Parliamentary Network E-News

Volume 15
No. 7
July, 2021

Focus on the United States

House Democrats Pass Biden Spending Bills that Fund Abortion

Democrat Members of the U.S. House of Representatives passed two spending bills that remove decades-old bipartisan agreements preventing the use of federal funds for abortion on demand in the U.S. and around the world. The appropriations for Biden's budgets were debated in the House Appropriations Committee where Republican attempts to add long-standing bans on use of tax dollars for abortion were defeated. Both appropriations passed the House on a party line vote with no Republicans voting in support of either spending bill.

Prior to the 219 to 208 vote in the House on H.R. 4502, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2022, Republicans, including Congressional Pro-Life Caucus Co-chair Chris Smith and Tom Cole, Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee, appeared before the Rules Committee requesting that the life-affirming abortion bans be given the opportunity for a debate and vote by the entire House but their requests were denied. A total of 14 pro-life amendments that are enacted every year in budget bills were blocked by nearly all Democrats on the committee.

Most notably, the Hyde Amendment with prevents the use of tax dollars for abortion on demand through the Medicaid program was eliminated from the budget for the first time since it first was enacted in 1976. The bipartisan policy has been credited with saving 2.4 million lives.

Also missing was the Weldon Amendment protecting conscience rights and prohibiting federal funding of state and local governments that discriminate against health-care workers or providers who refuse to participate in, pay for or cover abortions.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. reminded Members in remarks on the House floor that while a senator, President Biden supported the Hyde amendment and wrote a letter to constituents saying that “it would protect both the woman and her unborn child” and that “those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.”

On the international front, the Biden budget for the Department of State, H.R. 4373: Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2022, was passed by House Democrats by a vote of 217 to 212 with no Republican voting in favor of the measure. For the first time in over 50 years a State Department and foreign assistance spending bill that did not include the Helms Amendment blocking U.S. funding for abortions, first enacted in 1973.

Republican Rep. Hal Rogers, Ranking Member of the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign relations, spoke against this exclusion from the $62.24 billion spending bill stating, "Of greatest concern is the removal of the most important condition in any state, foreign operations bill that no funds can be used to pay for abortion. The removal of that language is unprecedented."

As he attempted to have three amendments on the Mexico City Policy, Helms amendment and UNFPA funding made in order by the Rules Committee, Rep. Chris Smith implored, "Rather than funding the death of a baby, I believe we must increase access to maternal and prenatal care and ensure access to safe blood and better nutrition. We must also expand essential obstetrical services, including skilled birth attendants, while improving transportation to emergency care facilities to significantly reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, including obstetric fistula."

The bill provides $760 million for family planning and reproductive health services, an increase of $185 million from 2020 and $70 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an increase of $37.5 million from the previous year.

The unprecedented funding for abortion stands in stark contrast to polls that show most Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions. A recent Marist poll found that 77 percent of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to promote abortion overseas, and 58 percent oppose using taxpayer money to fund abortions in the United States.

In remarks to the House, Rep. Chris Smith spoke of the cruelty of aborton:

“Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for child dismemberment— including severing arms and legs and decapitation with sharp knives—or deadly poisons or drugs like RU–486 which starves the baby to death. Children alive but not yet born who are killed by abortion at 20 weeks or later experience excruciating suffering and physical pain. And until rendered unconscious or dead by these hideous procedures, the baby feels the pain of every cut. Where is the justice and empathy and compassion for unborn babies?”

During her remarks on passage of the two budgets, Speaker Pelosi, a Catholic, commented that the funding “honors our values” and House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro, a Catholic, stated that she believed passage of the budget bills “faithfully fulfill the moral test of government”.

Disagreement on the morality of taxpayer funding for abortion is evident in the statement from Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee for Religious Liberty, and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, who opposed the removal of the Hyde Amendment:

“The House has voted in a way that is completely out of step with the will of the American people who overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. The Hyde Amendment has saved at least 2.4 million lives since its enactment. Without it, millions of poor women in desperate circumstances will make the irrevocable decision to take the government up on its offer to end the life of their child.

“Funding the destruction of innocent unborn human lives, and forcing people to kill in violation of their consciences, are grave abuses of human rights. We call on the Senate to redress this evil in H.R. 4502, and for Congress to ultimately pass appropriations bills that fully support and protect human dignity, and the most vulnerable among us.”

The bills next move to the Senate where Appropriations bills are still subject to a 60-vote threshold. It is expected that Republicans will oppose the spending bills as currently written without the long-standing Hyde and Helms amendments.

