Sue Myrick: “I urge a yes vote on Smith-Barcia-Hyde- Oberstar, which will restore the pro-life Mexico City policy; and a no vote on…”

“I urge a yes vote on Smith-Barcia-Hyde- Oberstar, which will restore the pro-life Mexico City policy; and a no vote on the Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter amendment, which would substitute vagueness for clarity and, therefore, defeat the purpose of this important pro-life policy. The question before the House is simple: Should the United States give many millions of dollars for family planning programs to organizations actively engaged in performing abortions overseas? When we choose the surrogates in foreign countries, the groups that will represent our country in matters related to family planning and population control, do we really want to choose organizations that are known primarily as abortion providers? What message does this send about American values? The substitute amendment would substitute a vague, and therefore, unenforceable standard, promoting abortion as a method of family planning for the clear and precise standard in the Smith-Barcia amendment. Under the substitute language, U.S. family planning grantees can promote abortion as vigorously as they want, so long as the Clinton administration was willing to certify that these abortions were not done as a method of family planning. The Smith-Barcia amendment, in contrast, would prohibit our grantees from either performing or promoting abortion, except in three cases clearly defined: rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. Mr.…”