From the WSJ Opinion Archives
THE BUSH AGENDA
Choice Yes, Subsidy No
Keep abortion safe, legal and privately funded.
A mere 48 hours after taking office, President Bush angered abortion-rights advocates by issuing an executive order barring U.S. government aid to international family-planning groups that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling. While I strongly believe that abortion should be a legal option for women, I also believe that on this issue the pro-choice movement is fighting the wrong battle, both as a matter of principle and as a matter of strategy.
The most powerful pro-choice argument is that a woman's decision about something so personal as whether or not to bear a child should be free from government interference. A fundamental belief in individual rights has led a majority of Americans, however uncomfortably, to support legal abortion, at least in the early stages of pregnancy. But asking the government to finance abortion is a very different matter.
The argument that these programs should continue to receive U.S. aid so long as they don't use it directly for abortion-related services is a dodge. Money is fungible: If an organization runs Project A, which you find objectionable, and Project B, of which you approve, giving money to Project B will obviously help Project A by freeing up other parts of the organization's budget. Surely, liberals and feminists wouldn't buy the argument that Title IX--the law prohibiting sex discrimination at educational institutions receiving federal funds--should apply only to those specific programs that get federal dollars, while the rest of the school should be free to discriminate.
Many people on the pro-choice side, however, are unwilling to admit their opponents have any legitimate concerns. In the new book "Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future," writers and activists Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards envision a feminist utopia in which abortion is not only fully funded by the government but is no longer "morally contested territory," since "citizens don't interfere with one another's life choices." In short, the views of those citizens who can't regard abortion as just another "life choice" are written out of existence.
Such arrogance only further polarizes the debate. In the real world, the moral contest over abortion is likely to continue. It will require some compromise solutions if we are to maintain the current uneasy equilibrium. One such compromise is to preserve legal abortion while withholding public funds for the practice.
One may argue that the government spends money on plenty of things that taxpayers find morally objectionable, be it capital punishment, military intervention abroad, drug prohibition, or sex education. True enough, and citizens who do not want their taxes to finance policies they oppose have every right to organize and use their power at the ballot box to end them. If they have the numbers on their side, they are likely to make political gains. Currently, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that taxpayer funds should not support abortions.
Abortion-rights advocates charge that Mr. Bush's executive order, which restores a policy in effect from 1985-93, will cause untold suffering to millions of poor women around the world--not only by preventing them from having abortions, but by denying funds for other reproductive health services. Actually, it's unclear how much of an impact the order will have on international family planning programs. The White House has made it clear that the U.S. remains committed to providing the $425 million appropriated for fiscal year 2001 for aid to such programs, as long as they agree to the restrictions on abortion-related activities.
According to Kim Wald, a spokeswoman for the United States Agency for International Development, the agency funds about 450 foreign nongovernmental organizations that work on family planning. Most of these programs are expected to comply with the new rules (which, incidentally, do not prohibit medical care for complications from legal or illegal abortions). Only a handful of organizations, says Ms. Wald, refused U.S. aid prior to 1993 because of concerns about the abortion restrictions.
If those of us who are pro-choice want to ensure that poor women around the world have access to abortion, we should reach into our own pockets (especially if the tax cuts promised by Mr. Bush allow us to keep more of our earnings). I'm thinking, in particular, of Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Julia Roberts and other Hollywood stars who so proudly wear their pro-choice politics on their sleeves. What they spend on shoes every year would probably more than make up for the money that international family programs may lose under the reinstated policy.
Emphasizing nongovernmental aid as the solution would be not only principled but smart. If the pro-choice movement had turned to this option in 1985, it would already have a solid network of privately funded programs whose budget would not be affected by the results of presidential or congressional elections. Abortion-rights advocates, like advocates of government funding for the arts, should realize that as long as the government picks up the tab, the programs they support will be vulnerable to political pressures and to the winds of political change.
Ms. Young is vice president of the Women's Freedom Network and author of "Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality" (Free Press, 1999).
