Sober Up, part nine

President Donald John Trump must be given credit for his shaking up the established political order in Washington, District of Columbia. His executive orders, presidential directives and presidential memoranda of the past seven days have shown that he is very committed to undoing as much of the lawless legacy of his predecessor, former President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, as possible.

To wit, President Trump has been absolutely fearless in vowing to build a border wall and restoring the rule of law at the border between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, and his demand that so-called “sanctuary cities” simply obey Federal immigration law has been met with a firestorm of opposition from those cities’ self-righteous “mayors” who countenance law-breaking when it suits their ideological purposes of social engineering. Mayors such as Rahm Emanuel of the murder-infested city named Chicago, Illinois, and Warren Wilhelm/“Bill de Blasio” of the nation’s abortion capital, the City of New York, New York, have expressed defiance of the new president in order to persist in their violations of the rule of law.

Although he does not realize it, Trump’s expressed determination to simply enforce existing Federal law has exposed an interesting fact about the hypocritical adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” namely, that leftists believe that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, must be used to bludgeon men such as United States Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) into accepting the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by surgical means as “settled law” while they, the leftists, arrogate unto themselves the right to “unsettle” those laws with which they disagree. Leftist ideologues believe that immigration law is unjust and that they have no obligation to observe it. Indeed, they believe that they are duty-bound to break laws that they consider to violations of their own false belief systems.

When one thinks about it, however, the leftist belief that laws considered to be manifestly unjust must be broken is the same underlying principle that brought us to the point of a nationwide slaughter of the innocent preborn up to and including the day of birth in the United States of America. Pro-abortion leaders such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of the National Repeal of Abortion Laws (now called NARAL-Pro Choice), and Lawrence Lader and William Baird, among others, sought to change existing law in the 1960s by using the existence of various "exceptions" in abortion legislation then on the books as the means of "liberalizing" "access" to baby-killing for all women in all circumstances. The move for decriminalized baby-killing under cover of law started at the state level, moving into the Federal court system only when pro-death advocates believed that it was propitious for them to challenge the laws of those states which prohibited or restricted "access" to baby-killing. Noting that there are other root causes that brought us to the point of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton over forty-four years ago now, it was the efforts on the part of pro-aborts to change state laws in the 1960s that made the decriminalization of surgical baby-killing on the national level a reality. This is what “immigration activists,” including many of the conciliar “bishops” in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, and the mayors of “sanctuary cities” are trying to do now at a time when the president who failed to enforce this country’s just immigration laws is gone and has been replaced by one who is just trying to enforce the law.

This is, of course, what must happen when men are needlessly divided about First and Last Things. Men must lose all sense of what constitutes true justice when they do not view the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith. Pope Leo XIII pointed this out in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established (by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Almost no one today understands that the “growth of civilization” “grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as but the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue.”

Those opposing President Donald John Trump with profane ferocity do not understand this, and Donald John Trump and those advising him do not understand this.

As commendable as President Trump’s actions on such matters as the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipelines, border security, banning Syrian refugees from entering the country, easing the enforcement of the burdensome regulatory regime wrought by the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obama Care (see Andrew Napolitano Says Trump Has Committeed the Most Revolutionary Act See in forty-five years), and the withdrawal of the United States of America from the globalist Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement are, none of these can be the means of restoring true national greatness when the civil law protects grievously sinful actions, no less each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, including willful murder.

Like each of his predecessors before him, of course, President Donald John Trump, however, he does not understand that American law has lost its primary authority and that justice has perished precisely because men and their nations severed themselves nearly half a millennia ago from the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it was exercised by Holy Mother Church, thus bringing us to the point of such social decay that one is considered to be “pro-life” even though he supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in some circumstances and supports the chemical execution of innocent babies in all circumstances without exception. So many people, starved for decisive leadership of any type, are willing to overlook the simple fact that, no matter the new president’s efforts to restore economic prosperity and to secure the nation’s borders, there can be no true prosperity or national security if the civil law recognizes a nonexistent “right” to directly intend to kill innocent children under cover of the civil law in some cases and that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to frustrate the conception of children, no less to use the gift proper to the married state alone in all extramarital situations.

That is, far from being a triumph for the preborn, President Donald John Trump’s restoration of the Mexico City Policy according to the terms included in then President George Walker Bush’s executive order of January 22, 2001, represents yet another needless concession that there are circumstances in which innocent preborn children may be put to death lawfully with funding provided by American taxpayer dollars.

