Restricting Private International Family Planning Funds

House Roll Call Vote 362

1997 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

210

Votes Against

218

Not Voting

5

Issues

Rapid global population growth is one of the most serious threats to a healthy and sustainable environment, leading to depletion of natural resources and contributing to pollution. The current world population is estimated at 5.8 billion. At the current growth rate, world human population grows by approximately one billion every 11 years.

For more than 30 years, the United States has contributed funds to voluntary family planning programs worldwide in order to help stabilize human population growth. 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 monies 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.

During consideration of H.R. 2159, the Fiscal Year 1998 Foreign Operations appropriations (budget) bill, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) offered an amendment to deny U.S. family planning funds to non-governmental organizations that are involved in any abortion-related activities, even if paid for with non-U.S. government funds. This restriction would deny funding to some of the most experienced and qualified providers of maternal and child health care and family planning services. Opponents were not satisfied with the current ban on direct U.S. government funding for abortion but sought to bar organizations using any other source of funds. Reps. Ben Gilman (R-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) introduced a substitute amendment which would not apply to organizations that use the funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning but only to those that promote it as a method of family planning.

On September 4, 1997, the House rejected the Gilman-Pelosi substitute amendment, 210 – 218. YES is the pro-environment vote.

Despite a veto threat from the President, the House subsequently adopted the original Smith amendment, 234 – 191. However, after an intense political battle, the new restrictions were not made a part of the final bill that was signed into law by President Clinton on November 26, 1997.

Votes

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

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2024 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
2024 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
2024 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
2024 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
2024 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
2024 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
2024 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
2024 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
2024 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
2024 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
2024 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
2024 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
2024 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
2024 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
2024 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
2024 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
2024 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2024 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
2024 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
2024 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2024 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
2024 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%