8/3/2019 4919_Kemp_Kasten_06_04

1/2

NOTE:ThiswasauthoredbyMichelineKennedy,executivedirectoroftheliberalCommunicationsConsortiumMediaCenter(knownasCCMC,www.ccmc.org)andspokespersonforCatholicsforFreeChoice.

Legislative Background: The Kemp-Kasten Amendment

NB:Kemp-Kasten should not be confused w ith the Global Gag Rule (alsoknow n as the Mexico City policy. The gag rule is an executive branch policyin force during the Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations, and reimposed

by President Bush in 2001 on his first business day in office.

June 2004 The Bush administration justified the de-funding of UNFPA under alittle-known provision of law called the Kemp-Kasten Law. This was created in 1985as an amendment to the foreign aid appropriations bill. It prohibits U.S. foreign aidfor any organization that the President determines "supports or participates in the

management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

That same year, a review of UNFPA programs by the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) determined that UNFPA neither funded abortions norsupported coercive family planning practices through its programs. But the Reaganand Bush I administrations interpreted the language very broadly, charging thatChinas one-child program involved coercion and that UNFPA was ineligible forfunding simply because it was working in China.

Since then, various studies of China's family planning program have continued todocument government abuses, but UNFPA has always been cleared of involvement inany coercive practices. These findings were ignored by the Reagan and Bush Iadministrations, however, and UNFPA was still denied funding.

Change in course

The Clinton administration ended that practice. Using its authority under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, President Clinton gave $14.5 million to UNFPA in August 1993.After that, U.S. funding for UNFPA fluctuated under various restrictions imposed byCongress, but a contribution was made every year except 1999. In 2001, the BushAdministration reviewed UNFPA's activities, determined the agency was not inviolation of Kemp-Kasten, and provided $21.5 million.

In July 2002, however, President Bush changed his mind and once more invokedKemp-Kasten, canceling the $34 million appropriated by Congress for fiscal 2002.

There had been no change in UNFPA's activities during that time.

These widely divergent interpretations of Kemp-Kasten over the years illustratevividly the serious need to clarify the laws intent, so that the fate of U.S.contributions does not depend upon the politics of the White House but upon the law.

Saving lives or playing politics?

8/3/2019 4919_Kemp_Kasten_06_04

2/2

NOTE:ThiswasauthoredbyMichelineKennedy,executivedirectoroftheliberalCommunicationsConsortiumMediaCenter(knownasCCMC,www.ccmc.org)andspokespersonforCatholicsforFreeChoice.

The State Department analysis justifying Kemp-Kastens use in 2002 indicated thatthe principal reason for denying funds to UNFPA was the existence in China of therequirement that families pay "social compensation fees" for unauthorized or "out-of-

plan births." Such fees, or fines, are sometimes significant, and some women mighthave abortions rather than pay them, according to the analysis. UNFPA, by supplyingthe Chinese government with computers and automobiles, supports or participatesin the management of a coercive program, the analysis concluded.

Under this logic, any recipient of U.S. funds should be disqualified if any of itsprograms cooperate with Chinese government institutions involved in the "one-child"policy. That would include many multilateral and other U.S.-supported organizationssuch as the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the World Bank. All haveongoing relationships with the same Chinese agencies that work with UNFPA, andmany even work on reproductive health-related programs as well. In fact, last yearthe White House approved a $15 million joint initiative between the National

Institutes of Health and the Chinese Ministry of Health to address HIV/AIDS.

The disparate treatment of UNFPA relative to other multilateral and U.S.organizations illustrates unmistakably that President Bush's decision to defundUNFPA was clearly not about China but about U.S. domestic politics.

This choice comes with an enormous human cost. Without U.S. support, theprograms that suffer most are those in the 150 other countries where UNFPA works,including many where U.S. aid agencies have no programs. UNFPA estimates thatthe lost $34 million could prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000induced abortions, 77,000 infant and child deaths, and 4,700 maternal deaths.