c. 1997 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ It was billed as the first major showdown on abortion in the new Congress, but when the House of Representative finished voting Thursday (Feb. 13), each side on the bitterly contested issue could claim victory and lawmakers appeared as ambiguous and divided as the people they represent.”It’s early in the session, and a lot of people are taken aback that we would have such a watershed, landmark-type of abortion vote so early in the session,”Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., told reporters several days before the vote.

As with so many abortion-related issues, however, Thursday’s House action wasn’t primarily”about”abortion _ it was”about”foreign policy and international family planning _ and therein lies the dilemma, the ambiguity and, ultimately, the mixed signals.

The issue began on Jan. 31, when President Clinton asked Congress to lift restrictions that had kept the administration from spending $385 million for international family planning programs.”If we delay support for family planning … delaying safe and effective contraception to couples who depend on these programs, we will see a rise in unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths, and a tragic recourse to unsafe and unsanitary methods to terminate those pregnancies,”he said.

Abortion opponents, however, object to the fact that some family planning money goes to groups that provide information on, support, and sometimes lobby for, legal abortion.

U.S. policy bars the use of family planning funds for abortions. But under the Reagan and Bush administrations, in what is known as”the Mexico City policy,”federal funds also could not be given to any group that performs or supports abortion, even if abortions are paid for with money from other sources. Clinton reversed that policy.

Abortion foes, led by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee, mounted a campaign _ enlisting Catholic bishops from Latin America, the Caribbean and the Philippines _ to re-impose the Mexico City policy and reject Clinton’s request to free up the funds.

But abortion rights supporters _ led by Population Action International, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and joined by a number of overseas relief agencies such as CARE and Save the Children _ were equally mobilized.

Other groups that take no position on abortion, like the National Council of Churches, strongly backed release of the funds.

For some groups _ and lawmakers _ which both support family planning efforts abroad and oppose abortion, such as the evangelical relief agency World Vision, the campaign created a moral dilemma.

World Vision, for example, in a Jan. 31 letter to members of Congress, urged release of the family planning funds.”Based upon our knowledge and operational experience, we can assure you that this is not an ideological or partisan issue, but a serious health concern for women, children and families,”the letter said”In addition to more maternal and child deaths, reduced access to family planning services will result in more unintended pregnancies, leading to more, rather than fewer abortions. By voting to release already limited family planning funds, you will be voting to prevent more of these tragedies from happening.” In the highly charged abortion debate, however, everything is either”ideological or partisan,”and World Vision soon found itself under attack by Rep. Smith on Pat Robertson’s”700 Club”TV program.

World Vision, in a letter to Smith, said it would continue to support family planning but that it also supported the Mexico City restrictions.

On Thursday, as the issue came to a head in the House, lawmakers were thus given the opportunity to vote twice on the issue _ once to release the funds as requested by Clinton and separately on legislation proposed by Smith re-imposing the Mexico City policy. Members who were both pro-family planning and anti-abortion could have it both ways _ to the consternation of all those looking for the early showdown on abortion.”The House is sending a mixed message,”said Victoria Markell, vice president of the liberal Population Action International.”It cares enough about women to release U.S. family planning funds, but then seeks to dictate to those who serve the needs of women how they spend their own money.” A similar view was voiced on the other side of the ideological spectrum. Gary Bauer, president of the conservative Family Research Council, called the two House votes”conflicting signals”on the House’s commitment to keep”abortion separate from faily planning.” Nor did the two votes in the House resolve the issue.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the Senate will vote on the Clinton request Feb. 25. The fate of Smith’s effort to reinstate the Mexico City policy is uncertain.

MJP END ANDERSON