Read more here.

Members of Congress File Amicus Brief Supporting Pro-Life Law

228 Members of Congress have filed an amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court to uphold Mississippi’s state law protecting the unborn. This fall, the Court will hear the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenging the state’s 2018 Gestational Age Act, which bans abortions after 15 weeks gestation. The lawmakers request “the Court uphold Mississippi’s law as effectuating important state interests, or alternatively, return this case to the lower courts for consideration on a full evidentiary record, recognizing that certain precedents [Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey] may be reconsidered, and where necessary, be wholly or partially overruled.”

“In taking up Mississippi’s pro-life law, the Supreme Court has a chance to reconsider the current misguided abortion jurisprudence. As a Senator, as a woman, and as a mother, I think this case offers us a chance to overturn Roe and return the abortion issue to the political process and away from activist judges,” said Rep Cindy Hyde-Smith.

An analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute points out that Mississippi’s law is actually very similar to abortion laws in Europe and shows jsut how extreme American state laws on abortion are. 47 out of 50 European countries limit elective abortions to 15 weeks gestation or before, whereas in the U.S., 0 out of 50 states have a currently enforceable law limiting elective abortion to 15 weeks. No European nation permits abortion up to birth and the majority of 39 European countries set gestational limits for elective abortion at or before 12 weeks' gestation. By this comparison, U.S. abortion laws are similar to those in China and North Korea, communist countries known for their human rights abuses.

PP President Ousted over Failure to Obsess about Abortion

A book by the former president of Planned Parenthood (PP), Dr. Leana Wen, explains that her departure from the organization was due to its obsession with abortion. The former Baltimore health commissioner writes about the pressure she experienced in "Lifelines: A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health” stating that she was told, "You need to talk about abortion at every media interview.”

According to a news report, on her first full day as Planned Parenthood’s president, Wen appeared on a morning news program and described her vision for the organization but she failed to mention what Planned Parenthood considered most important—abortion. Immediately after the appearance, Wen received a text from a board member: "Next time, make sure you talk about abortion.”

A national staffer informed her: "You need to talk about abortion at every media interview. You're the president of Planned Parenthood. People expect that from you."

Another told her, "Not saying 'abortion' sounds as if you're ashamed of it.”

Wen writes that while being in favor of abortion, she believed that the organization needed to “advocate for all reproductive health services” and believed that using pro-abortion language “alienated people whose decision to get one was painful.” She believed that “most Americans have complicated, nuanced views on abortion” and that “Planned Parenthood should meet them where they are.”

PP board members disagreed and found her position an attempt to "cover up" abortion. One colleague told Wen, "If we don't talk about abortion openly, loudly, and proudly, as a positive moral good, then we are further stigmatizing it…”

As the 2020 election was approaching Planned Parenthood wanted to double down on its pro-abortion messaging and gave Wen a choice: “change, or leave.” Wen writes that before a departure statement could be agreed upon, the board voted her out which she learned about via a New York Times news alert on her phone.

Guatemala Initiates New Policy for the Protection of Life and Family

President Alejandro Giammattei of Guatemala presented a ground-breaking government wide policy –“Public Policy for the Protection of Life and the Institutionality of the Family 2021-2032”— to protect life beginning at conception and to strengthen the family.

In announcing the policy he stated that the new strategy is aimed at “institutional strengthening and establishing guidelines that help to guarantee the attention to the immediate needs of protection of life from its conception and human rights of the person who is to be born, prenatal stage, early childhood, childhood, adolescence, youth, adulthood and older adulthood, thus protecting the family as the basic unit of society ”.

President Giammattei stressed that “the changes that this policy will allow must be reflected in the largest inter-institutional coordination in history. This public policy is the most complex that has been done”.

"We will improve social programs, health, education, the elderly and other programs to protect Guatemalans as God intended," he said.

The policy will unite the efforts of eleven ministries and other institutions of the Executive bringing together 99 programs to strengthen the family, prevent early pregnancy through actions that combat sexual abuse and promote an education in sexuality free of ideologies, and fight malnutrition along with other priorities.

The Guatemalan Asociación la Familia Importa (AFI) highlighted that the policy is a result of the commitment made by the president and vice president, Guillermo Castillo Reyes, when in 2019, as candidates, they signed the Declaration of Life and Family of the Association for Family Matters, to work for the protection of these rights and values, as well as promote government initiatives that promote them.

