TO: Writers
covering foreign aid, international family planning and population
FROM: Sally
Ethelston Kimberley Cline
(202)
557-3418 (202) 557-3423
sae@popact.org
kcline@popact.org
RE:
Bush Administration
Poised to De-Fund UNFPA, Circumvent Congress Family Planning Proponents Urge
White House to Honor Funding Agreement
The Bush Administration
last week indicated that it may reduce or deny funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the
foremost UN agency involved in expanding access to family planning and maternal
health care around the world, including in Afghanistan. The news comes within
days of the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the
United States, and can only be interpreted as an attempt by conservative,
anti-abortion groups and lawmakers to derail U.S. international family planning
efforts. High-ranking White House and State Department officials are scheduled
to further discuss the matter this Wednesday.
As
White House and State Department officials prepare to determine the level of
U.S. funding for international family planning assistance, now is an ideal
opportunity to editorialize in support of these critical programs, and
specifically in support of UNFPA.
The
White House has placed a temporary hold on the $34 million allocated to UNFPA
by Congress as part of the foreign aid bill for 2002, signaling opposition to
UNFPA's activities in China. This funding was approved by Congress less than a
month ago, in an agreement reached through extensive, bipartisan negotiations
during the appropriations process. To go around Congress at this point could
have serious political implications.
Lisa
Moreno, Senior Legislative Policy Analyst at PAI commented, "The $34
million for UNFPA represents an agreement between Democrat and Republican
appropriators and ratified by the full House and Senate. To fund UNFPA at a
lower level is nothing less than the White House circumventing the will of
Congress."
UNFPA: Proven Track Record of Saving Women,
Children's Lives
Since
1969, UNFPA has worked to expand family planning and related health services to
women and families across the globe, especially in the poorest regions of the
world, including Afghanistan. These programs are essential to the health and
well-being of women.
Population
Action International (PAI) President Amy Coen remarked, "In Afghanistan,
women bear an average of seven children, and childbirth is extremely risky.
Worldwide, a woman dies every minute. For years UNFPA has worked to better
these odds, helping make critical health services available to women in the
poorest parts of the world. For the President to do this, at this time, flies
in the face of his proclaimed concern for all women, including those in
Afghanistan. It's unconscionable."
In
recent months, the Bush Administration has acknowledged the importance of
elevating women's status in promoting democracy, awarding additional funds
specifically for UNFPA's activities in Afghanistan.
This
support seems half-hearted, in light of the current situation. As noted by Ms.
Coen, "Just two months ago the President believed enough in the work of
UNFPA to invest an additional $600,000 in its programs in Afghanistan. What's
changed in two months?"
Withholding
U.S. funding for UNFPA not only undercuts the Administration's alleged support
for women's rights, but could also severely destabilize the scope and breadth
of UNFPA's activities. UN officials estimate that the loss of U.S. funding
could undermine their capacity to prevent 800,000 abortions and the deaths of
4,700 mothers and 77,000 children under the age of five. It will also jeopardize
UNFPA's international AIDS prevention programs.
Legislative Background: The Kemp-Kasten
Amendment
The
funding for UNFPA is being threatened under authority granted to the White
House under a little-known provision of law called the Kemp-Kasten amendment,
which was first incorporated in foreign aid appropriations bills as an
amendment in 1985. Kemp-Kasten prohibits foreign aid funding for any
organization that, as determined by the President, supports or participates in
the management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization.
For domestic political reasons, the Reagan and Bush administrations interpreted
the language very broadly, resulting in presidential determination that UNFPA
was ineligible for funding because of its projects in China.
That
same year, however, a review of UNFPA programs by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) determined that UNFPA neither funds abortions
nor supports coercive family planning practices through its programs. Since
then, various studies of China's family planning program have documented its
compulsory nature and the presence of coercion in China's program overall, but
UNFPA has never been implicated for any coercive practices. These findings had
no impact on the Administration however, and UNFPA was still denied funding.
The
Clinton Administration formally announced its intention to resume funding UNFPA
in May of 1993. Using its authority under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, the
Administration gave $14.5 million to UNFPA the following August. In subsequent
years, U.S. funding for UNFPA has fluctuated, although a contribution has been
made in every year except 1999. Funding for FY 2001 was at $25 million; the
foreign aid bill negotiated this past December included $34 million for UNFPA.
Last
year, the Bush Administration again reviewed UNFPA's activities and determined
that UNFPA was not in violation of Kemp-Kasten. For the Administration to now
consider backtracking on its commitment to this agency threatens to undermine
the efforts of family planning and women's rights advocates, health workers,
and women and families everywhere ? especially in the regions where UNFPA
works.
NB:
Kemp-Kasten should not be confused with the Global Gag Rule (also known as the
Mexico City policy), an executive branch policy in force during the Reagan and
Bush (Sr.) administrations, and reimposed by President Bush last year on his
first business day in office.
For
more information, for additional documentation, or to speak with a PAI expert,
please contact Kimberley Cline or Sally Ethelston at the numbers or email
addresses provided, or see our Web site at http://www.populationaction.org.