Moreover, even though President Trump’s iteration of the Mexico City Policy extends to all Federal agencies and not just to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to forbid them from using American taxpayer dollars to promote surgical abortion as a means of “family planning,” “family planning” is itself odious to God, injurious to individuals, destructive to families and fatal to the welfare of nations. Most of our social problems are the direct result of the destruction of the stability of the family, the proliferation of unwed mothers and of children sent off to pre-school and after-school “care” programs, meaning that grow up never having experienced the meaning of a stable family and thus of the true love and sense of security to be found therein. Indeed, many of Federal entitlement programs exist to provide taxpayer assistance to children who live in poverty as a result of the consequences of contraception and the unstable situations in which they live.

Here is the text of President Trump’s presidential memorandum restoring the Mexico City Policy, which extends the ban of American taxpayer dollars being provided to “family planning” agencies in foreign countries that use surgical abortion as a means of “family planning”:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
                                    THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
                                    THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY
                                    FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT:                    The Mexico City Policy

I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2009, for the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning), and reinstate the Presidential Memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy).

I direct the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.

I further direct the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP  (Presidential Memorandum on The Mexico City Policy.)

The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order is called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order that Trump has now restored permits employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Mexico City" policy permits an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee is then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.

Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, offered the following commentary ten years ago after the United States Congress had passed a bill containing the language of the Mexico City Policy:

While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.

The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.

The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?

Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.

Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.

In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.

So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT) 

This analysis was correct ten years ago, and it is correct today, and it is worth stressing that nothing but nothing in the restored and revised Mexico City Policy issued by President Trump forbids the use of the human pesticide, RU-486, which former President George Waker Bush refused to take off of the market, thereby retaining the United States Food and Drug Administration's decision, announced on September 28, 2000, the Feast of Saint Wenceslaus, to market the baby-killing potion during the midst of that year's presidential election. 

Consider, for example, the fact that the supposed “pro-life” Governor of Texas, George Walker Bush, said on October 3, 2000, that he would not reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration’s decision to place the human pesticide, RU-486, on the marketplace after over seven years of clinical trials that began soon after then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton issued an executive order on January 22, 1993, ordering the Food and Drug Administration “to promptly assess initiatives … [to] promote the testing, licensing, and manufacturing in the United States … [of] antiprogestins.” It was about thirty months after Clinton’s executive order that The New York Times reported women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to test the human pesticide in the Food and Drug Administration’s “clinical” trials.

This is what Bush the Lesser said in his debate with then Vice President Arnold Albert Gore, Jr., in St. Louis, Missouri:

BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.

MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --

BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat. Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, is lethal to babies, Mister Former President, and is not "safe" for women's bodies and is positively lethal to their immortal souls. ]

True to his cowardly word, President George Walker Bush never lifted a finger to reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s September 28, 2000, to permit the licensing and sale of the human pesticide, RU-486. Moreover, it was just six years later during his second term as President of the United States of America that the United States Food and Drug Administration permitted the over-the-counter so-called “emergency” contraceptive named “Plan B” even though it is also a poison pill that serves as an abortifacient:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;

Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;

Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and

Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .) 

There is no reason to believe that President Donald John Trump has any intention to rescind the Food and Drug Administration's Septenber 28, 2000, decision to market RU-486 and/or to rescind the FDA's decision to approve over-the-counter access for the Plan B abortifacient to women who are eighteen years of age and over. 

Mind you, President Trump has never thought too much or too deely about pro-life issues. He is taking advice--and very bad advice at that--from advisers and representatives of various so-called "right to life organizations that either endorse or, in the case of the National Right to Life Committee, take no positon on contraception and endorse at least one, if not all three, of the usual "exceptions" whereby it is contended that it is "permissible" to directly kill an innocent preborn human being (see Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life" Pols.) He really thinks that the restored Mexico City Policy will save lives when it will do nothing of the sort. 

To demonstrate the inherent harm of the Mexico City Policy in the version approved in it final form by President George Walker Bush on March 28, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2000, I ask the readers of this site to consider the contemporaneous analysis offered by the late Howard Phillips, the president and the founder of the Conservative Caucus Foundation. Though a Calvinist who rejected the claims of the Catholic Church to be the one and only true Church of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus did not accept the fact the Constitution of the United States of America, which admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words, is as defenseless against legal positivists as Holy Writ is in the hand of Protestants and of Modernist "Catholics," Phillips's dissection of then President George Walker Bush's restored Mexico City Policy is as applicable to the one isssued by President Donald John Trump on Monday, January 23, 2017, the Feast of Saint Raymond of Penafort and the Commemoration of Saint Emerentiana:

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of April 15, 2001

BUSH’S "MEXICO CITY" ABORTION POLICY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS
ABORTION AND ABORTION ADVOCACY WILL STILL BE FUNDED

Previously, your editor has pointed out that President G.W.B.’s decision to restore the Reagan "Mexico City" policy, limiting the provision of your tax dollars flowing to overseas population control organizations was less significant than assumed by many well-intentioned pro-life leaders, in that, while the Bush policy does limit the direct use of U.S. subsidies to perform and promote abortion, nonetheless, the pro-abortion recipient organizations still get the money to which they are not Constitutionally or morally entitled, with these funds available to offset their other expenses, so long as the U.S. Treasury dollars are assigned to a separate bank account.

