Authorization bill. The language of the amendment, which passed the House International Relations Committee on a vote of 26 to 22, is hard to argue with.
It says simply that funding cannot be denied to organizations for providing services that are legal in their own countries and in the United States. And it prohibits the president from imposing restrictions on the free speech rights of recipients.
Anti-abortion zealots will try to strike the amendment, and on close votes in the past, the gag rule has usually survived the House of Representatives. But the dynamics of the House have changed a bit in the last election, and the Democrats may be more united in the face of a Republican president.
If Democrats like John Murtha of Johnstown and Mike Doyle of Swissvale, who have been ambivalent on the issue, do the right thing and vote to retain the amendment, there is a good chance it will survive.
Of course that is not the end of the story. The Senate has long opposed the gag rule, but the president obviously has the opportunity to veto legislation doing away with the rule. But even if this exercise doesn't result in the repeal of the gag rule, it is important to raise the issue.
If President Bush refuses to see the moral and ethical problems with his posture, perhaps a demonstration of its political cost will be more convincing.