Abstinence Ed Rejected, Abortion Protected Under House Bill

By Doug Carlson - Jun 19, 2007 - 2

The U.S. House is set to consider a bill that appears to support abortion on demand and undercut abstinence education. The appropriations bill includes provisions that would slash funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs, while open funding for organizations that promote or provide abortions. Yet several pro-life congressmen will seek to amend these provisions when the House takes up the legislation as early as this week.

The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, as passed last week by the House Appropriations Committee, would drop a requirement that 33 percent of funding for the ABC model (abstinence, be faithful, and condom, when necessary) for HIV/AIDS prevention be directed toward “A” (abstinence) and “B” (be faithful) programs under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

While some news reports and certain congressmen allege otherwise, evidence suggests that abstinence-until-marriage programs are working. In seven of the 15 PEPFAR Focus Countries, the number of HIV/AIDS cases and number of sexual partners among individuals are declining, while abstinence rates are growing among unmarried 15- to 24-year-olds, according to the Demographic and Health Survey.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) will likely offer an amendment to strike the language that would cut the spending requirement for “A” and “B” programs when the bill is brought to the House floor.

Also included in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill is a provision to overturn the Mexico City Policy, a longstanding pro-life policy that prohibits distributing funds internationally to groups that promote or provide abortions. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) led efforts in the House Appropriations Committee to pass the bill with a provision that would allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund international family planning services as long as they direct an undetermined amount to promote contraception, though most funds could be used to promote or perform abortions.

The Mexico City Policy was instated in 1984 by President Reagan but later struck down by President Clinton before President Bush reinstated it by executive order in 2001.

Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-MI), with the support of other pro-life congressmen, will try to strike the pro-abortion language.

If you agree that a successful funding program for international abstinence-until-marriage programs should continue and that taxpayers should not be forced to fund international organizations that encourage or provide abortions, please tell your congressman to support the Pitts Amendment to maintain funding for abstinence education and the Smith-Stupak Amendment to prevent funding abortion-advocating organizations when Congress votes on the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Abstinence, Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Legislation

2 comments (post your own) feed

1 On Jun 23rd, 2007, at 6:47am, Janet Hoy wrote:

The A-B-C model doesn’t apply if you’re viewed as property and forced into a marriage with an HIV positive man. Re: abortions, most sub-saharan African villages don’t have access to BASIC medical care, let alone the advent of abortion clinics.  The rights of unborn children ARE at grave risk here, but NOT from abortion, but from HIV.  Please advocate for CULTURALLY RELEVANT policies - local HIV prevention workers in Kenya have told me that President Bush’s order imposing such restrictions resulted in serious cultural barriers in until-then successful HIV prevention - in turn causing unnecessary HIV transmission, and deaths.  Please consider the children when you’re advocating for restricting their chances to be born HIV-negative.  I, having looked into the eyes of too many HIV-positive newborns, prayerfully thank you for your consideration of, if not agreement with, my ideas.

2 On Jun 23rd, 2007, at 7:35pm, Janet Hoy wrote:

Re: my comment above, the order I was referring to was President Bush’s executive order, reinstating the abstinence restrictions placed on HIV relief in Africa that were revoked by President Clinton.  My conversations with local HIV prevention workers were in March of 2007, while I was in Kenya.  The proposed PATHWAY bill, which would lift the abstinence restrictions, would also build in requirements for strategies that address the special needs of vulnerabilities of women and girls at particular risk due to being trafficked as forced wives.  Here is a brand new article - which came out after my first post - that further expounds on the plight of the newly born children - please, please don’t make this issue about abortion, these kids need your support of the PATHWAY act, and your opposition of the Pitts and Smith amendments which would restrict these kids’ chances!!!!  Thank you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_re_af/africa_s_child_aids

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com