Now, in reviewing the policy as enunciated in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 61, Thursday, March 29, 2001) Presidential Documents, "Memorandum of March 28, 2001: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy" over the signature of President Bush, it is clear that this is even less a pro-life victory than first believed.

"FAMILY PLANNING": YES, "ABORTION": NO --- WITH EXCEPTIONS

GWB: "The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required foreign nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds for family planning activities that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations….

"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act should not be given to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations…except as otherwise provided below...."

ABORTION FUNDING OK IF NOT "A METHOD OF FAMILY PLANNING"

"The recipient agrees that it will not furnish assistance for family planning under this award to any foreign nongovernmental organization that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient countries or that provides financial support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities. For purposes of this paragraph (e), a foreign nongovernmental organization is a nongovernmental organization that is not organized under the laws of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. ..."

FUNDING OF "POST-ABORTION" CARE IS AUTHORIZED

"Abortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of spacing births. This includes, but is not limited to, abortions performed for the physical or mental health of the mother, but does not include abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest (since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act)."

FUNDING OF POST-ABORTION SERVICES PERMITTED

"To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning programs. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion care. ..."

GWB: "SAFE, LEGAL ABORTION" REFERRAL IS PERMITTED

"([P]assively responding to a question regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained is not considered active promotion if the question is specifically asked by a woman who is already pregnant, the woman clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires a response regarding where it may be obtained safely).…"

GWB OK’S ABORTION ADVOCACY IF "FAMILY PLANNING" PERSONNEL DO IT ON THEIR LUNCH HOUR

"Action by an individual acting in the individual’s capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the organization neither endorses nor provides financial support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the individual does not improperly represent that the individual is acting on behalf of the organization. ..."

SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION

"The recipient may request USAID’s approval to treat as separate the family planning activities of two or more organizations, that would not be considered separate under the preceding sentence, if the recipient believes, and provides a written justification to USAID therefor, that the family planning activities of the organizations are sufficiently distinct so as to warrant not imputing the activity of one to the other."

ALL U.S. FUNDS MUST BE CLEANLY LAUNDERED

"Assistance for family planning may be furnished under this award by a recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient to a foreign government even though the government includes abortion in its family planning program, provided that no assistance may be furnished in support of the abortion activity of the government and any funds transferred to the government shall be placed in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support the abortion activity of the government."

DUBYA SAYS USAID SUBSIDIES WILL FUND CHILD-SPACING ABORTIONS

"The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to child spacing assistance furnished to a foreign nongovernmental organization that is engaged primarily in providing health services if the objective of the assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and children and child spacing is one of several health care services being provided by the organization as part of a larger child survival effort with the objective of reducing infant and child mortality." (Excerpts on Pro-Life Issues in The Howard Phillips Issues and Strategies Bulletin. This is a very good resource that contains factual documentation of the consitent Republican betrayal of legitimate pro-life policy. There is even a lengthy quotation about President George Walker Bush's 2004 endorsement of the fully pro-abortion United States Senator Arlen Specter against a primary challenge being waged by the partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion United States Representative Patrick Toomey, who was elected to the Senate six years later after Specter, having switched parties to become a Democrat three months after Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro took office in 2009, lost the Democratic Party senatorial primary in Pennsylvania a year later. Mr. Phillips's lengthy quotation of the Bush the Lesser's endorsement of Specter seemed very familiar to me. It should have been familiar as the citation he provided was to a certain author in The Remnant who is no longer associated with that publication, and can be found referenced in Blame George Walker Bush.)

Howard Phillips's analysis of sixteen years ago made it very clear that the Mexico City Policy has so many loopholes as to make any claim in its defense to be without rational foundation. 

Once again, President Trump knows none of this. Indeed, he knew nothing about the annual March for Life until recently, something that he noted in an interview with the American Broadcasting Company television network (ABC-TV) that aired on Wednesday, January 25, 2017, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, as he castigated the mainslime media for not covering an event that draws thousands upon thousands of people from all across the United States of America to peacefully protest and to make reparation for the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973:

January 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – During a Wednesday night interview with ABC, President Trump called out the media for covering a pro-abortion march but ignoring the March for Life.

