US House of Representatives Authorizes $25 Million for UN Population Fund

By Austin Ruse | 1999

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM) The US House of Representatives voted this week to restore funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), money that was pulled from UNFPA last year over the agency’s controversial decision to support population programs in China. In a surprising show of strength for the population control establishment, the House voted 221 – 198 to authorize US$25 million for UNFPA in the next budget year.

     The UNFPA vote came as part of the American Embassy Security Act of 1999. Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) amended the bill to say that no US money could go to UNPFA unless the US President could certify that “the UNFPA has terminated all activities in the People’s Republic of China, and the United States has received assurances that UNPFA will conduct no such activities during the fiscal year for which the funds are to be made available.” Moreover, his amendment required that there be no coercive abortions in China in the 12 months preceding certification.

     Smith’s Amendment was not voted upon. Instead members passed the amendment introduced by Tom Campbell (R-CA) that called for UNPFA funding as long as US money was held in a separate account. It also stipulates that no US money can go to China, and that the total US contribution will be reduced by the exact dollar amount UNFPA intends to spend in China. This is expected to reduce the US contribution by US$5 million.

     Pro-life Congressional staff members expected a close vote and were surprised by the final tally. “All the energy was on the other side,” said Maggie Wynne, staff member of the House pro-life caucus. Wynne said the House experienced heavy lobbying from UNPFA, the US State Department, and population control NGOs.

     The US contribution represents a relatively small part of UNFPA’s annual budget of US$295 million, yet UNFPA looks upon the US donation as much needed moral approval for what many consider to be controversial programs. Dr. Nafis Sadik called the vote “excellent news.” She said “United States leadership is critical in this field not just for money, but for ethical and moral reasons as well.”

     House members ignored vocal opposition from pro-life and pro-family lobbyists. Calling it “the UNFPA/forced abortion amendment,” the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) charged UNFPA with “assisting the Chinese population control program, which subjects women to forced abortion and forced sterilization.” NRLC quoted a 1986 opinion by Judge Abner Mikva, later legal counsel to President Bill Clinton, that UNFPA “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion.”

     Supporters of UNFPA funding made two arguments. First, that reducing funding based on abuses in China would not help the situation of the Chinese, and that withholding the money would harm women in the other parts of the world.

     The authorization bill now goes before the House Appropriations Committee. Pro-life Congressmen have not decided upon their approach in the Appropriations Committee.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter