Sam Gejdenson: “there is some distance between myself and the gentleman who just completed speaking on this subject. While our interests…”

“there is some distance between myself and the gentleman who just completed speaking on this subject. While our interests may have differences, I certainly agree that we ought to reject the rule, and we ought to reject the bill. This is both bad policy and bad process. Bad process often is ignored, but it is usually a symptom of an inability to confront the real issues. It is wrong simply to take the Mexico City language and tie in knots our entire foreign policy apparatus. Additionally, I would say that those who are in favor of the Mexico City language in this bill, as earnest as they are, their logic is faulty. If their argument is that any dollars going to organizations that help with family planning are fungible, and thereby even 1 cent to tell people about birth control policies actually increase the availability of abortion, one, statistically that is wrong. If you look at countries where there is more information for alternatives, for education, for contraception, there is less abortion. But if you carry their argument to its illogical conclusion, you have to come away believing that even food assistance to these countries would somehow leave more dollars for family planning and other areas where there is an objection. I think the United States has a right to come to an agreement on a family planning policy that may not necessarily reflect my own views completely.”