ABC's David Muir asked Trump if he "could hear the voices from the women’s march here in Washington?"

"I couldn’t hear them, but the crowds were large," Trump responded. "You’re gonna have a large crowd on Friday, too, which is mostly pro-life people. You’re gonna have a lot of people coming on Friday, and I will say this, and I didn’t realize this, but I was told, you will have a very large crowd of people. I don’t know – as large or larger – some people say it’s gonna be larger. Pro-life people. And they say the press doesn’t cover them."

Muir quickly said he didn't want to compare crowd sizes.

"What they do say is that the press doesn’t cover them," said Trump. 

Friday's March for Life is the 44th annual gathering demanding human rights for the pre-born. It is the largest annual American civil rights demonstration. 

A recent study by Katie Yoder of NewsBusters revealed that the networks covered the 2017 pro-abortion women's march 129 times more than the 2016 March for Life. (Trump Plugs March for Life in Interviw with ABC-TV News.)

This, I will grant you, is significant on two counts.

First, President Trump admitted that he knew nothing about the March for Life or the large numbers of Americans who make many sacrifices to travel to the nation's capital to participate it, and this means that he is relying upon what he has been told by those around him. While he was given accurate information about what I long ago called the "media shutout" of the March for Life, which I used to cover annually durng my years writing for The Wanderer, the people advising him on the Mexico City Policy accept that policy's basic premise, namely, that is is a good thing for American taxpayer dollars to be sent to nongovermemntal "family planning" agencies abroad as along as they do not kill babies surgically for "family planning" reasons. Such a concession overlooks entirely the simple fact that most contraceptives abort, and most contraceptives abort most of the time while overlooking as well the fact that it is contraception and the contraception mentality that led, both socially and judicially, to surgical baby-killing on demand under cover of the civil law. Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, led directly to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973.

Second, the president's remarks, which he repeated at a Congressional Republican "retreat" in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, yesteday, January 26, 2017, the Feast of Saint Polycarp, has made it very difficult for the mainslime media to ignore this year's March for Life. Indeed, Trump, who might show up a the march himself even though he is not scheduled to be there, has assured that more coverage will given to the event by the fact that he has authorized Vice President Michael Richard Pence to appear live at the rally before the march. All that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush or George Walker Bush ever did was to speak to the rally via a phone hookup, and the latter did not even do that just days after his inauguration (Karl Rove made sure that Bush the Lesser was out of town on January 22nd each year save for 2008, at which point "Dubya" met with March for Life representatives in the White House as he had nothing to lose politically for doing so in his final year of his second term). 

It would be intellectually dishonest of me not to give credit where credit is due, and the president deserves a great deal of credit for highlighting the March for Life and permitting the vice president to speak in person at the rally beforehand.

Noting this, however, does not make the restored and revised Mexico City Policy a truly "pro-life" initiative even though those who advise President Trump believe that it is. Facts, not the good feelings of the moment, matter, and here are some basic facts that are important for a Catholic to keep in mind, especially on the day when the March for Life. delayed by five days this yearbecause of the inauguration a week ago today:

1) We need to plant the seeds for the Catholicization of the United States of America.  

2) We must think and speak and act as Catholics at all times.

3) No one who supports one abortion under cover of law is pro-life.

4) It is unjust and misleading to call a politician who supports even one abortion under cover of law as being "pro-life."

5) No one who supports contraception and/or funding for same is pro-life or can be called "pro-life."

6) No one who supports explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (under any of its various guises) and/or funding for same can be called "pro-life."

7) No one who supports "civil unions" while opposing marriages among "perverts" is pro-family or can be called "pro-family."

8) No one who supports a candidate for public office who supports abortion on demand or who is simply less pro-abortion than other candidates is pro-life or is interested in doing anything substantive to restore complete legal protection to all innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. 

As I hope should be obvious to readers of this site, to point out the flaws of the restored Mexico City Policy and to list the facts provided just above is not to ignore the simple reality that, yes, things would have been far worse under the pro-abortion zealot named Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

That having been stated, however, part of a citizen's public duty to is assess facts dispassionately without attempting to project into a given development "victories" that do not exist. It is no victory for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law for contraception to be funded at all or for there be legally "permitted" instances in which innocent preborn life may be targeted directly for execution, no less execution with American taxpayer dollars. It is thus wrong to take refuge in the "Hillary Clinton woud have done worse things" argument in order to overlook the harm of what a well-meaning but uninformed and badly advised president does when restoring, albeit with revisions, a policy that is premised upon falsedhoods and filled with exceptions and qualifications.

