WASHINGTON— Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt was praised for defending physicians’ conscience rights by Deirdre McQuade, spokesperson on pro-life issues for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. She made her comments on March 19 following a public attack on Secretary Leavitt by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

The attack was prompted by a March 14 letter from Secretary Leavitt to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG), expressing concern about a new ethics opinion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) calling on conscientiously opposed physicians to perform or refer for abortions. Ms. McQuade’s statement follows.

“Secretary Leavitt should be commended for defending federal laws protecting the conscience rights of physicians. The new ACOG ethics opinion calling on pro-life OB/GYNs to perform or refer for abortions is in direct conflict with the policy reflected in federal law since 1973. Indeed, just yesterday, a federal judge in California dismissed a challenge to a federal law protecting physicians in government programs from being forced to do abortion referrals.
 
“If the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology relies on the ACOG opinion when deciding whether to grant board certifications, hospitals could find themselves illegally discriminating against perfectly qualified physicians who have been denied certification for ideological reasons. Any HHS Secretary should be concerned about the possibility of federal health care institutions placing themselves in conflict with federal law.
 
“The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights (RCRR), formerly known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, has nonetheless launched a personal attack on Secretary Leavitt for doing his job. RCRR’s March 18 news release accuses the Secretary of displaying a ‘narrow view of conscience,’ ‘disregard’ for women,’ and a ‘dogmatic indifference to the patient.’ 
 
“But it is RCRR that has a narrow view of conscience – so narrow as to recognize a genuine conscience claim only among those who happen to agree with RCRR about abortion. In fact, women and men, physicians and non-physicians, have a fundamental right not to be forced to participate in actions they believe are gravely wrong, especially actions involving the taking of an innocent human life. Moreover, most OB/GYNs in training today are themselves women, and these women have rights, too.
 
“The abortion industry -- and its allies in medical groups -- have often complained that so few doctors are willing to perform abortions, but that is no excuse for coercing pro-life physicians to do their dirty work. The movement that used to call itself “pro-choice” is becoming a parody of itself.”
 

The following letter appeared in the Fargo Forum on March 7, 2008. We have posted it here with citations to the referenced studies.

Dear Editor:

Planned Parenthood’s Amy Jacobson argues that North Dakota needs more subsidized family planning to reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Her letter, however, overlooks some important facts.
 
For one thing, North Dakota and the federal government already spend over two million dollars a year for family planning services in the state. 1  

Predictably, Planned Parenthood, a major recipient of government funding nationally, thinks two million dollars is not enough and wants North Dakota’s taxpayers to spend more money.  We should not be fooled.  Ample evidence now exists showing that the contraception and “comprehensive sex education” campaigns cannot achieve their alleged goals of reducing abortions and unplanned pregnancies.
 
A report from Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, shows that states that most aggressively promote contraceptives have some of the highest abortion rates in the country.  States that do not, like Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota, have the lowest abortion and teen pregnancy rates. 2 Studies from other countries also show the ineffectiveness of contraceptive programs.3  Concludes one recent overview: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.”4  New studies also show that large part of the reduced abortion rate in recent years is due to an increase in the number of teens nationwide who delay initiating sexual activity,5 in effect, responding to the very “abstinence only” initiatives Planned Parenthood wants to eliminate.
 
Finally, we cannot ignore that in Planned Parenthood’s view, “comprehensive reproductive health care” includes unfettered access to, and taxpayer funding for, abortion.  Policies that limit abortion, however, such as restricting public funding, ensuring informed consent for women seeking abortions, and protecting parental rights in the case of minors seeking abortions, have a well-documented and significant effect of reducing abortions.6
 
In short, Planned Parenthood says it wants to reduce abortion, but proposes only failed, and ultimately flawed, government programs. 

Christopher Dodson
Executive Director
North Dakota Catholic Conference


1. (Public Funding for Family Planning, Sterilization and Abortion Services, FY 1980–2006; Adam Sonfield, Casey Alrich and Rachel Benson Gold; Guttmacher Institute, January 2008)

2. http://www.guttmacher.org

3. David Paton, “The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions,” Journal of Health Economics, 21.2 (March 2002): 207-225; abstract available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8K-4537PJR-3/2/7b0ac0ed4b84065fae3119e1663e50bc; Edgardh, K. et al. Adolescent Sexual Health in Sweden, Sex Trans Inf 78 (2002): 352-6, available at http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/78/5/352

4. Douglas Kirby, “Reflections on Two Decades of Research on Teen Sexual Behavior and Pregnancy,” Journal of School Health 69.3 (March 1999.)

