Family Planning != Abortion

Michael Gerson seems confused. In a Washington Post article, the conservative columnist says President-elect Obama needs to be aware of certain “tripwires that could trigger explosive controversy such as embryonic stem cell research and abortion."

Before moving on, I'll remind folks that embryonic stem cell research enjoys fairly widespread support in the House and Senate – in 2007, S. 5 passed the Senate 63-34 and the House 247-176 - and that was before the Democrats gained themselves a whole mess of seats.

Back to the main point... A massive assault? You mean of the kind perpetrated by Republicans on poor woman at home and abroad?

Leaving aside stem cell research, Gerson writes, "There are at least 16 provisions passed routinely by Congress that limit governmental involvement in abortion and other life issues -- measures that prevent the domestic funding of abortion, forbid the use of international family planning funds for abortion, protect the rights of medical professionals to refuse involvement in the procedure and prohibit the patenting of human life. Removing this firewall between government and abortion would seem -- and be -- a massive assault on the pro-life movement.”

When Gerson writes of forbidding international family planning funds for abortion, he isn't telling you the whole story. See, the US contribution to international family planning funds haven't been used for abortion.

In 1984, then Asst. Secretary of State and always-a-bridesmaid-never-a-bride Alan Keyes  formulated a policy that denied federal family planning funds to any organization that advocated, counseled, referred, or performed abortion services. Even if they did so with their own privately raised funds. I want to be absolutely clear what this means. It means that a group such as Marie Stopes or International Planned Parenthood is barred from receiving any US funds to purchase or distribute condoms, counsel rape victims, treat fistula, etc. There are no exceptions for life endangerment, rape, or incest.

This policy, commonly referred to as the Global Gag Rule, was in force from 1985-1993. One of Bill Clinton's first acts in office was to rescind the rule. He also began funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which had been accused of supporting coerced abortion in China.

When W. was inaugurated in 2001, he reinstated the policy and denied funding to UNFPA. Bush once again blamed the UNFPA's involvement in coerced abortion, despite a 2002 State Department report to the contrary.And UNFPA's own policy adhereing to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development which forbids abortion as a method of family planning.

If the prolife movement were truly so, rather than just antichoice, then they'd be sitting alongside the prochoice community in advocating for the repeal of the Global Gag Rule and for full UNFPA funding. What could be more prolife than supporting programs that provide critically necessary family planning services to women and girls? Programs that prevent postpartum hemorrhage, reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV, offer condoms and contraceptives, promotes gender equity, and educate youth and adults about responsible sexual behavior. Yes, some provide abortion services but not with sacred American tax dollars.

If saving the lives of poor women and children constitutes a massive assault on the prolife movement, I can only hope the next four years are filled with overwhelming shows of force.