As explained in today's companion article, surgical baby-killing on demand up to and including the day of birth is but the logical consequence of events that been unfolding since Father Martin Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, and, of course, the battle against the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn is principally spiritual in nature, not constitutional, legal or political:

Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high place. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace:

In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints. (Ephesians 6: 11-18.)

This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times. Will we let her? Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae and quoted above, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:

Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

What can be a better description of the Judeo-Masonic of governmental system here in the United States of America?

We can never hold the false for that which is true and good. 

Evil is evil, and it is an evil thing to support contraception, no less surgical baby killing in one or more instances, and to fund it in the name of "family planning."

Root causes, ladies and gentlemen. Root causes. 

With full confidence in Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, may we rise above the histrionics, the silliness, the emotionalism and the apoplexy engendered by naturalism to pray and to work for the restoration of the Catholic City as the fruit of the triumph of that same Immaculate Heart. 

We may not see the results with our own earthly eyes. Please God and by the intercession of Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace, may it be our privilege to see the results from eternity, where those who have won the only election that matters, God's favor for all eternity, will praise and glorify Christ the King forever in Heaven.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint John Chyrsostom, pray for us.

Appendix

Text of President George Walker Bush's Memorandum on the Mexico City Policy, March 28, 2001

Memorandum of March 28, 2001--Restoration of the Mexico City Policy
                        Presidential Documents 
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 17303]]

                Memorandum of March 28, 2001

                
Restoration of the Mexico City Policy

                Memorandum for the Administrator of the United States 
                Agency for International Development

                The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 
                1984 required foreign nongovernmental organizations to 
                agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds 
                for family planning activities that such organizations 
                would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as 
                a method of family planning in other nations. This 
                policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 
                22, 1993.

                It is my conviction that taxpayer funds appropriated 
                pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act should not be 
                given to foreign nongovernmental organizations that 
                perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a 
                method of family planning in other nations. 
                Accordingly, I direct that, except as otherwise 
                provided below in section III, the paragraphs set forth 
                below be included, as specified, in the Standard 
                Provision that was issued in Contract Information 
                Bulletin 99-06 entitled ``Voluntary Population 
                Activities (March 1999)'' for use in all new grants and 
                cooperative agreements awarded by the United States 
                Agency for International Development (USAID) that 
                provide assistance for family planning activities.

                In addition, except as otherwise provided below, these 
                paragraphs are to be included in the Standard Provision 
                when any existing grant or cooperative agreement for 
                family planning activities is amended to add new 
                funding. The FY 2000 population certification 
                requirements issued in Contract Information Bulletin 
                00-04 remain in effect until September 30, 2001.

                The foregoing directive accomplishes the objective of 
                my January 22, 2001, Memorandum to the USAID 
                Administrator--to reinstate in full all of the 
                requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on 
                January 19, 1993--and is issued pursuant to the 
                authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws 
                of the United States of America, including section 104 
                of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 
                U.S.C. 2151b).

                I. Grants and Cooperative Agreements with U.S. 
                Nongovernmental Organizations

                Paragraph (e) is replaced by the following paragraphs 
                (e) and (f), which are to be included in the Standard 
                Provision for use in assistance agreements with United 
                States nongovernmental organizations:

``(e)

Ineligibility of Foreign Nongovernmental Organizations that Perform or 
Actively Promote Abortion as a Method of Family Planning.

(1)

The recipient agrees that is will not furnish assistance for family 
planning under this award to any foreign nongovernmental organization that 
performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in 
USAID-recipient countries or that provides financial support to any other 
foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities. For 
purposes of this paragraph (e), a foreign nongovernmental organization is a 
nongovernmental organization that is not organized under the laws of any 
State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico.

[[Page 17304]]

 (2)

Prior to furnishing funds provided under this award to another 
nongovernmental organization organized under the laws of any State of the 
United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, the recipient shall obtain the written agreement of such organization 
that the organization shall not furnish assistance for family planning 
under this award to any foreign nongovernmental organization except under 
the conditions and requirements that are applicable to the recipient as set 
forth in this paragraph (e).

 (3)

The recipient may not furnish assistance for family planning under this 
award to a foreign nongovernmental organization (the subrecipient) unless:

 (i)

 The subrecipient certifies in writing that it does not perform or actively 
promote abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient 
countries and does not provide financial support to any other foreign 
nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities; and

 (ii)

The recipient obtains the written agreement of the subrecipient containing 
the undertakings described in subparagraph (4) below.

