I am suggesting that public policy can make us all hypocrites. The point is that without these funds, the consequences are real. The consequences are 1,600 women dying every day because their pregnancies are too closely spaced together, because their bodies are too young, their bodies are too old to sustain that pregnancy, they die of postpartum hemorrhage. Five hundred eighty thousand women die a year because they do not have access to good reproductive health services, and it is hypocritical for any of us to suggest that we want to, in the name of reducing the number of abortions, allow that to occur. It is wrong to allow 7 million infants a year around the world to die because they are born to women who cannot nourish them, they are born into families that cannot sustain them. That is an awful consequence to pay for a moral principle. It is wrong and most ironic that the consequence of the Smith amendment is millions and millions of more abortions around the world, because we will not stop abortions by simply prohibiting agencies from participating in family planning funds. That defies common sense on its face. In fact, what we do have is an explosive growth of abortions in those places around the world where women do not have access to family planning. My colleagues, please support the Campbell-Greenwood amendment. It accomplishes what we all want to accomplish. It reduces human suffering.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the consequences of restricting access to reproductive health services during a debate on the Smith amendment.
Share
More from James P. Greenwood
I think that people need to understand that when one has given 24 years of one's life to public service, that doesn't mean that they owe the next 24 years of their lives.
The only thing that stands between these pandemic viruses and intentional bioterror attacks... is, frankly, a handful of private companies in this country who were willing to take the risk of developing countermeasures.
We are not organized as a Government to effectively and quickly respond to either pandemics or bioterror because the authorities are diffuse.
the threat growing while the capacity to defend against it is decreasing?--the answer to that question is absolutely yes.





