I ONCE saw a bumper sticker that read, "Against abortion? Don't have one." This week, marking the 29th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision, President Bush would do well to take heed of this bumper sticker wisdom.
From the beginning of his presidency, George W. Bush has sought to limit the freedom of choice thatRoe v Wade prevents him from out and out denying. In a speech last year to anti-abortion protesters, Bush said, "We share a great goal, to work toward a day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. We know this will not come easily, or all at once" ("Another Round in the Abortion Debate," MSNBC.com, Jan. 22). That every conception should lead to a happy, healthy, well cared for child certainly is ideal. It is almost as certainly unattainable.
The reality is that not all pregnancies are planned. Women become pregnant through force, accident or stupidity. They are abused, abandoned and forsaken. Single mothers, young mothers and poor mothers are not embraced and supported.
So-called pro-life proponents, some of the same people who threaten the lives of doctors and patients outside of abortion clinics, argue that abortion is not a legitimate form of birth control and that women who choose it are avoiding the consequences of their actions. Choosing abortion is not choosing to avoid consequences, it is a consequence in and of itself. There is no denying that abortion can be misused and that couples otherwise capable of providing financially and emotionally for a child choose not to, but the freedom to choose cannot be denied simply because it is abused by some.
That, however, has been Bush's object from the beginning. On his first day in office, the president issued an order banning funding for all international groups that provide abortion counseling. These are not groups that exist solely to provide abortions. They are family planning groups that, as well as discussing abortion and other options, distribute birth control and provide pre-natal care necessary for healthy births.
This initiative is in danger of being taken further this week, even as pro-choice proponents note the anniversary of Roe v Wade. It is clear Roe v Wade is not in immediate danger of being overturned; MSNBC.com reports only three of nine Supreme Court justices are in favor of overturning the earlier decision. Consequently, anti-abortionists in the government seek to limit abortion through budgetary means.
The current debate is over funds for the United Nations Population Fund - known by the old abbreviation UNFPA - the United Nations' family planning organization. Last September, Bush asked for $600,000 to be spent on items such as clean underwear and sanitary napkins for Afghan women. A full $25 million was earmarked for the fund in Bush's 2002 budget, and Congress upped that amount to $34 million. Then the conflict began.
Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey wrote to the president, requesting that he cut all funds because UNFPA does work in China, a country with strict population control measures that include forced abortion and sterilization. UNFPA spokesman Sterling Scruggs says that the agency always has opposed China's one-child policy, and that the group does not spend U.S. funds in China and does not fund abortion anywhere in the world. Smith's information came via the anti-abortion group Population Research Institute, and a state department investigation found that it had no basis.
Bush has not decided yet what to do about the funds. Aides from the State Department, budget office and legislative affairs office met to discuss the issue, but didn't reach a conclusion. Eliminating the funding would impede UNFPA's efforts around the world. Afghan women would not receive simple sanitary items, and family planning and maternal health efforts would suffer.
Anti-abortionists may disagree with the court decision that prevents outlawing abortion, but the fact is that abortion is, as it should be, legal. To deny funding to family planning groups on the basis of ties to abortion, even when they are hazy or non-existent, further limits the rights of women.
If Bush and his administration truly wish every child to be "welcomed in life," they can't let their political agenda interfere with the ability of organizations like UNFPA to provide pre-natal care necessary for healthy children. Such budgetary maneuvering would not only hamper a woman's right to choose abortion, but also her ability to carry a healthy child.
(Megan Moyer's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