(4)

 Prior to furnishing assistance for family planning under this award to a 
subrecipient, the subrecipient must agree in writing that:

(i)

 The subrecipient will not, while receiving assistance under this award, 
perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in 
USAID-recipient countries or provide financial support to other foreign 
nongovernmental organizations that conduct such activities;

(ii)

 The recipient and authorized representatives of USAID may, at any 
reasonable time: (A) inspect the documents and materials maintained or 
prepared by the subrecipient in the usual course of its operations that 
describe the family planning activities of the subrecipient, including 
reports, brochures and service statistics; (B) observe the family planning 
activity conducted by the subrecipient; (C) consult with family planning 
personnel of the subrecipient; and (D) obtain a copy of the audited 
financial statement or report of the subrecipient, if there is one;

(iii)

 In the event that the recipient or USAID has reasonable cause to believe 
that a subrecipient may have violated its undertaking not to perform or 
actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, the recipient 
shall review the family planning program of the subrecipient to determine 
whether a violation of the undertaking has occurred. The subrecipient shall 
make available to the recipient such books and records and other 
information as may be reasonably requested in order to conduct the review. 
USAID may also review the family planning program of the subrecipient under 
these circumstances, and USAID shall have access to such books and records 
and information for inspection upon request;

(iv)

 The subrecipient shall refund to the recipient the entire amount of 
assistance for family planning furnished to the subrecipient under this 
award in the event it is determined that the certification provided by the 
subrecipient under subparagraph (3), above, is false;

[[Page 17305]]

(v)

 Assistance for family planning provided to the subrecipient under this 
award shall be terminated if the subrecipient violates any undertaking in 
the agreement required by subparagraphs (3) and (4), and the subrecipient 
shall refund to the recipient the value of any assistance furnished under 
this award that is used to perform or actively promote abortion as a method 
of family planning; and

(vi)

 The subrecipient may furnish assistance for family planning under this 
award to another foreign nongovernmental organization (the sub-
subrecipient) only if: (A) the sub-subrecipient certifies in writing that 
it does not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family 
planning in USAID-recipient countries and does not provide financial 
support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts 
such activities; and (B) the subrecipient obtains the written agreement of 
the sub-subrecipient that contains the same undertakings and obligations to 
the subrecipient as those provided by the subrecipient to the recipient as 
described in subparagraphs (4)(i)-(v) above.

(5)

 Agreements with subrecipients and sub-subrecipients required under 
subparagraphs (3) and (4) shall contain the definitions set forth in 
subparagraph (10) of this paragraph (e).

(6)

 The recipient shall be liable to USAID for a refund for a violation of any 
requirement of this paragraph (e) only if: (i) the recipient knowingly 
furnishes assistance for family planning to a subrecipient who performs or 
actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning; or (ii) the 
certification provided by a subrecipient is false and the recipient failed 
to make reasonable efforts to verify the validity of the certification 
prior to furnishing assistance to the subrecipient; or (iii) the recipient 
knows or has reason to know, by virtue of the monitoring which the 
recipient is required to perform under the terms of this award, that a 
subrecipient has violated any of the undertakings required under 
subparagraph (4) and the recipient fails to terminate assistance for family 
planning to the subrecipient, or fails to require the subrecipient to 
terminate assistance to a sub-subrecipient that violates any undertaking of 
the agreement required under subparagraph 4(vi), above. If the recipient 
finds, in exercising its monitoring responsibility under this award, that a 
subrecipient or sub-subrecipient receives frequent requests for the 
information described in subparagraph (10)(iii)(A)(II), below, the 
recipient shall verify that this information is being provided properly in 
accordance with subparagraph (10)(iii)(A)(II) and shall describe to USAID 
the reasons for reaching its conclusion.

(7)

In submitting a request to USAID for approval of a recipient's decision to 
furnish assistance for family planning to a subrecipient, the recipient 
shall include a description of the efforts made by the recipient to verify 
the validity of the certification provided by the subrecipient. USAID may 
request the recipient to make additional efforts to verify the validity of 
the certification. USAID will inform the recipient in writing when USAID is 
satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made. If USAID concludes that 
these efforts are reasonable within the meaning of subparagraph (6) above, 
the recipient shall not be liable to USAID for a refund in the event the 
subrecipient's certification is false unless the recipient knew the 
certification to be false or misrepresented to USAID the efforts made by 
the recipient to verify the validity of the certification.

[[Page 17306]]

(8)

It is understood that USAID may make independent inquiries, in the 
community served by a subrecipient or sub-subrecipient, regarding whether 
it performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning.

(9)

A subrecipient must provide the certification required under subparagraph 
(3) and a sub-subrecipient must provide the certification required under 
subparagraph (4)(vi) each time a new agreement is executed with the 
subrecipient or sub-subrecipient in furnishing assistance for family 
planning under the award.