AFI congratulated the government of Guatemala for honoring its commitment and carrying out the creation and publication of the new policy. The group’s statement highlighted that "this important step taken by Guatemala constitutes a fundamental advance in the defense of life and family, as established by our Political Constitution, legislation and international treaties signed and ratified by our country."

The Constitution of Guatemala recognizes in article 3 that "the State guarantees and protects human life from its conception, as well as the integrity and security of the person."

AFI recognized the significance of Guatemala's action for the region stating, "This measure is also an achievement at the regional level, since it sets a precedent to be replicated and taken as an example for other countries that defend these values.”

Various pro-life groups throughout Latin American celebrated the new policy and the message of hope it sends to the region. Pro-life advocates used the hashtag #GuatemalaPaísCeleste and the blue and white colors of the Guatemalan flag to congratulate Guatemala for its advance in the protection of human rights for all, born and unborn, and invited other governments to replicate the policy.

UK: MPs Successfully Block Radical Abortion Amendments

Pro-life Members of the UK House of Commons objected to two proposed extreme abortion amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill resulting in sponsors not pursuing their amendments. Diana Johnson MP decided not to pursue her amendment to allow abortion on demand, for any reason, up to birth and Rupa Huq MP decided not to take her amendment introducing a jail sentence of up to 2 years for offering support to women outside abortion clinics nationwide, to a vote.

Right to Life UK reports that if either MP had pursued a vote and lost, it would have been the first time that a pro-abortion amendment or bill had been defeated in a vote in UK history. It was surmised that the abortion lobby realized that both amendments were going to be defeated and encouraged the MPs not to pursue a vote.

Diana Johnson’s amendment would have changed abortion laws in England and Wales to one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world, similar to the United States, allowing abortion on demand until birth. Also opposed were MPs who do not normally agree with the pro-life position but were shocked by the proposal to introduce abortion up until birth.

MP Fiona Bruce, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, said: “It would legalise abortions in this country right up to the moment of the birth of a child. No reason would need to be given. The current 24-week limit provision would go.

“The new clause would legalise sex-selective abortions: an abortion could be legally performed if someone chose to reject an unborn boy or girl. It would remove the requirement for abortions to be carried out by doctors, and the protection for women that abortions should take place on approved premises. It would remove the conscience clause: healthcare professionals could be required to conduct abortions contrary to their conscience or beliefs, or lose their job. It would sweep away current legal safeguards and protections not only for the unborn child, but many that protect women…

“The proposals are shocking: a viable human being could have his or her life ended up to the point of birth, with no one held accountable, and yet a day later similar actions against a child outside the womb would constitute murder. If, as has happened, the abortion procedure goes wrong, what then? Is the child to be left alone, crying and uncomforted, until it breathes its last?”

She concluded that such an amendment “has no place in a compassionate, civilised and humane society. If, as I now understand, the proposers tabled it as a probing amendment, then I hope, given the strength of opposition that has gathered in just a few days within and outside this House, they will never contemplate reintroducing it. We are better than this.”

Following the withdrawal of the proposed amendments, English and Welsh Catholic bishops expressed their gratefulness to “the thousands of people who lobbied MPs (Members of Parliament) and helped to prevent dangerous amendments to the bill from moving forward.”

Auxiliary Bishop John Sherrington of Westminster, the lead bishop for life issues of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said the attempt to decriminalize abortion “would have swept away the few protections remaining for the unborn child and enabled abortion on demand as well as removing the possibility of the doctors’ conscientious objection.”

International Pressure for Abortion

UK Imposes Abortion on Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom’s (UK) Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis, directed Northern Ireland’s Department of Health to establish “full abortion services” by March, 31, 2022 and “provide immediate funding support for interim services of early medical abortion.” In a written statement presented to Parliament he reminded MPs that they voted in 2019 that Northern Ireland needed to change its laws protecting unborn children from the violence of abortion and allow abortion on demand for the first 28 weeks of pregnancy in order for the UK to be compliant with recommendations issued by the CEDAW treaty monitoring body in 2018.

Due to unresolved political differences, the devolved government in Northern Ireland, headed by a power-sharing executive composed of representatives from the five political parties, has not been able to come together, including to discuss and determine abortion policy. This failure was cited as the reason for the UK imposing an extreme abortion policy on Northern Ireland. Any abortion proposals developed by the health department will still need to go to the five-party executive.

