[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E215-E216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  INTERNATIONAL POPULATION ASSISTANCE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DAVID E. SKAGGS

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 11, 1997

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps as soon as next week we will be 
debating the first foreign policy question to come before the House in 
this Congress--the rate of expenditure of appropriated funds for 
international population assistance.
  This is a very important matter, one that will directly affect the 
quality of life of individuals and families around the world. It 
deserves careful attention by all Members.
  Central to the debate will be the relationship between the 
restrictions that some seek to place on international assistance in 
this area and the incidence of abortion.
  A recent issue of the Durango Herald included an article by the 
President of the Population Institute discussing exactly this point. 
Because I believe that it makes points that should be considered in the 
upcoming debate, I am including it in the Record for the benefit of all 
Members.

              [From The Durango (CO) Herald, Feb. 2, 1997]

Debunking Abortion Myths--Increased Contraceptive Use Decreases Rate of 
                                Abortion

                           (By Werner Fornos)

       Sometimes the line between dedication and obsession is 
     pencil-thin.
       An example is the 1994 shooting spree by anti-choice 
     fanatic John C. Salvi III that left two dead and five injured 
     at two health clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts.

[[Page E216]]

       Another example is the effort by anti-choice forces in 
     Congress to kill U.S. government international family 
     planning efforts.
       It is far-fetched to compare a psychotic murder to elected 
     federal lawmakers? Perhaps. Then again, when reactionaries to 
     Congress succeeded in slashing 1996 overseas population 
     assistance by 35 percent a consortium of experts 
     conservatively estimated that the cut would result in 4 
     million more unplanned pregnancies, 2 million more unintended 
     births, 1.6 million more abortions, 134,000 more infant 
     deaths, and 8,000 more maternal deaths from pregnancy and 
     childbirth complications.
       The madman Salvi had a smoking gun, while the self-styled 
     defenders of ``the sanctity of life'' and ``the rights of the 
     unborn'' in Congress had the clout to deny contraceptives to 
     poor women throughout the world. But who was more dangerous?
       Although Congress last year appropriated $385 million for 
     international population assistance in 1997, it added caveats 
     that none of the amount could be spent until July 1--nine 
     months into the fiscal year--and then at the rate of only 8 
     percent per month.''
       It has been estimated that the moratorium and metering of 
     the funds will lead to even more unintended pregnancies, 
     births, abortions and infant and maternal deaths than the 35 
     percent budget cut was expected to last year.
       Consequences of the punitive withholding of the 
     appropriation may include shortages of contraceptive 
     supplies, closure of family planning clinics and sharp 
     reductions in nearly all U.S. government population 
     programs--including those in countries most in need such as 
     Bangladesh, Kenya and Peru.
       In addition, many countries with large populations and a 
     large unmet need for family planning--including Indonesia and 
     Mexico, with a combined population of 300 million--may be 
     unable to receive U.S. funds that would be used in programs 
     where there is even greater need.
       Ironically, the restrictions placed on international 
     population programs was instigated by lawmakers who claim to 
     oppose abortion. These same members of Congress are well 
     aware that U.S. funds have been prohibited from financing 
     abortion for nearly a quarter of a century.
       Moreover, an estimated 32 million abortions take place in 
     the developing world annually and more than half are unsafe 
     or clandestine and believed to result in 70,000 preventable 
     maternal deaths each year.
       There is ample evidence that when contraceptive use 
     increases, abortion rates decline.
       In the late 1960s there were close to 80 abortions per 
     1,000 women in Hungary, while contraceptive use was at a low 
     20 percent level. A subsequent rise in contraceptive use to 
     more than 30 percent of couples in 1978 was accompanied by a 
     reduction in abortions to just over 30 per 1,000 women.
       A 24 percent increase in contraceptive use was recorded in 
     Mexico City from 1987 to 1992, while the abortion rate 
     dropped during the same period from 41 to 25 per 1,000 women.
       Contraceptive use in South Korea increased from 24 percent 
     in 1971 to 77 percent in 1988, while lifetime abortion rates 
     per woman declined from a peak of 2.9 per woman in 1978 to 
     1.9 by 1991.
       The 1997 U.S. international population assistance law 
     permits the president to submit to Congress by Feb. 1 
     findings showing that withholding funds will be detrimental 
     to family planning program efforts. Both houses will vote in 
     February on whether or not to accept the president's 
     findings. Acceptance allows the appropriation to be released 
     as early as March 1, rather than by July 1.
       Colorado's newly elected U.S. Senator Wayne Allard who 
     voted against overseas family planning programs as a member 
     of the House of Representatives, and all members of the 
     states congressional delegation should consider the 
     devastating consequences of denying contraceptives to women 
     in poor countries when he casts his vote on the president's 
     findings in February.

                          ____________________