Hillary Fights Hard to Keep Taxpayers Funding Foreign Abortion, Pakistan, and Cuba

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

In these times of crushing debt loads, families are cutting back and prioritizing every dollar they spend. Yet the Obama administration is lashing out in a public way against efforts by House Republicans to rein in spending on overseas abortions and foreign aid to corrupt anti-American regimes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is aggressively lobbying Congress to drop several amendments to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which she claims would be “debilitating” to her foreign policy. Madam Secretary vowed to “recommend personally” that Obama veto the bill in a letter to Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL.

At the top of Hillary’s list is the bill’s provision to ban U.S. taxpayers from funding foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas. Otherwise known as the Mexico City Policy, which Ronald Reagan instituted in 1984, public financing of foreign abortions has been a political football for decades: Reagan instituted the policy, which remained in effect through the George H.W. Bush administration. Bill Clinton revoked it during his first week in office. George W. Bush reinstated the policy as one of his first actions, and in his first week in office, Barack Obama again rescinded it — by executive order, naturally.

In April, John Boehner passed a budget amendment reducing the amount of taxpayer dollars sent to the United Nations Family Planning Agency (UNFPA) by $15 million (to $40 million). It spent $575 million on international “family planning” and population control, less than the $648 million Congress authorized in 2010. This caused Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards to squeal that the Republicans had opened a war against “human rights.”

The Obama administration is fighting similar attempts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States.

Of course during a time of unbearable public indebtedness and when the nation teeters on the precipice of default, the question is why is Congress spending a dime on abortion, let alone abortions around the world?

The answer is political cronyism and out of control feminism. Obama wants to keep the taxpayer-funding spigot flowing to his political supporters and Democratic Party contributors. And Hillary has spent a lifetime opposing the most fundamental right any woman should enjoy: the right to be born.

It is not the abortion funding ban alone that irks the former first lady. The bill slashes funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative — another boondoggle for the international Green Left.

She seems eerily fixated on the possibility the bill would deny funding to corrupt or violent foreign regimes. Hillary howls that….

Read more.

Taxpayer Funding Increases Abortions among Poor Women

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

A major pro-life group is responding to the study released by a pro-abortion organization saying abortion rates have fallen for women as a whole but increased for women below the poverty line. The National Right to Life Committee blames taxpayer funding.

As LifeNews reported, the new study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates the abortion rate has decreased in the United States — good news because it means more pregnant women are opting against having an abortion. However, the report presents news that should spark a drive to help more women below the poverty level find pregnancy resources and support because it indicates poor women are having abortions at a higher rate than before.

The new report was published by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group formerly affiliated with the Planned Parenthood abortion business. According to Guttmacher, poor women accounted for 42 percent of all abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 18 percent between 2000 and 2008, from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44. In comparison, the national abortion rate for 2008 was 19.6 per 1,000, reflecting an eight percent decline from a rate of 21.3 in 2000.

NRLC officials disputed Guttmacher’s claims that restrictions on abortion “disproportionately affect” poor women.

“Data showing an eight percent drop in abortion rates across the board from 2000 to 2008 are encouraging,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life director of education and research.

“Guttmacher suggests that higher abortion rates among poorer woman and abortion restrictions are somehow connected, yet it’s a thesis that goes undefended,” O’Bannon further noted. “How common sense regulations like right-to-know laws, which tell women about abortion’s risks and alternatives which are better for both them and their unborn children, and similar protective measures, are supposed to hurt poor women is hard to fathom.”

The researcher says the overall downward trend seems to indicate that such laws, along with the assistance provided by pregnancy care centers, which provide lifesaving alternatives to abortion, are enabling more women to choose life for their unborn child. However, several states – California, New York and at least a dozen others – publicly fund abortion for poor women with taxpayer money, which O’Bannon blames for increasing the abortion rates for poor women receiving the free or reduced-cost abortions.

“While the abortion industry saw declines among most demographic groups, it just happened to see growth among women for whom states were covering abortion costs,” observed O’Bannon. “The fact is, when tax dollars pay for abortion, you get more abortion.”

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), according to their own 2008-2009 annual report, showed over $1 billion in revenues, including $363.3 million in “Government Grants & Contracts” (an increase from $165 million in 1998).

Read more.

Obama Admin Dresses Down the Vatican Over Abortion

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

The contrast between the priorities of the developed and developing world was as clear as night and day.

“It is detrimental to not have adequate family planning resources,” a visibly upset US delegate told the room. “Why is there a resistance to acknowledging access to family planning as a necessity?”

The soft-spoken delegate from the small island nation of St. Lucia replied, “How do we get our fertility rate to rise? We were told we needed to reduce our fertility rate –now we have an aging population.”