5. JK Mohn et al. “An analysis of the causes of the decline in non-marital birth and pregnancy rates for teens from 1991-1995,” Adolescent and Family Health 2003; 339-47; available at www.afhjournal.org; National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, “Science Says: Pregnancy Among Sexually Experienced Teens, 2002,” No. 23, April 2006, available at www.teenpregnancy.org/press/pdf/sciencesays23.pdf.

6. Theodore Joyce et al., “Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law,” New England Journal of Medicine, 354: 1031-1038 (March 9, 2006); available at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/10/1031; [The authors. found a reduction in abortion rates among minor teens in Texas following enactment of that state’s parental notification law. “[A]bortion rates fell by 11 percent among 15-year-olds, … 20 percent among 16-year-olds, and 16 percent among 17-year-olds, … relative to the rates among 18-year-olds.” Joyce et al. also report: “Results from [five] previous studies have indicated that the abortion rate of minors decreases 13 to 42 percent after enforcement of a parental notification or consent law, if abortions are measured according to state of occurrence.”]; J. “Impact of Minnesota Parental Notification Law on abortion and birth,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, Issue 3, 294-298. See also Michael New, “Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1900s,” Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Report #04-01 (2004), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA04-01.cfm. [“The pre-enactment to post-enactment change in the Minnesota abortion rate reflected a greater decline for minors (less than or equal to 17 years old) than for 18-19 year-olds (who were not under the law). An increase in abortion rate occurred for women ages 20-44. The law appeared to have had no impact on birth rate in minors. … These data suggest that parental notification facilitated pregnancy avoidance in 15-17 year-old Minnesota women. Abortion rates declined unexpectedly while birth rates continued to decline in accordance with a long-term trend.”]; M. New, "Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors," Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Report #07-01 (2007), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA07-01.cfm; M. New, “Using Natural Experiments to Analyze the Impact of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion,” Heritage Center for Data Analysis Report #06-01 (January 23, 2006); available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-01.cfm.

Today, February 26, the U.S. Senate approved the Vitter Amendment, 52-yes, 42-no, 6-not voting (Roll Call 30). The Vitter Amendment places the language of the Hyde Amendment abortion funding restrictions in the bill reauthorizing the Indian Health Service, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments, S. 1200.

Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan voted AGAINST the amendment.
 
Please contact them and express your disappointment that they did not support this amendment to ensure that taxpayer funds are not used for abortion on demand.

Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Washington: (202) 224-2551
Bismarck: (701) 250-4618
Toll Free: 1-800-666-4482
Fargo: (701) 239-5389
Grand Forks: (701) 746-8972
Minot: (701) 852-0703
senator@dorgan.senate.gov

Senator Kent Conrad
Washington: (202) 224-2043
Bismarck: (701) 258-4648
Toll Free: 1-800-223-4457
Fargo: Telephone: (701) 232-8030
Grand Forks: Telephone: (701) 775-9601
Minot: Telephone: (701) 852-0703
senator@conrad.senate.gov
   

Late Wednesday afternoon, February 13, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the Senate would re-commence consideration of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments (S. 1200), and that consideration would continue through Thursday, February 14, and Friday, February 15, until work on the bill is completed
Pending since January 22 is an amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) that would incorporate the language of the Hyde Amendment into the authorizing legislation. NCHLA issued an Action Alert in support of the Vitter Amendment on January 18. Please take whatever last minute efforts you can to urge your two Senators to vote for the Vitter Amendment. For NCHLA’s latest alert, see: nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=259. Thanks!
For the earlier alert see: http://ndcatholic.org/2/index.html#unique-entry-id-432

Urge Senators to Support Vitter Amendment to Restrict Indian Health Service Funding for Abortion

On Tuesday, January 22, the U.S. Senate is expected to take up a reauthorization bill for the Indian Health Service.  Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is prepared to offer the Hyde Amendment language as an amendment to this bill.  The amendment would, as is the case of all other federal programs, prohibit the use of Indian Health Service funds to pay for abortions except to save the life of the mother, and in cases of rape or incest.

It is especially important to reach Senator Byron Dorgan. Senator Dorgan has supported the Hyde Amendment in the past. However, as sponsor of the Indian Health Service reauthorization bill and chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, he may resist any floor amendments to the bill. Urge Senator Dorgan to not resist the Vitter Amendment and to support the amendment when it comes to a vote.

Message: Please support the Vitter Amendment to the Indian Health Services bill, to limit taxpayer funding for abortion.

When: Now! The Senate will vote on this as early as Tuesday. Note: Monday is a federal holiday.

