4 of 4

Write now Article Tools

Before we dig down to the nitty gritty of the President's decision and why some oppose it, here's a little background on the situation. The United States provides funding to international family planning groups. In 1961, an act called the Foreign Assistance Act prohibited these groups from using the funds to perform abortions or to motivate or coerce others to perform abortions. Then in 1984, President Regan implemented the "Mexico City Policy" which prohibited the U.S. from giving any funds to any family planning groups who provide abortions and those who provide advice, counseling or information regarding abortion. In 1993, President Clinton overturned this policy. In 2001, President George W. Bush reinstated the policy and just last month, President Obama has overturned it once again.

In a statement released after President Obama overturned the policy, he said that the conditions of the policy were excessively broad, unwarranted, and "under minded efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in developing countries."(1) The President also commented on the back and forth debate that has been going on in regards to international family planning assistance, saying he no longer had interest in continuing a "stale and fruitless debate" and that his administration is working on fresh approaches to reach the goals of family planning groups.
So, who's upset and why? First and most obvious, anti-abortion groups and those who support them are upset. They believe that abortion is wrong because a fetus is a human and should be afforded all of the same rights as a human outside of the womb. Some supporters of the Mexico City Policy argue that abortion is not a form of birth control and they dont want family planning groups using U.S. funds to promote abortion rather than other birth control methods. In addition, there are concerns that women will be less likely to remain consistent with other birth control methods and contraceptives if they have the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately, there actually is some validity to this argument. The most recent U.S. statistics show that 44% of women who had an abortion in 2005 have had at least one previous abortion.(2) Some supporters have also contended that United States tax payers should not pay for abortions in the U.S. or overseas.

Everyone has their own opinions, values and beliefs when it comes to abortion rights however there remains one line that is not so clear. What, if any, are the governments rights, roles and responsibilities when it comes to family planning? If the government funds programs that offer abortion or abortion related services, are they promoting, encouraging or condoning abortion? Yet if the government refuses to fund these same programs, are they opposing, discouraging or condemning abortion?

(1) (January 24, 2009) White House Blog. Statement released after the President rescinds "Mexico City Policy." Retrieved from whitehouse.gov/statement-relea sed-after-the-president-rescin ds

(2) (November 28, 2008). Centers for Disease Control. MMWR Surveilance Summaries. Abortion Surveilance 2005. Retrieved from cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ ss5713a1.htm#tab13

Learn more about this author, Jennifer Moore.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Why Obama's decision to overturn the Mexico City Policy is unpopular?
We want to hear your view. Write now!