Contrary to opinions of pro-abortion MPs in the UK Parliament who initiated the legislation forcing Northern Ireland to change its law on abortion, countries are not obligated to accept the recommendations from CEDAW and other treaty-monitoring bodies which are increasingly filled with pro-abortion activists serving as “experts”.

Response to the directive was immediate. Precious Life urged pro-life supporters to tell their Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs)—“Say to Westminster very clearly that the people of Northern Ireland do not allow - we do not give our consent - to Boris Johnson and his government to kill unborn babies in Northern Ireland.”

Precious Life reports that according to the latest figures from the Department of Health, 1,556 babies have been killed by abortion in Northern Ireland since March 2020.

It charges, “The Westminster Government has complete contempt, not only for the human rights of unborn babies, but also for the principles of democracy and devolution in Northern Ireland.”

Read more here.

Focus on the United Nations

UNFPA and New Partners to Ship Abortion Products to Africa

A new global partnership was launched on the sidelines of UN Women’s Generation Equality Forum to “accelerate progress on ensuring access to a comprehensive range of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) products” targeting Africa. Shaping Equitable Market Access for Reproductive Health, known as SEMA Reproductive Health, states that it “will support countries in overcoming some of the biggest barriers in SRH markets to ensure people everywhere can access the products they want and need to control their health and futures.”

The SEMA website states: “SRH products – like contraceptives, medicines to manage pregnancy-related complications, and supplies for safe abortion and post-abortion care – are critical to saving lives and advancing gender equality.”

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is a lead strategic partner along with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom (FCDO), and the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition (RHSC).” Financial support is coming from the Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (MEAE).

Donors are said to “have committed over USD $50 million to SEMA to date, and the partnership aims to raise at least $50 million for core funding over the next five years.”

UNFPA and partners believe that the time has come to advance abortion and other products for sexual and reproductive health in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs): “It’s time for a radical shift away from business as usual. Although global efforts in the last decade have enabled 60 million additional women and girls in 69 LMICs to use modern contraception, the SRH community needs a new approach to tackle access barriers and equip more people with products they need to realize their sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

One of the donors, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), has also committed USD 500 million to Generation Equality’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) Action Coalition—led by UNFPA— and the Economic Justice Rights Action Coalition.

In explaining its commitment to the SRHR Coalition, CEO Kate Hampton stated, “Our commitment to SRHR focuses on scaling more gender-transformative approaches to contraception, safe abortion, and post-abortion care. A key piece of our work is to support girls and young women with their decision-making…”

The launch of SEMA took place “with country governments from Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Uganda” and in the coming months SEMA “will be working to deepen the dialogue with interested partners and welcome new donors, technical partners, and Ministries of Health in low-and middle-income countries to the partnership”.

It expects to officially begin activities by the end of 2021 with operations based in Africa.

UN Secretary General Makes Reproductive Health/Abortion Pledge

In his message for World Population Day, UN Secretary-General António Guterres sounded like a pro-abortion activist. He stated, “In every corner of the world, we are seeing a reversal of hard-won gains and an erosion of women’s reproductive rights, choices and agency. With the onset of the pandemic, resources for sexual and reproductive health services were diverted.”

The top UN official concluded, “As we mark World Population Day, let us pledge to ensure the reproductive health rights of everyone, everywhere.”

PNCI notes that access to abortion is often cloaked in the terms “reproductive health”, “reproductive rights” and “reproductive health service”.

Legislative News

Malawi: Parliament Withdraws Bill to Expand Abortion

Malawi’s parliament has withdrawn a bill to expand the country’s abortion law to include additional exceptions. Current law permits abortion only when it threatens the mother’s life; the legislation sought to also include rape, incest, fetal anomaly, and the mother’s health.

Mathews Ngwale, chairperson for the Parliamentary Committee on Health, explained the reason for the withdrawal was the strong opposition by legislators and citizens he’s personally observed in parliament and while traveling around the country. “What I have seen is that this problem, we are prescribing to the people, in other words, we are telling people what they should have, people are not telling us what they want, that’s where the disconnect is,” said Ngwale. Pro-abortion groups say they will continue to push for the legislation. Amos Nyaka, deputy chairperson for Coalition for Prevention of Unsafe Abortion, explained other options they were considering to legalize abortion. “One of which is to go for legal interpretation of the current law and see whether it is in line with the constitution or other legal instruments that we have,” said Nyaka.