(10)

The following definitions apply for purposes of this paragraph (e):

(i)

Abortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of 
spacing births. This includes, but is not limited to, abortions performed 
for the physical or mental health of the mother, but does not include 
abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the 
fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest 
(since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act).

(ii)

To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are 
performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are 
clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning 
programs. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries 
or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-
abortion care.

(iii)

 To actively promote abortion means for an organization to commit 
resources, financial or other, in a substantial or continuing effort to 
increase the availability or use of abortion as a method of family 
planning.

(A)

 This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(I)

 Operating a family planning counseling service that includes, as part of 
the regular program, providing advice and information regarding the 
benefits and availability of abortion as a method of family planning;

(II)

 Providing advice that abortion is an available option in the event other 
methods of family planning are not used or are not successful or 
encouraging women to consider abortion (passively responding to a question 
regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained is not considered 
active promotion if the question is specifically asked by a woman who is 
already pregnant, the woman clearly states that she has already decided to 
have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably 
believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires 
a response regarding where it may be obtained safely);

(III)

 Lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make available abortion as a 
method of family planning or lobbying such a government to continue the 
legality of abortion as a method of family planning; and

(IV)

 Conducting a public information campaign in USAID-recipient countries 
regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion as a method of 
family planning.

(B)

Excluded from the definition of active promotion of abortion as a method of 
family planning are referrals for abortion as a result of rape or incest, 
or if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried 
to term. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or 
illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion 
care.

[[Page 17307]]

(C)

Action by an individual acting in the individual's capacity shall not be 
attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, 
provided that the organization neither endorses nor provides financial 
support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the 
individual does not improperly represent that the individual is acting on 
behalf of the organization.

(iv)

To furnish assistance for family planning to a foreign nongovernmental 
organization means to provide financial support under this award to the 
family planning program of the organization, and includes the transfer of 
funds made available under this award or goods or services financed with 
such funds, but does not include the purchase of goods or services from an 
organization or the participation of an individual in the general training 
programs of the recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient.

(v)

To control an organization means the possession of the power to direct or 
cause the direction of the management and policies of an organization.

(11)

In determining whether a foreign nongovernmental organization is eligible 
to be a subrecipient or sub-subrecipient of assistance for family planning 
under this award, the action of separate nongovernmental organizations 
shall not be imputed to the subrecipient or sub-subrecipient, unless, in 
the judgment of USAID, a separate nongovernmental organization is being 
used as a sham to avoid the restrictions of this paragraph (e). Separate 
nongovernmental organizations are those that have distinct legal existence 
in accordance with the laws of the countries in which they are organized. 
Foreign organizations that are separately organized shall not be considered 
separate, however, if one is controlled by the other. The recipient may 
request USAID's approval to treat as separate the family planning 
activities of two or more organizations, that would not be considered 
separate under the preceding sentence, if the recipient believes, and 
provides a written justification to USAID therefor, that the family 
planning activities of the organizations are sufficiently distinct so as to 
warrant not imputing the activity of one to the other.

(12)

Assistance for family planning may be furnished under this award by a 
recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient to a foreign government event 
though the government includes abortion in its family planning program, 
provided that no assistance may be furnished in support of the abortion 
activity of the government and any funds transferred to the government 
shall be placed in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not 
be used to support the abortion activity of the government.

(13)

The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to child spacing 
assistance furnished to a foreign nongovernmental organization that is 
engaged primarily in providing health services if the objective of the 
assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and 
children and child spacing is one of several health care services being 
provided by the organization as part of a larger child survival effort with 
the objective of reducing infant and child mortality.

[[Page 17308]]

(f)

 The recipient shall insert paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of this 
provision in all subsequent subagreements and contracts involving family 
planning or population activities that will be supported in whole or in 
part from funds under this award. Paragraph (e) shall be inserted in 
subagreements and sub-subagreements in accordance with the terms of 
paragraph (e). The term subagreement means subgrants and subcooperative 
agreements.''

                II. Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Non-U.S., 
                Nongovernmental Organizations

                Paragraph (e) is replaced by the following paragraphs 
                (e) and (f), which are to be included in the Standard 
                Provision for grants and cooperative agreements with 
                non-United States, nongovernmental organizations:

``(e)

Ineligibility of Foreign Nongovernmental Organizations that Perform or 
Actively Promote Abortion as a Method of Family Planning.