Who: Senator Byron Dorgan and Senator Kent Conrad

Where:

Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Washington: (202) 224-2551
Bismarck: (701) 250-4618
Toll Free: 1-800-666-4482
Fargo: (701) 239-5389
Grand Forks: (701) 746-8972
Minot: (701) 852-0703
senator@dorgan.senate.gov

Senator Kent Conrad
Washington: (202) 224-2043
Bismarck: (701) 258-4648
Toll Free: 1-800-223-4457
Fargo: Telephone: (701) 232-8030
Grand Forks: Telephone: (701) 775-9601
Minot: Telephone: (701) 852-0703
senator@conrad.senate.gov

Click here for more information on the Vitter Amendment.

Please call your Senators and tell them to support a State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill that includes codifying the unborn child rule.  
 
The Senate is expected to vote on the SCHIP bill the week of October 29.
 
You may call your Senators through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 or:

Senator Kent Conrad
Washington: (202) 224-2043
Bismarck: (701) 258-4648
Toll Free: 1-800-223-4457
Fargo: Telephone: (701) 232-8030
Grand Forks: Telephone: (701) 775-9601
Minot: Telephone: (701) 852-0703
senator@conrad.senate.gov

Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Washington: (202) 224-2551
Bismarck: (701) 250-4618
Toll Free: 1-800-666-4482
Fargo: (701) 239-5389
Grand Forks: (701) 746-8972
Minot: (701) 852-0703
senator@dorgan.senate.gov

  
Action Needed:
 
Congress should improve the SCHIP bill and garner strong bipartisan support. The bill can be improved in ways that will strengthen and increase support for SCHIP by making the regulation providing states the option to enroll the unborn child in their SCHIP programs permanent.
 
A final SCHIP reauthorization should codify the unborn child rule, so states are secure in being able to choose life-affirming health services for needy children and their mothers without involvement in abortion. Without the unborn child option, the only way states could provide prenatal care would be by defining the pregnant woman as the patient in need of “child health assistance," which would trigger funding for abortion. Also, many children born as U.S. citizens would not receive needed prenatal care because of their mother’s immigration status.
 
The legislation should also maintain and expand coverage, reduce enrollment barriers, and expand outreach. Sufficient funding should be included in order to provide health care coverage to an additional four million more low-income children, reducing the number of uninsured children by nearly half. 

USCCB Position:
 
“As Catholic organizations united by our common faith and committed to the principles of Catholic social teaching, we recognize and affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and the inherent dignity of every human being. We consider access to adequate health care to be a basic human right, necessary for the development and maintenance of life and for the ability of human beings to realize the fullness of their dignity. A just society is one that protects and promotes fundamental human rights and dignity, with special attention to meeting the basic needs of children and the vulnerable, including the need for safe and affordable health care.” (Letter to Senate Budget Committee from USCCB, Catholic Charities USA, and Catholic Health Association, March 15, 2007)
 
“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has worked persistently to support and strengthen the nation’s vital efforts to provide adequate and affordable health care, especially to the most vulnerable members of our society, our children. We have joined with Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities USA to encourage Congress to strengthen, expand and improve the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). We urge the Congress not to turn away from this essential national priority, but to renew its efforts to enact a strong, effective and improved national investment in the health of our children.
 
...We are convinced the bill can also be improved in ways that will strengthen and increase support for SCHIP. In 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services improved SCHIP by allowing states to interpret the word “child” in the statute to include the period from conception to birth. Twelve states (AR, CA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MN, RI, TN, TX, WA, WI) have already chosen to provide health care to pregnant women and their unborn children under this regulatory option.
 
Codifying this option will allow states to retain choice and  flexibility in how best to provide essential health services to pregnant women and children. Access to prenatal care will allow more children to be born in good health, without a need for more extensive and expensive medical intervention. States will be able to choose improved coverage for unborn children and their mothers, without being required to expand state funding for abortions which would be especially tragic in a program dedicated to the lives and health of children…” (Letter to members of U.S. Congress from Bishop DiMarzio, Chairman of the USCCB Domestic Policy Committee, October 24, 2007)

 
We urge Congress not to turn away from the effort to reauthorize SCHIP. Congress has a responsibility to support this successful program and improve it by including coverage of the unborn child. Congress should enact a strong, effective, and improved national investment in the health of our children.
 

Background:
 
The SCHIP program is now in the process of being reauthorized. Temporary funding for SCHIP has been included in the Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res. 52) that will keep the government running to November 16, 2007. A first bill (H.R. 976) was vetoed by the president, and the veto was sustained. A revised bill (H.R. 3963) was passed by the House on October 25, 2007 by a vote of 265-142. This is not a veto proof majority. It is expected that the Senate will act on the legislation during this week. The president has threatened to veto the revised bill in its current form.

