Washington Memo

President Obama is expected to sign by the end of this week a $915 billion “megabus” spending package for fiscal year 2012 (H.R. 2055), encompassing nine appropriations bills, including State Department and foreign operations which funds international family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) programs.

Support for FP/RH programs for women and families in developing countries remained constant, with level funding for bilateral programs.  However, the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), which saves thousands of lives each year, took an unfortunate $5 million hit.  Congressional family planning champions are to be commended for holding the line against deeper funding cuts and fending off hostile policy riders.

FUNDING

The State Department and foreign operations bill section of the massive omnibus includes a total of $610 million in bilateral and multilateral FP/RH funding.  Comparable FY 2011 funding totaled $615 million. Statutory language earmarks “not less than” $575 million for bilateral FP/RH programs from all funding accounts, including the Global Health Programs account and funding for FP/RH activities from Economic Support Funds (ESF) and Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA).  The level of $575 million is identical to the amount earmarked for bilateral programs in the FY 2011 continuing resolution.  Report language designates that $524 million of the $575 million total is to be provided from the Global Health Programs account managed by USAID, equivalent to current expenditures.

In addition, the bill includes $35 million for a U.S. contribution to the UN Population Fund in the international organizations and programs (IO&P) account, representing a $5 million reduction from the amount appropriated for FY 2011.  The bill also incorporates longstanding restrictions on the UNFPA contribution, including requirements that UNFPA maintain U.S. funds in a segregated account, none of which may be used in China or for abortion, and mandates a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount provided to UNFPA by a sum identical to that spent by UNFPA in China. UNFPA has faced unrelenting attacks in the House during 2011 including a flat-out funding prohibition inserted in the House version of the appropriations bill and the introduction and committee approval of a freestanding bill to end U.S. financial support to UNFPA.

POLICY

The bill does not contain any language on the Global Gag Rule (GGR)—neither the House subcommittee-approved amendment to reimpose the GGR, nor the Senate committee-passed Lautenberg amendment that would prohibit a future President from reinstating the GGR unilaterally.  Other longstanding, boilerplate restrictions on the use of foreign assistance funds for abortion-related activities were retained. Unfortunately, the conference report did not include two important policy changes proposed in the Senate bill.  Dropped were a provision to expand the exemption from country aid prohibitions to include FP/RH programs along with all other global health sectors and another to allow funding for abortion for Peace Corps volunteers in cases of life, rape, and incest.  Both should have been noncontroversial fixes. Particularly in comparison to the House position entering the negotiations with the Senate—$150 million funding cut, reimposition of the Global Gag Rule, and UNFPA contribution prohibition—the final deal can be viewed as a win for family planning and reproductive health programs. Perhaps this assessment is an example of an unfortunate redefinition of success in the current political climate. U.S. funding for FP/RH programs overseas remains woefully inadequate in the face of the tremendous need that exists.  215 million women in developing countries want to avoid pregnancy but lack access to or information about modern contraception.  The result is thousands of unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths each year that could be prevented.  Increasing voluntary access to contraception saves women’s lives and gives them an opportunity to create a better future for themselves and their families. The President should continue to request robust funding increases for these vital health programs when he presents his fiscal year 2013 budget to Congress in early February and continue to strongly oppose attempts to cut funding or impose harmful policy restrictions.

support Hungary

Arrived today:


Please find attached sign-on letter from our Hungarian allies, and please note the short deadline for action (below). /Johanna Westeson, CRR

Dear organizations,
One of the coalition parties in the Hungarian government is introducing an amendment to Hungary’s budget for 2012 that would delete the amount set aside for subsidizing abortions. We are seeking signatures by organizations to the attached letter until Saturday 10th December and will submit the letter on Monday.

If you wish to sign the letter, please send your name, position and organizational affiliation to the following two addresses by 24:00 (Central European Time) Saturday 10th December 2011:

gkuszing@netstudio.hu
kapronczay.stefania@tasz.hu

We will also prepare a press release on this letter, and your name, position and organization may appear in it.

Best regards,
Gábor Kuszing, Patent Association, www.patent.org.hu<http://www.patent.org.hu/>
Stefánia Kapronczay, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, www.tasz.hu

To: Orbán Viktor Subject: Stop Budget Cut on Abortion

Dear Mr Prime Minister Orbán Viktor,

We are writing to express our concern that two Hungarian MPs of your coalition partner KDNP have introduced an amendment to the bill on Hungary’s 2012 budget to delete the 400 million forints (1.374 million euros) originally planned to support the medical bills of women who cannot afford to pay for an abortion. Currently the mandatory health insurance covers only the cost of abortions carried out on health-related grounds. If the pregnancy is the result of a crime or if the abortion is requested for other, legal, reasons, the price has to be covered by the woman herself. However she can ask for a reduction or waiver based on her socioeconomic situation. It is this option that your colleagues at KDNP want to abolish.

Studies cited by the Guttmacher Institute—a highly respected think tank relied upon by both sides of the abortion debate—indicate that restricting poor girls’ and women’s access to abortion results in women carrying unwanted pregnancies to term against their will. This should not happen if abortion is legal in a country. Research shows also that even the poor women who manage to scrape the money together do so at a cost: they use money they would otherwise spend on utility bills, food and clothing for themselves and their children, they pawn necessary household item and and are forced to wait 2 to 3 weeks longer than those women who find themselves in a more advantaged financial situation. This results in more complicated, later abortions, and some women will undoubtedly miss the deadline for a legal abortion altogether.

Deleting this amount from next year’s budget will deprive the poorest and most vulnerable of women and adolescents from the ability to exercise some control over their fertility. Thus the proposed measure would have a clear discriminatory effect, targeting those who are already in a disadvantaged position in society and making it even harder for them to regain control over their lives. Our sources in the Hungarian medical profession claim that much of this funding covers the abortion costs of teenage girls who live in poverty or in children’s homes, and of other women who are so poor that the cost of an abortion (29,710 forints or 102 euros) constitutes a major barrier in their access to legal reproductive health services. These girls and women could easily lose their chance to access education; their ability to raise their already existing children could be negatively affected if they were to give birth to another child; and they could be exposed to an even deeper level of poverty.

We would like to remind the Hungarian government of its obligations under human rights law, for example, under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These treaties and their respective monitoring bodies specify that practices that discriminate against women and girls and barriers to health care must be removed in order for Hungary to live up to its international obligations. Any steps that worsen the situation for women and girls in their access to reproductive health care and that increase discrimination shall be seen as retrogressive and are as such prohibited under international human rights law.

For the above-mentioned reasons we request you to stop this amendment by speaking up against it and by instructing members of your party to vote against it.

Respectfully yours, XY