Both voices spoke out during a UN panel hosted last week by the Holy See, Honduras, and Malta called “Secure Human Development: Marriage, Family, Community.” Laurie Shestack-Phipps, a US representative to the UN, castigated the Holy See and other organizers for not being “comprehensive” in their approach to the panel, specifically mentioning family planning and abortion. She complained further about high fertility rates in the poor countries of Africa.

Shestack-Phipps said, “How can you say that you value family, community, and marriage, but not bring into the picture that both men and women have a right to a healthy life, to be able to avoid unsafe abortion, and have access to the highest attainable standard of reproductive health, and to decide how many children they should have?”

The exchange between Shestack and of St. Lucia points up an irony at the UN. One the one side are rich countries demanding poor countries reduce their fertility rates and the poor countries saying they need higher fertility rates for not just development but survival. Almost half the countries in the world are facing what has come to be known as demographic winter, where fertility rates have fallen so dramatically that populations are rapidly aging.

The US delegate’s castigation on family planning, which ignored the demographic realities and actual desires of developing countries, is a microcosm of the current UN debates on population and development. The documents that guide this year’s Commission on Population and Development admit that most nations have achieved low fertility, yet the UN continues to ask donor nations for more and more money for family planning services and for what the UN euphemistically calls commodities: condoms, pills, and injectibles that prevent pregnancy.

Read more.

Obama Accused of Violating Abortion Funding Law

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

A pro-life group that uncovered how the University of North Carolina was requiring students to pay for abortions under a student health care plan says the Obama administration may be ignoring the Hyde Amendment.

Last year, Students for Life of America discovered that the UNC System was automatically enrolling their students in a health care plan that covered elective abortions. After working with UNC students and leading an effective grassroots campaign, SFLA forced the UNC Administration to modify its policy and allow students to “opt-out” of the abortion coverage.

After the expose’ and the followup actions, SFLA president Kristan Hawkins said she was worried that federal funds could have been involved in paying for the abortions, contravening federal law under the Hyde Amendment…

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina sent the Department of Education a letter in October asking Obama administration officials if they were aware of the abortion coverage included in the University of North Carolina System’s mandatory student health care policy and if they could prove that taxpayer funds were not paying for the abortion coverage.

On February 15, the U.S. Department of Education answered the letter. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote, “…the Department has not issued any regulations, guidance, or other official policy with regard to the Hyde amendment, nor has the Department relayed any information regarding the Hyde Amendment to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV and HEA programs.”

That prompts more concerns for Hawkins.

“The Department of Education is not upholding federal law which clearly states that taxpayer money is not to be used to pay for elective abortions,” she told LifeNews.com yesterday. “By not providing oversight, the Department of Education is allowing taxpayer money to fund elective student abortions at the University of North Carolina as well as in dozens of others universities across the country. Abortion is not health care and should not be a pre-requisite for learning.”

Read more.

New Record: More U.S. Abortions in 2009 Than Ever Before

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

A new report the Planned Parenthood national abortion business recently released shows the embattled agency did more abortions in 2009 than it has done in any prior year. The report also shows it providing fewer pregnant women with non-abortion services.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently posted on its website what it calls its service numbers for 2009. This document, dated February 2011, shows Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide did 332,278 surgical abortions or abortions using the dangerous RU 486 abortion during in 2009.

That’s 2.5 percent more abortions than the September 2010 report the abortion business released covering 2008 and showing it doing 324,008 abortions, which was a 6.1 percent increase over the 305,310 abortions it did in 2007. The 2007 figure was itself a 5.3 percent increase over the 289,750 abortions Planned Parenthood did in 2006.

With approximately 1.2 million abortions done annually in the United States via surgical abortions or the mifepristone abortion drug, Planned Parenthood has increased its share of the abortion industry to 27.6 percent of all abortions done annually.

Planned Parenthood has been on the receiving end of significant negative publicity related to undercover videos showing its officials helping investigators posing as sex traffickers obtain abortions and STD testing for underage girls who are victims of the sex trade. The abortion business has defended itself in part by attempting to show that abortions constitute a small percentage of its overall services.

However, the new numbers make it more clear that women who are pregnant who come to Planned Parenthood receive only abortion services rather than help and support.

The new document the abortion organization posted shows Planned Parenthood provided prenatal services to merely 7,021 women and referred only 977 women for adoption services. These numbers were a 25 percent drop in prenatal care clients and a whopping 59 percent decline in adoption referrals from the 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008. The abortion business helped only 9,433 prenatal clients in 2008, down substantially from the 11,000 women it provided prenatal care to in 2007 — showing health care given to pregnant woman has fallen substantially over the years.

As a result, 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care. That’s up from 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood getting abortions in 2008.

Read more.