Today we will discuss the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits the provision of U.S. tax dollars to foreign non-governmental organizations that promote or perform abortions as a method of family planning. 

Unfortunately, we will NOT hear from the very body that bears primary responsibility for implementing this policy, the United States Agency for International Development.  This is a glaring omission.

The fact that USAID has not been given the opportunity to respond to concerns that will be raised today limits this Committee’s oversight of the Mexico City Policy.

And so, without the Administration present to dispel the myths associated with the Mexico City, I will seek to address a few of them now. 

First, it has been asserted that Mexico City has led to cuts in both funding for and delivery of vital family planning services, and therefore has led to an increase in the number of abortions in developing countries.

This is untrue. 

U.S. funding for family planning abroad has NOT been cut. 

Actually, funding has increased steadily. 

Funds which were denied to groups that promote abortion as a means of family planning have been diverted to other implementers, which have proven both willing and able to deliver quality family planning services. 

Further, Demographic Health Surveys reveal that contraceptive prevalence has increased while fertility rates have decreased since 2001. 

And a recent study published in Lancet by the World Health Organization and International Planned Parenthood’s research affiliate confirms that abortion rates declined significantly between 1995, when Mexico City was not in effect, and 2003, two years after Mexico City was reinstated.  

So while it is true that a few influential groups, such as International Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, have lost funding, U.S. funds for family planning have not been cut, critical services have not been lost, and abortion rates have not increased. 

A second popular myth is that the Mexico City Policy endangers the lives of women because it provides no exceptions and, ultimately, forces women to seek unsafe abortions. 

This, also, is not true. 

Mexico City does not apply to abortions or abortion referrals in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. 

Further, it does not block “passive referrals,” or the provision of information to a woman, in response to direct questions, if that woman is determined to have an abortion. 

Finally, it also allows organizations to provide compassionate care to women who require post-abortion services.

It bears mentioning that abortion is illegal in many of the countries where the complaints by abortion advocates have been loudest. 

I find it interesting that these groups attribute the performance of unsafe abortions with the Mexico City policy, rather than with their own efforts to perform and promote abortions, which are illegal and inherently unsafe.

This is a confusing paradox indeed.

A third myth increasingly advanced by abortion advocates is that Mexico City infringes upon the democratic right of foreign NGOs “to participate in the political process.” 

A recent paper published by IPAS even asserts that the policy is imposed upon foreign NGOs because they are not protected by the concept of freedom of speech engendered in the U.S. Constitution. 

This is perhaps the most absurd argument of them all.

Money is fungible. 

To fund an organization engaged in lobbying efforts to legalize abortion – even when that organization uses private resources to do so – effectively subsidizes that lobbying effort. 

Mexico City does not prevent individuals from lobbying their government.  It simply prevents groups from redirecting funds to pay for that effort. 

It is important to note that current U.S. domestic policy prohibits funding for programs that support abortion as a method of family planning.  Such a position is widely supported by a majority of Americans.

The Mexico City policy therefore applies the same standard for domestic funding to global family planning assistance and, therefore, reinforces the belief that the central goal of family planning programs should be to reduce abortions.

To eliminate this policy would devalue the importance of other preventative methods of family planning, if not replace them with abortion.

At its core, the Mexico City policy represents an effort to protect the basic human rights of each and every member of society, including women and children. 

As a pro-life woman and human rights advocate, I urge Members to seriously consider the ramifications of any policy change which would compromise our ability to promote respect for innocent human life and human rights world-wide.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.