For more information on the unborn child rule see: http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=258
To see a copy of at letter from USCCB to the Senators: http://ndcatholic.org/files/SenateSCHIPLetter.pdf

WASHINGTON—A spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Deirdre McQuade, praised the Senate’s vote last night to maintain the longstanding federal law against any involvement in coercive abortion programs overseas.  She also faulted the Senate for voting to overturn the Mexico City Policy, which denies U.S. funds to organizations that perform and promote abortion as a method of family planning.  Both votes occurred during debate on the State Department/Foreign Operations appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2764).

On September 6, the Senate voted 48-to-45 to approve an amendment by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to restore the “Kemp-Kasten Amendment” deleted from the bill in committee.  Since 1985, this provision has denied U.S. funds to any organization or program that, as determined by the President, “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

“I commend the Senate for refusing to participate in such atrocities against vulnerable women and their children in the developing world,” Ms. McQuade said.  “At the same time, it is disconcerting to think that this was considered debatable at all – and that the vote was so close. By a vote of 53 to 41, the Senate also passed an amendment by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to negate the Mexico City Policy. An amendment offered by Senator Brownback to reinstate the policy was defeated by the same margin.
           
“After witnessing their good sense on the Kemp-Kasten provision, I am extremely disheartened to see our Senators reject the Mexico City Policy,” Ms. McQuade said.

In a letter sent to all Senators before the votes, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities, had urged Senators to preserve both the Mexico City and Kemp-Kasten policies.  Without the Mexico City policy, he said, “abortion-promoting organizations will exploit their status as the conduits for U.S. aid to promote abortion to vulnerable women in the Third World.”

Before the votes, President George W. Bush also reaffirmed his pledge to veto any appropriations bill that “weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion.”  Deirdre McQuade expressed her appreciation for the President’s veto pledge: “We are very grateful to the President for his commitment to these basic, long-standing policies protecting both mother and child.  We hope and expect that due to his pledge, and the pledge by many members of Congress to uphold such a veto, the Mexico City Policy will be preserved in law this year.”

The full text of Cardinal Rigali’s letter to the Senate can be found at:  www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/foreignops2008.pdf

The U.S. bishops decried Amnesty International’s recent decision to support abortion, calling the change in the organization’s longstanding position divisive and an affront to “people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights.” The bishops also urged the organization to reverse its policy to correct its error. Their position was outlined in an August 23 statement from Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The statement follows.

A Statement of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Bishop William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane
August 23, 2007
 

After nearly a year of dialogue with leaders of Amnesty International (AI), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly protests the recent action of AI’s International Council to promote worldwide access to abortion.  This basic policy change undermines Amnesty’s longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and others who defend the rights of unborn children) and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights. 


Amnesty International's action will lead many people of conscience to seek alternative means to end grave human rights abuses, fight injustice, and promote freedom of conscience and expression.  The essential work of protecting human life and promoting human dignity must
carry on.  We must continue to oppose the use of the death penalty and the crushing effects of dehumanizing poverty. We must continue to stand with prisoners of conscience, refugees and migrants, and other oppressed peoples. But we will seek to do so in authentic ways, working most closely with organizations who do not oppose the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death.
           
To some, the action of Amnesty International may appear to be a compassionate response to women in difficult situations of pregnancy, but this is a false compassion.  True commitment to women's rights puts us in solidarity with women and their unborn children.  It does not pit one against the other but calls us to advocate on behalf of both.  As our Conference has argued, a far more compassionate response is to provide support and services for pregnant women, advance their educational and economic standing in society, and resist all forms of violence and stigmatization against women.  The Catholic Church provides these services to many women around the world and will continue to do so.
        
    We call upon Amnesty International once again to act in accord with its noblest principles, reconsider its error, and reverse its policy on abortion.       
       

CATHOLIC BISHOPS URGE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TO RESTORE ITS NEUTRAL POSITION ON ABORTION
 
WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops have joined persons urging Amnesty International to restore its neutral position on abortion and to reverse a recent decision by its executive council to take a pro-abortion stand.
            The bishops’ position was outlined in a July 2 statement from Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He urged Amnesty International to reverse the decision when its International Council meets in Mexico in August.
            “The action of the Executive Council undermines Amnesty’s longstanding moral credibility, diverts its mission, divides its own members (many of whom are Catholic or defend the rights of unborn children), and jeopardizes Amnesty’s support by people in many nations, cultures and religion,” Bishop Skylstad said.
            Bishop Skylstad noted the words of Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who recently said that “if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support, because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission.” 
            Amnesty International was founded by a Catholic layman, Peter Benenson, and has been a beacon of hope to thousands of prisoners of conscience and victims of abuse and torture.
            “AI has been a source of inspiration to millions of supporters, including the many Catholics who are members,” Bishop Skylstad said. “Much more urgent work remains, work which we believe will be harmed by this unprecedented and unnecessary involvement in the abortion debate.
            “While the proposed action by Amnesty International may appear to some to support women’s freedom or provide a compassionate response to women in difficult situations of pregnancy, abortion injures the health and dignity of women at the same time that it ends the life of the unborn child,” Bishop Skylstad added. “A far more compassionate response is to provide support and services for pregnant women, advance their educational and economic standing in society, and resist all forms of violence and stigmatization against them.  The Catholic Church provides these services to many women around the world and commits itself to continuing to do so.
            “Based on this commitment to women, the Church does not object to AI’s stand against criminal penalties for women who have undergone abortion.  In fact, the Catholic Church has long held that these women need compassion and healing, not punishment.  However, AI’s policy also exempts abortion practitioners from meaningful penalties and thereby trivializes the harm done by abortion.  AI’s new policy appears to apply to every stage of pregnancy and has already led AI-USA to oppose laws against the killing of partially-delivered children.  Similarly, the policy of advancing access to abortion to preserve women’s ‘health,’ a word left undefined by AI, has not confined the practice to narrow circumstances, but in American law has led to abortion on demand.” 
            The complete statement follows.

