Rice obfuscates on international family planning

I know I’m a day late on this one, but Condoleezza Rice said something ridiculous on Meet the Press Sunday that’s still bugging me.

Russert brought up the fact that Rice described herself in a recent interview as “mildly pro-choice” and asked Rice to explain. She gave a fairly predictable answer: she’s against some peripheral abortion policies, but fundamentally doesn’t believe the government should “intervene” in this area.

But Russert also explained why the question is relevant.

Russert: The U.S. government has now stopped $34 million going to non-governmental agencies to provide counseling and family planning to women around the world because they do not want abortion suggested as an abortion. Do you support blocking that funding?

Rice: I am carrying out the laws of the United States of America. It’s the president’s policies. I happen to agree. I also am not someone who believes that federal funding ought to be used for something about which there is so much difference in America.

There was no follow-up — Russert needed time to ask literally 13 questions about whether Rice would run for president — but Rice was playing very fast and loose with the facts here. She surely knows better.

If all one heard on the issue was Rice’s claim, it sounds as if her position was in opposition to federal funding of abortion. As she put it, she’s against financial support for “something about which there is so much difference in America.” It gave the impression the subject was the medical procedure itself.

But in light of her position and experience, Rice has to realize that the policy she was defending has absolutely nothing to do with funding for abortion and everything to do with the Bush administration blocking aid for international programs that even let women know that abortion exists as a medical option.

For example, the Bush administration’s policy stands firmly against the U.N. Population Fund (generally known as UNFPA). For three years in row, the administration has blocked millions of dollars in family planning funds, which means fewer women will receive pre-natal care in developing countries, fewer doctors will be trained to deal with pregnancy complications, fewer HIV prevention programs will be able to operate and less medical equipment will be made available to expectant mothers in developing countries. UNFPA doesn’t provide money for abortions, but Bush won’t allow a dime of aid to go to the fund anyway.

And then there the Bush administration’s support for the nonsensical “Mexico City Policy.”

The “Mexico City” policy prohibits US dollars and contraceptive supplies from going to any international family planning program that provides abortions or counsels women about their reproductive health options. The policy isn’t about money going to pay for abortions. Even those groups that use only private funds for abortion services — where abortion is legal — are barred from assistance. This is money going to family planning programs.

President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City policy in 1993. But President Bush reinstated and expanded it on his first day in office. Now not only are organizations that provide or counsel about abortion services affected; those that dare to take part in a public discussion about legalizing abortion are also affected (hence the name “global gag rule”). Of course, those that call for restricting abortion rights are not affected.

This policy has nothing to do with government-sponsored abortions overseas. Ten years before the gag rule was in place the law strictly prohibited that. This policy is about disqualifying pro-choice organizations from receiving US international family planning funding.

Under Bush’s policy, organizations that play a vital role in women’s health are forced to make an impossible choice. If they refuse to be “gagged,” they lose the funding that enables them to help women and families who are cut off from basic health care and family planning. But if they accept funding, they must accept restrictions that jeopardize the health of the women they serve.

And yet there was Rice, who claims to oppose government interference in these issues, defending administration policy — indeed, saying she “agrees” with it — and obfuscating the point by suggesting that this has something to do with federally-funded abortions.

It’s reassuring to see Secretary Rice will be just as duplicitous in Bush’s second term and National Security Advisor Rice was in the first term.