International Family Planning Funding

Senate Roll Call Vote 105

1998 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

51

Votes Against

49

Issues

Currently estimated at 5.9 billion, the world’s human population is expected to grow by approximately one billion every 12 or 13 years. This rapid population growth, by exacerbating pollution and accelerating the depletion of natural resources, constitutes one of the most serious threats to a healthy and sustainable environment.

For more than 30 years, the United States has worked to stabilize human population growth by contributing funds to voluntary family planning programs worldwide. In recent years, family planning opponents have cut federal funding for these programs by arguing, in part, that the money funds abortions. In fact, current law prohibits U.S. foreign assistance moneys from funding abortion, and there are no reports that any organization receiving U.S. funds has ever violated this prohibition.

In addition, family planning supporters note that improving access to voluntary family planning not only protects the life and health of women and children, it is also one of the best ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

The House-Senate conference report for the State Department authorization bill, H.R. 1757, included an amendment by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) to deny U.S. family planning funds for nongovernmental organizations that are involved in any abortion-related activities, even if those activities are paid for with non-U.S. government funds. Direct U.S. government funding for abortions overseas has been prohibited since 1973. But family planning opponents now seek to bar organizations from receiving U.S. funds if they use funds derived from any source, including their own government, for abortion.

By denying funding to some of the most experienced and qualified providers of family planning services and maternal and child health care, these restrictions threaten to damage efforts to slow population growth and to protect the environment. The Smith amendment would allow the President to waive the ban on funding for organizations that perform legal abortions with non-U.S. funds, but such an action would trigger an overall funding cut of $44 million–thus threatening all family planning programs with funding reductions, regardless of whether they perform abortions.

Since there was no opportunity to strike this amendment from the conference report or for members to vote separately on the specific merits of these population-related issues, the vote on final passage of the conference report became a referendum on senators’ positions on international family planning programs.

On April 28, 1998, the Senate passed the State Department authorization bill conference report, 51 – 49. NO is the pro-environment vote. President Clinton threatened to veto the bill.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

11%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

89%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

63%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

4%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

40%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

96%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

49%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%