A Plea to Amnesty International Members
A Statement of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Bishop William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane
July 2, 2007

 
It is deeply disappointing that the Executive Council of Amnesty International (AI) recently abandoned Amnesty International’s neutral stance on abortion to take a pro-abortion position.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been among those urging Amnesty to reject this proposed change when its International Council meets in August; however, action by Amnesty’s Executive Council in April 2007 preempted this process.  I call upon the members of Amnesty’s International Council to reverse this decision.

The action of the Executive Council undermines Amnesty’s longstanding moral credibility, diverts its mission, divides its own members (many of whom are Catholic or defend the rights of unborn children), and jeopardizes Amnesty’s support by people in many nations, cultures and religions.  As Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, recently said, “if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support, because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission.”        

For many years, the Catholic community in the United States and elsewhere has admired and worked with Amnesty International in its efforts to advance the cause of universal human rights.  Founded by a Catholic layman, Peter Benenson, Amnesty International has been a beacon of hope to thousands of prisoners of conscience and victims of abuse and torture.  In this regard AI has been a source of inspiration to millions of supporters, including the many Catholics who are members.  Much more urgent work remains, work which we believe will be harmed by this unprecedented and unnecessary involvement in the abortion debate.

            While the proposed action by Amnesty International may appear to some to support women’s freedom or provide a compassionate response to women in difficult situations of pregnancy, abortion injures the health and dignity of women at the same time that it ends the life of the unborn child.   A far more compassionate response is to provide support and services for pregnant women, advance their educational and economic standing in society, and resist all forms of violence and stigmatization against them.  The Catholic Church provides these services to many women around the world and commits itself to continuing to do so.

            Based on this commitment to women, the Church does not object to AI’s stand against criminal penalties for women who have undergone abortion.  In fact, the Catholic Church has long held that these women need compassion and healing, not punishment.  However, AI’s policy also exempts abortion practitioners from meaningful penalties and thereby trivializes the harm done by abortion.  AI’s new policy appears to apply to every stage of pregnancy and has already led AI-USA to oppose laws against the killing of partially-delivered children.  Similarly, the policy of advancing access to abortion to preserve women’s “health,” a word left undefined by AI, has not confined the practice to narrow circumstances, but in American law has led to abortion on demand. 

            I urge the members of the International Council of Amnesty International, when they meet in Mexico in August, to reconsider and rescind this new policy.  It is never too late to seek justice for all vulnerable and oppressed members of the human family.

This information was received from the Bishops' National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. Concerned North Dakotans should contact Representative Pomeroy to express disappointment with his votes.

