if it seems we just had this debate, it is because we just had this debate. On February 13, this House by a vote of 220 to 209 decided to release these international family planning funds. We did so, 44 Republicans, 175 Democrats, and one Independent to 20 in all, so we knew at the end of the day if we are going to achieve the goals that we share, that we all share, including the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] that international family planning funds be available to help empower families to control the number of children that they have, that the only way to get that done is to do it without the entanglements of the Smith language, to pass language that is straightforward, that prevents these funds from being used for abortion, can be adopted by the Senate and signed by the President. When all is said and done, if we adopt the Smith amendment, we know that one of two things will happen: Either we will come back on another day and undo it, as we have in the past, or we will kill the program. Neither of those, certainly killing the program makes no sense. It makes no sense to do this simply for rhetorical reasons today, and come back and compromise as we have done each and every year. Let us do what is reasonable. Let us do what is sensible. Let us adopt the compromise which is embodied in the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment now, get it over with, and move on to the next issue.
Editor's note · Context
Debating the release of international family planning funds and the implications of the Smith amendment.
Share
More from James P. Greenwood
We cannot, we cannot get the reforms that are required to protect the investor in this country until we lance the boil. We have to pick the scab. We have to open the wound, look at it, allow it to be seen by the American people, to show…
Mr. Chairman, it has been a good debate so far. It was a good debate last year. This is about ethical and moral issues. The proponents of the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Weldon) bill have argued the ethical and moral issues against…
The gentleman proposes in his response to my question that women of America are going to line up for dollars so they can be superovulated, and it is the most ridiculous and disrespectful attitude towards women I can imagine. To think that…
My point was that contrary to the argument that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) made that the purpose of this research is strictly for the exploitation and destruction of human life is wrong, this is about hope. This is about…