Guernsey: Parliament Approves Extreme Abortion Law

The Guernsey parliament has voted to legalize abortion on demand up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. The new bill expands the previous 12-week limit, now permits abortion for babies with “significant” abnormalities up to birth, removes the requirement of having two physicians sign off, and allows DIY medical abortions at home. The bill initially passed last year but was paused for further consideration. The parliament has now voted to move it forward, approving the bill by a vote of 27-11.

A spokesperson for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) lamented the vote saying the country had passed “some of the most extreme and illiberal abortion legislation in Europe.” SPUC explained, “This disastrous and disgraceful law change will put unborn children and their mothers at increased risk, enable discrimination against the disabled, as well as remove the right to not take part in abortion.” The bill has gone to the Privy Council for Royal Assent.

Mexico: Two More States Legalize Abortion on Demand

The Mexican states Hidalgo and Veracruz have become the third and fourth states to pass legislation legalizing abortion on demand in the first trimester. Mexico City was the first of Mexico’s 32 states to legalize abortion in 2007, with Oaxaca doing so next in 2019. Abortion activists celebrated the votes, emphasizing the influence of the “Marea Verde”, or Green Tide, a radical abortion activist movement throughout Latin America. Abortion remains illegal except in cases of rape in the remaining Mexican states.

Guam: New Law Makes First Responders a Safe Haven

The Guam parliament has designated first responders as a safe haven option for mothers unable to care for their newborn infants. Public Law 34-120, the Newborn Infant Safe Haven Act, permits mothers who aren’t able to travel to call 911 to surrender newborn babies to the first responders. The bill expands current law allowing safe havens for infants under 30 days old at hospitals, fire stations, birthing centers, or community health centers. The baby is then placed with an adoption agency to find a permanent home.

Executive News

Spain: Minister Threatens Medical Conscience Rights

Spain’s Equality Minister stirred controversy this month when she threatened medical personnel’s right of conscience. On July 8th, Minister Irene Montero said that “the right of physicians to conscientious objection cannot be above women’s right to decide.” The General Council of Official Medical Colleges (CGCOM), which represent Spain’s medical colleges, swiftly responded to the threat, calling it “unacceptable, illegal, and unjust.” The CGCOM said, “Making it difficult to exercise the right to conscientious objection by rules or regulatory instructions is inappropriate, but it is also particularly unfair.”

Montero’s comments come shortly after the European Parliament approved the Matic report which seeks to redefine conscientious objection as a “denial of medical care.” Spain’s Constitutional Court has recognized physicians’ rights to conscientious objection “when it derives from a moral imperative linked to life, such as abortion and euthanasia.”

Scotland: Letter from Medical Professionals Opposing Euthanasia

Healthcare professionals expressed strong opposition to euthanasia legislation in an open letter to Scotland’s Health Secretary Humza Yousaf. 175 medical personnel signed the letter highlighting their concerns with the assisted suicide bill tabled last month. “The shift from preserving life to taking life is enormous and should not be minimised. The prohibition of killing is present in almost all civilised societies due the immeasurable worth of every human life,” states the letter. “Everyone has a right to life under Article 1 of The Human Rights Act 1998 such that no-one should be deprived of that life intentionally”.

Right to Life UK spokesperson, Catherine Robinson, said the new bill creates “a false choice between ‘compassionate assisted dying’ and a prolonged painful death.” She said, “It is no coincidence that disability rights groups, and many respected healthcare professionals continue to rally against such legislation, for it strikes at the very heart of the dignity and care we ought to afford to each human being.”

Judicial News

EU: Court Announces 12 Cases Challenging Poland’s Abortion Ban

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has announced 12 cases being brought against Poland challenging its pro-life laws. A new law protecting the right to life went into effect in January 2021, limiting abortion to cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. The ECHR said it is asking Poland to respond to 12 of the over 1,000 complaints it has received challenging the law. The 12 challengers are Polish women who claim the law violates Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life, by forcing them to bring a child to term who may be ill or stillborn having to adjust their family life to accommodate the pregnancy. Poland has until September 13^th to respond.

Issues

Canada: Report Shows Euthanasia for Loneliness

According to a 2020 euthanasia report, Canada is euthanizing people who are lonely. According to the “Second Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying,” nearly 8,000 Canadians died from lethal injection, including 2,650 people who thought they were a burden on family or caregivers, 1,412 people who were lonely, and 1,253 people with non-lethal illnesses. The report also showed that required waiting periods were often waived. This report doesn’t reflect the abolishment of a waiting period for anyone for whom “death is reasonably foreseeable” that went into effect March 2021. The Canadian government has not shown any concerns with the report.