Committee Bill Negated Policy
As reported to the House floor, the Fiscal Year 2008 State/Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2764) contained language (Section 622) that would negate the Administration’s Mexico City Policy (MCP). The bill stated: ". . . no contract or grant which includes funding for the provision of contraceptives in developing countries, shall be denied to any nongovernmental organization solely on the basis of the policy contained in the President’s March 28, 2001, Memorandum to the Administrator of United States Agency for International Development. . . ."
In the referenced 2001 memorandum, the President restored the MCP, which provides that U.S. international family planning funds can be given only to nongovernmental organizations that do not perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. H.R. 2764 would appropriate $441 million for global population assistance. The MCP does not reduce this funding level. It only guarantees that the monies would be used for family planning and not to support organizations that seek to export abortion on request into vulnerable poor countries.
Two Floor Amendments
Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) announced that on the floor they would offer an amendment to strike the pertinent language in Section 622 and uphold the MCP.
However, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), chairwoman of the committee that produced H.R. 2764, announced that she would modify the language in Section 622. In time, it became clear that the Lowey Amendment would strike "which includes funding for the provision of contraceptives in developing countries" and substitute "for the exclusive purpose of providing donated contraceptives in developing countries." Not funding contraceptives but donating contraceptives. The rest of Section 622 remained the same, including the reference to the President’s MCP.
The Floor Votes
On June 21, during floor debate on H.R. 2764, the House approved the Lowey Amendment modifying Section 622, 223-yes, 201-no, 14-not voting (Roll Call 533). "No" was a pro-life vote. Immediately thereafter, the House rejected the Smith/Stupak Amendment, 205-yes, 218-no, 14-not voting (Roll Call 534). "Yes" was a pro-life vote. The Smith/Stupak Amendment would have struck the language in Section 622 as modified by the Lowey Amendment.
Administration Reaffirmed Veto Pledge
Two days before these votes, a Statement of Administration Policy reaffirmed the President’s intent to uphold current policies and laws on abortion. "Consistent with the President’s letter of May 3, 2007, if the President were presented a bill, such as H.R. 2764, that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, he would veto the bill."
Church Support for MCP
Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities, sent a letter to House Members, urging support of the Smith/Stupak Amendment. The Cardinal highlighted the origins and purpose of the MCP and, responding to those opposing the MCP and claiming to want to reduce abortion, made four observations: first, abortion does not plan a family but kills a member of the family; second, studies show that promoting contraceptives does not necessarily reduce abortions; third, when made available alongside preventive methods, abortion replaces prevention; and fourth, it is contrary to logic and common sense to say that abortions can be reduced by supporting groups dedicated to promoting abortion. For full text of the letter, see: nchla.org/docdisplay.asp?ID=164.
Responding to the House votes, Deirdre A. McQuade, Director of Planning and Information for the Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, affirmed that "Exporting abortion overseas will not lower abortion rates, is resented by developing countries, and is not supported by the American people." She expressed gratitude to President Bush for his pledge to exercise his veto power to uphold the MCP.
Important Follow-Up
Thanks to all those who responded to the Action Alerts on the MCP. The vote on the Smith/Stupak Amendment demonstrates that by-and-large pro-life advocates in the House stood firm in their support of the MCP and were not swayed or confused by Rep. Lowey’s maneuvers.
Be sure to thank those Representatives who voted against the Lowey Amendment and for the Smith/Stupak Amendment. And express your disappointment to those who voted in any way to negate the MCP. To check how your Representative voted on these two Roll Call votes, see: clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll533.xml (Lowey Amendment, Roll Call 533) and clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll534.xml (Smith/Stupak Amendment, Roll Call 534).
Abstinence Amendment
In another matter of concern to the Church, Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) offered an amendment to strike from H.R. 2764 language that would eliminate current policy whereby in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) one-third of HIV and AIDS prevention funds are allocated to abstinence-before-marriage programs. Bishop Thomas Wenski, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on International Policy, and Ken Hackett, President of Catholic Relief Services, had sent a letter to the House urging retention of the current policy. See: nchla.org/datasource/idocuments/PEPFAR%20Funding.pdf. Unfortunately, the House rejected the Pitts Amendment, 200-yes, 226-no, 12-not voting (Roll Call 532). For how Members voted, see: clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll532.xml.

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the Fiscal Year 2008 State/Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill (number to be announced) on Tuesday, June 19 or Wednesday, June 20. As reported by committee, the bill negates the Mexico City Policy (MCP), an Administration policy that denies federal funding to overseas nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. The MCP prevents the use of U.S. tax dollars to support organizations that export abortion around the world, especially into vulnerable poorer countries.
First articulated by the Reagan Administration at a U.N. population conference in Mexico City in 1984, the policy was overturned by the Clinton Administration, then reinstated in 2001 by President Bush. Since 2001, abortion advocates have tried to reverse the MCP by legislation.
The Fiscal Year 2008 State/Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, which designates $441 million for international family planning, stipulates that federal funding for contraceptives in foreign countries shall not be denied "to any nongovernmental organization solely on the basis of the policy contained in the President’s March 28, 2001, Memorandum" to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The President had restored the MCP on January 22, 2001, then implemented his policy decision through this March 28 memorandum.
During House floor debate, an amendment will be offered to strike the language negating the MCP.
In NCHLA’s list of key abortion votes, the last House vote on the MCP occurred in 2001. Many Members have never cast a floor vote on the issue. Members’ votes on the MCP can be found at: nchla.org/keyvotes.asp?ID=2.
For more information on the Mexico City Policy, see "Issues" on NCHLA’s web page at: nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=2.
ACTION: Please contact your Representative by FAX letter, phone, or e-mail. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, or call your Representative’s local office. For access to Representatives’ full contact information, see: www.house.gov.
MESSAGE: "Please vote to uphold the Mexico City Policy. U.S. tax dollars should not be given to organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries."
WHEN: The House could take up the Fiscal Year 2008 State/Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill on June 19 or 20. Please act today! Thanks! 6/13/07

Governor John Hoeven has signed SB 2312, which makes the abortion alternatives program permanent.


