January 28, 2009

Mexico City Policy Amendment to H.R. 2

Mr. Martinez: Madam President, while we're debating SCHIP and considering the best ways to promote healthy children in our country, we're going to look at many amendments covering a wide range of topics. Whether we support expanding this program or not, everyone in the chamber wants children to have the best health care available. But into this broad ranged debate I've also introduced an amendment to reinstate the Mexico City Policy - the policy that prohibits U.S. foreign assistance from going to groups in foreign countries that support or perform abortions.

The fact of the matter is that we often talk about promoting a culture of life. We talk during political campaigns about how we all wished we had fewer abortions and how we wish to promote all other alternatives like adoption. In fact, we want abortion to be rare. However, actions really do matter, and last Friday President Obama changed the tone of this conversation by approving the use of taxpayer dollars to fund international organizations responsible for performing and promoting adoption in every corner of the world.

Today I'm proposing an amendment, to H.R. 2, the SCHIP Bill, that would return this policy to its original intent, which is to restrict the use of taxpayer money to family planning organizations that are known to perform and promote abortion. This policy, known as the Mexico City Policy, was first signed into Executive Order by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Over the years the policy has been wrongly attacked and characterized as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. This policy is not about reducing aid, but it is instead about ensuring that family planning funds are funds are given to organizations dedicated to reducing abortions instead of promoting them. Reversing this policy means there is no longer a clear line between funding organizations that aim to reduce abortions and those that promote abortions as a means of contraception. If not reversed, the funding would enable organizations to perform and promote abortions in regions such as Latin America and countries in the Middle East and Africa, where the sanctity of life is not only respected but in many instances it is the law of the land, and in fact where strong religious convictions make this practice abhorrent.

The United States is a generous country. We give to countries around the world for many reasons and for many purposes. But at the same time we also want to be on the positive side of respecting the culture of so many of the countries that would be impacted by this dramatic change that has been United States policy abroad. So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, restoring the Mexico City Policy first enacted by President Ronald Reagan and then reenacted again by our last president.

It is necessary if we want to continue fostering a culture of life, where every life is sacred, every child is celebrated, and life at all stages is given the dignity that it deserves, that we support this amendment in promoting life, in standing up for the things that we say during campaigns we believe in, which is promoting a culture of life. And looking for abortions to be rare and to be the last option and to not be something that comes into the picture as a result of a desire to use it as a family planning tool and not with the understanding that it is disrespecting the very sanctity of life that we all believe ought to be observed from the moment of conception until the end of life.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

...

Closing Statement Prior to Vote

This amendment is to reinstate the Mexico City Policy which President Obama just a couple of days ago eliminated with the stroke of a pen.

Much has been said in opposition to this amendment, which I think is erroneous. I think at the core of what this amendment is about, it's about whether we want United States taxpayer dollars -- my taxes, as someone who finds abortion to not be something that I can live with, which is not consistent with my faith and personal beliefs -- whether my tax dollars and that of other people similarly situated should be utilized to fund family planning that utilizes abortion as a means of family planning with organizations abroad.

That, I think, is wrong. That, I think, is abhorrent. It isn't about denying organizations family health assistance when they're just simply looking after a person's health. It is about those rare exceptions of rape and incest which are dragged in to try to make what is unjustifiable justifiable.

Abortion should not be utilized as a means of family planning. We talk about wanting to have fewer abortions, not more. To have it be rare, not frequent. But then we do things like this, and that is completely contrary to what is the avowed intent of what so often is portrayed as the position on this issue during political campaigns.

This policy does not restrict foreign aid funding. It is to ensure that American taxpayer dollars do not go to promote nor support abortion or abortion-related services. I think it's that simple. I hope that my colleagues will join in this effort. This is about what the taxpayer dollars of America should be funding overseas in countries where very often we find that the culture and the religion of the host country is consistent with the Mexico City Policy. So this is a vote to reinstate the Mexico City Policy which has been the policy of this country until last week. I hope and urge my colleagues to support Amendment 65.