by John Mallon
From the Population Research Institute:
July 9, 2004 - This Year at Least, the U.S. Will Not Fund Organizations that Support Forced Abortions
July 9, 2004
Volume 6 / Number 24
I write with good news. The House Appropriations Committee has just defeated an amendment by Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) that would have forced the Bush Administration to give $25 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Special thanks to Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) for leading the charge against the Lowey Amendment.
Steven W. Mosher
This Year at Least, the U.S. Will Not Fund Organizations that Support Forced Abortions
Today, the House Appropriations Committee struck a blow against coercive population control programs. By refusing, on a vote of 32 to 26, to refund the UN Population Fund, the Committee in effect criticized China's forced abortion regime and the organization that supports it.1
Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, after reviewing information provided by Population Research Institute, concluded on 21 July, 2002, that "the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a 'program of coercive abortion.'" "...UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time."
Nita Lowey was proposing an amendment that would eviscerate a 19-year-old human rights law--the Kemp-Kasten Amendment--that allows the President to prevent US funding from going to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a coercive abortion program.
The committee was right to reject it. Why should the U.S. abandon its human rights principles to support an organization that refuses to withdraw from a program of forced abortion? We should be pressing the UNFPA to conform to human rights standards instead of lowering those standards to accommodate a brutal and oppressive one-child policy and the U.N. population group that supports it.
UNFPA continues to make wild and unsubstantiated claims about the harm that will be done to "women" if it doesn't get its money. The truth is that it is intrusive population control programs themselves that cause harm to women and children, while siphoning funds away from real health care needs, such as AIDS, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
I close by quoting Dongfan Ma, who was forced to have an abortion in China and now lives in the United States in freedom, "Through this denial of UNFPA funds by President Bush and supported by a bipartisan group of US Congressional Representatives, conscience and human nature will triumph over barbaric policies imposed on families in China."
 The "yes" votes (26), in favor of funding the UNFPA were Sanford, Boyd, Clyburn, Cramer, DeLauro, Dicks, Edwards, Farr, Frelinghuysen, Hoyer, Jackson, Kaptur, Patrick Kennedy, Kilpatrick, Kirk, Lowey, Moran, Obey, Olver, Pastor, Price, Rothman, Roybal-Alard, Sabo, Serrano, Visclosky.
The no votes (32), against funding the UNFPA, were Aderholt, Berry, Bonilla, Crenshaw, Cunningham, Doolittle, Emerson, Goode, Granger, Hobson, Istook, Kingston, Knollenberg, Kolbe, Latham, Jerry Lewis, Mollohan, Nethercutt, Northrup, John Peterson, Regula, Rogers, Sherwood, Simpson, Tiahrt, Vitter, Walsh, Wamp, Dave Weldon, Wicker, Wolf, Bill Young.
Absent were (7) Culberson, Fattah, Hinchey, LaHood, Murtha, Sweeney, Taylor
Steve Mosher is the president of Population Research Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to debunking the myth that the world is overpopulated.
(c) 2001 Population Research Institute.
Permission to reprint granted. Redistribute widely. Credit requested.
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, send an email to: Mail to: JOIN-PRI@Pluto.Sparklist.Com.
Nothing written here is to be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
The Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of "overpopulation."
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, Virginia USA 22630
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Media Contact: Vince Criste (540) 622-5240, ext. 206
by John Mallon
Oh, my God! Even the Left is starting to get it about Kerry!
Boston.com It's time to quiz Kerry:
EILEEN MCNAMARA, Boston Globe 7/7/04:
"Now, I don't know what to think. I cannot respectfully disagree with him as I do with an abortion opponent whose conscience prompts her to work to unseat lawmakers like Kerry. I understand her. She is acting on principle, lobbying to change laws antithetical to her conscience. I don't understand him, voting consistently in opposition to what he now tells us is one of his core beliefs."
by John Mallon
Catholic World News (CWN) The Forum: Kerry's muddled justification for killing
by Phil Lawler
special to CWNews.com
Jul. 05 (CWNews.com) - And this guy wants to run the country!
Presidential hopeful John Kerry says that he thinks human life begins at conception-- since that's what the Church tells him-- but he still thinks it's acceptable to support unrestricted legal abortion, explaining that 'Vatican II is very clear' on freedom of conscience.
Vatican II is indeed clear. But Kerry's thinking is not. Where should we begin? 1) If you believe that human life begins at conception, it follows that abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life. Kerry says that he can't impose his religious beliefs on people of different faiths, but (as far as we know) he does support laws that prohibit first-degree murder... even for Presbyterians. Evidently he recognizes that a ban on murder is not the imposition of some sectarian belief. There is no function of government more important than the protection of innocent human life. Kerry has declared that he's willing to abandon that responsibility for the sake of political expediency. "