Sitting left to right: Senator Aaron Krauter, Governor John Hoeven, Representative Kim Koppelman.
Standing left to right: Stacey Pfliiger, North Dakota Right to Life; Christopher Dodson, North Dakota Catholic Conference; Senator Judy Lee; Representative Jim Kerzman.

Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo has issued a statement on the passage of House Bill 1466.

The Bismarck Tribune reports that Governor Hoeven will sign the bill.

The North Dakota Catholic Conference is pleased with today's passage of House Bill 1466 by both chambers of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly.  It is a step forward toward a better world -- one that does not turn its back on women in need or the unborn children they carry.

House Bill 1466 would place in North Dakota law a ban on abortion to go into effect when it becomes constitutionally enforceable.  Some have asked why the state should place a law on the books that does not immediately go into effect.  We ask -- How can a state that claims to care for human life justify not having such a law?  Fortunately, a large majority of legislators from both political parties understood the importance of, and wisdom in, House Bill 1466.

We now look forward to working with the legislature, state agencies, and all interested persons in preparation for the day when HB 1466 becomes effective.  We all must continually work for a society in which no woman ever feels that abortion is the answer to an unexpected or crisis pregnancy.  

The House has just passed House Bill 1466 by a vote of 68 to 24. The bill now goes to the Senate, which may vote on it sometime today.

Answers to Claims Being About HB 1466

North Dakota legislators will soon cast their final votes on where the state stands on the protection of unborn life. House Bill 1466 would place in North Dakota law a ban on abortion that would go into effect when it becomes constitutional. Our legislators need to hear from you now!

Message for Legislators: Please vote "Yes" on HB 1466, to put North Dakota on the side of a culture of life.

When: Immediately!

Where: North Dakota Senate and House of Representatives
Legislative Hotline: 1-888-635-3447 Bismarck: 328-3373
Hearing Impaired: 1-800-366-6888

Representatives’ e-mail addresses can be found at the Legislative Assembly Web Site: http://www.legis.nd.gov/

For more information, go to: http://ndcatholic.org

Clicking "E-Mail Helper" will automatically prepare a sample e-mail message for you to send. Try revising it with your own words. Replace "yourlegislator@nd.gov" with your legislator's email address. You can get that from the Legislative Assembly Site or contact the Catholic Conference. Be sure to include your name and address! They want to know that you live in their district. Thank you.

The North Dakota House has rejected a conference committee report that added to the abortion ban provisions about providing health care to pregnant minors without parental consent. The matter now goes back to the conference committee for more work. The committee could finish its work this morning. Come back here for the latest information.

When the committee acts, both the House and the Senate could act quickly on the bill. There are only a few more days left in the legislative session!

From USCCB:

This morning, on a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart.  As you know, we have been working toward this result for over a decade.  This is the first time in 34 years the Court has upheld an actual ban on ANY kind of abortion.
 
There are many good and interesting things in the decision, including

• the Court's straightforward recognition of the child in the womb as a "living organism" before as well as after viability
• its forthright statement about the government's legitimate and profound interest in protecting life
• its willingness to defer to legislative fact finding in the abortion context
• its recognition of the pain and turmoil of women undergoing abortion. 

Tell Legislators --
Restore Intent of Abortion Trigger Ban

Last week, a slim majority of the North Dakota Senate hastily amended House Bill 1466 -- the abortion "trigger" ban bill, replacing the entire bill with a requirement that the Legislature call a special session if the Supreme Court changes abortion law. The Senate's version of the bill does nothing to move North Dakota closer to building a culture of life. A conference committee will meet to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Tell your legislator to restore the intent of House Bill 1466 -- to place in law reasonable protections for human life that would go into effect when they become constitutional.

Message for Legislators:  Please support efforts to restore the intent of HB 1466 – to place in North Dakota law reasonable protections for unborn human life. As your constituent, I am concerned about attempts to weaken House Bill 1466 that would do nothing to further the culture of life in North Dakota. Thank you.

When: Immediately. The conference committee will start work next week.

Where: North Dakota Senate and House of Representatives
Legislative Hotline: 1-888-635-3447 Bismarck: 328-3373
Hearing Impaired: 1-800-366-6888

Legislators' e-mail addresses can be found at the Legislative Assembly Web Site: http://www.legis.nd.gov/


Clicking "E-Mail Helper" will automatically prepare a sample e-mail message for you to send. Try revising it with your own words. Replace "yourlegislator@nd.gov" with your legislator's email address. You can get that from the Legislative Assembly Site or contact the Catholic Conference. Be sure to include your name and address! They want to know that you live in their district. Thank you. More information.

