Madam Chairman, since 1969 when the program was developed with the help of the United States of America, United Nations Family Planning Fund has met an incredible need. That need is that in developing countries in Africa and Asia and Central and South America, throughout the world, women find themselves hopelessly enmeshed in poverty without access to healthcare and without access to family planning services; and the result of that, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) said, they have more pregnancies than they can bear physically. They have more children than they can feed, and their children are condemned to another cycle of poverty. United Nations Family Planning Agency in 160 countries meets that need so women around the world have access as Americans do. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) wants to cut that program in half with this amendment, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) wants to make sure that in 159 of those countries access to this service is cut because in one country, China, something terrible happens and that is coercive abortions. But when the President sent his team over there to China to find out what UNFPA's role was, they said we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of the United Nations Family Planning Fund on women's health and poverty.
Share
More from James P. Greenwood
This bill is on the floor for one reason and one reason alone. That reason is that across this country there is a crisis. The crisis is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is so expensive that trauma centers have to close, that…
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…
it is fitting that this new hour follows that last 5-minute presentation which was a perfectly classic example of partisan rhetoric aimed more to gain political favor than to shed light on an issue. What we are going to do for the next…
the Nation is underprepared for a bioattack because we still lack centralized biodefense leadership.