The Bismarck Tribune published Christopher Dodson's letter, but it did not include the web site address supporting the statement that most Americans oppose most abortions. The Second Look Project contains lists some of the data. Here is some from that site and others:

In a recent Harris Interactive poll 72% of Americans said abortion should be illegal in the second three months of pregnancy, and 86% said abortion should be illegal in the last three months of pregnancy.

61% of Americans said abortion should not be permitted after the fetal heartbeat has begun. This occurs in the first month. (Zogby, 2004)

An overwhelming majority of Americans (86%) favor parental consent for minors seeking abortion (Gallup, 2005)

A similar percent (89%) favor informed consent for women seeking abortions (Gallup, 2005)

About 90% of Americans are opposed to performing abortions in the third trimester (Gallup, 2005)

More than two in three Americans (70%) favor a ban on partial-birth abortions (Gallup, 2003)

51% of women say abortion should be available only in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is endangered (Center for the Advancement of Women, 2003)

72% of 13-17 year olds believe abortion is morally wrong.
(Gallup, 2003)

60% of 18-29 year olds believe abortion should never be legal.
(Zogby, 2004)

The Senate took up the HB 1466 late Thursday (called the "trigger" bill because it would go into effect when it becomes constitutional). Although the Senate adopted a set of amendments to improve the bill, a few minutes later a slim majority passed another set of amendments that rewrote the entire bill. The House will now have to review those changes.

The final version adopted by the Senate removed all restrictions on abortion and replaced the bill's language with a single paragraph. That paragraph requires the Attorney General to notify the Legislative Council whenever the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that would allow the state to have more restrictive abortion legislation than it has currently. At that time, the Legislative Council must call a special session.

The Senate version of the bill clearly goes against the intent of the bill. The irony is that the Senate changed HB 1466 from a "trigger" bill to a "multi-trigger" bill. It could provide pro-life forces with multiple opportunities to have legislative sessions devoted solely to pro-life legislation.

In fact, right now North Dakota could have more restrictive abortion legislation. If this version of the law were to go into effect on August 1(the day most North Dakota laws take effect), the Attorney General could notify Legislative Council on August 2 and we could have a special session to examine those possible restrictions. If the Supreme Court issues a new decision next year, we could have another special session. And so on . . .

This is probably not what either side of the issue wants out of HB 1466, but if that what comes from it, the North Dakota Catholic Conference and those who care about building a culture of life will be ready.

The Bismarck Tribune recently published a column by Clay Jenkinson about House Bill 1466. Mr. Jenkinson's column contains several errors in facts and logic. The Tribune's letter policy hinders our ability to respond to them all. Here is the letter we submitted in response to the column:

Dear Editor:

Mr. Jenkinson makes several mistakes in his column about the proposed abortion legislation.  For one thing, he repeats myths about public opinion on abortion.  Most Americans actually oppose abortion and would favor more restrictions on the act.  In fact, a majority of Americans think that most abortions should be illegal and more women than men hold this view.  (www.secondlookproject.org)

Jenkinson also errs in his assessment of HB 1466's "trigger."  Conditional effective dates are not unusual in North Dakota legislation and they do not tie the hands of future legislatures.  

The column's most significant flaw, however, is its failure to address the morality of abortion.  Jenkinson wrote that he did not want to address the morality of abortion, but only the wisdom of the proposed legislation.  By failing, however, to address the morality of abortion, he creates a "straw man" out of the proposed legislation, the unreasonableness of which is a foregone conclusion.

Any discussion of abortion should begin with a look at what is abortion and the morality of the act.  If, as Jenkinson has done, a person evades the underlying issue and treats abortion as nothing more than a mere vice, it is easy to characterize the actions of pro-life advocates and legislation like House Bill 1466 as unreasonable moral posturing.  

However, if a person concludes that the scientific evidence and the use of reason demonstrate that abortion is the deliberate destruction of developing human life, the actions of pro-life legislators and proposals like House Bill 1466 are reasonable and progressive.  Most Americans have reached that conclusion and the proposed legislation is a reasonable step toward a better future.

Christopher Dodson
Executive Director
General Counsel
North Dakota Catholic Conference

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has signed an abortion ban trigger bill similar to North Dakota's House Bill 1466. Like HB 1466, the new Mississippi law would trigger when the state's attorney general concludes that it is reasonably probably that the law would be constitutional.

The Senate has still not acted on HB 1466. If you have not done so, there is still time to contact your senator.

Like North Dakota, the Minnesota legislature enacted an alternatives to abortion p