(1)

The recipient certifies that it does not now and will not during the term 
of this award perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family 
planning in USAID-recipient countries or provide financial support to any 
other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities. 
For purposes of this paragraph (e), a foreign nongovernmental organization 
is a nongovernmental organization that is not organized under the laws of 
any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(2)

The recipient agrees that the authorized representative of USAID may, at 
any reasonable time: (i) inspect the documents and materials maintained or 
prepared by the recipient in the usual course of its operations that 
describe the family planning activities of the recipient, including 
reports, brochures and service statistics; (ii) observe the family planning 
activity conducted by the recipient, (iii) consult with the family planning 
personnel of the recipient; and (iv) obtain a copy of the audited financial 
statement or report of the recipient, if there is one.

(3)

In the event USAID has reasonable cause to believe that the recipient may 
have violated its undertaking not to perform or actively promote abortion 
as a method of family planning, the recipient shall make available to USAID 
such books and records and other information as USAID may reasonably 
request in order to determine whether a violation of the undertaking has 
occurred.

(4)

The recipient shall refund to USAID the entire amount of assistance for 
family planning furnished under this award in the event it is determined 
that the certification provided by the recipient under subparagraph (1), 
above, is false.

(5)

Assistance for family planning to the recipient under this award shall be 
terminated if the recipient violates any undertaking required by this 
paragraph (e), and the recipient shall refund to USAID the value of any 
assistance furnished under this award that is used to perform or actively 
promote abortion as a method of family planning.

[[Page 17309]]

(6)

The recipient may not furnish assistance for family planning under this 
award to a foreign nongovernmental organization (the subrecipient) unless: 
(i) the subrecipient certifies in writing that it does not perform or 
actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient 
countries and does not provide financial support to any other foreign 
nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities; and (ii) the 
recipient obtains the written agreement of the subrecipient containing the 
undertakings described in subparagraph (7), below.

(7)

 Prior to furnishing assistance for family planning under this award to a 
subrecipient, the subrecipient must agree in writing that:

(1)

 The subrecipient will not, while receiving assistance under this award, 
perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in 
USAID-recipient countries or provide financial support to other 
nongovernmental organizations that conduct such activities.

(ii)

 The recipient and authorized representatives of USAID may, at any 
reasonable time: (A) inspect the documents and materials maintained or 
prepared by the subrecipient in the usual course of its operations that 
describe the family planning activities of the subrecipient, including 
reports, brochures and service statistics; (B) observe the family planning 
activity conducted by the subrecipient; (C) consult with family planning 
personnel of the subrecipient; and (D) obtain a copy of the audited 
financial statement or report of the subrecipient, if there is one.

(iii)

 In the event the recipient or USAID has reasonable cause to believe that a 
subrecipient may have violated its undertaking not to perform or actively 
promote abortion as a method of family planning, the recipient shall review 
the family planning program of the subrecipient to determine whether a 
violation of the undertaking has occurred. The subrecipient shall make 
available to the recipient such books and records and other information as 
may be reasonably requested in order to conduct the review. USAID may also 
review the family planning program of the subrecipient under these 
circumstances, and USAID shall have access to such books and records and 
information for inspection upon request.

(iv)

 The subrecipient shall refund to the recipient the entire amount of 
assistance for family planning furnished to the subrecipient under this 
award in the event it is determined that the certification provided by the 
subrecipient under subparagraph (6), above, is false.

(v)

 Assistance for family planning to the subrecipient under this award shall 
be terminated if the subrecipient violates any undertaking required by this 
paragraph (e), and the subrecipient shall refund to the recipient the value 
of any assistance furnished under this award that is used to perform or 
actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.

[[Page 17310]]

(vi)

The subrecipient may furnish assistance for family planning under this 
award to another foreign nongovernmental organization (the sub-
subrecipient) only if: (A) the sub-subrecipient certifies in writing that 
it does not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family 
planning in USAID-recipient countries and does not provide financial 
support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts 
such activities; and (B) the subrecipient obtains the written agreement of 
the sub-subrecipient that contains the same undertakings and obligations to 
the subrecipient as those provided by the subrecipient to the recipient as 
described in subparagraphs (7)(i)-(v), above.

(8)

Agreements with subrecipients and sub-subrecipients required under 
subparagraphs (6) and (7) shall contain the definitions set forth in 
subparagraph (13) of this paragraph (e).

(9)

The recipient shall be liable to USAID for a refund for a violation by a 
subrecipient relating to its certification required under subparagraph (6) 
or by a subrecipient or a sub-subrecipient relating to its undertakings in 
the agreement required under subparagraphs (6) and (7) only if: (i) the 
recipient knowingly furnishes assistance for family planning to a 
subrecipient that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of 
family planning; or (ii) the certification provided by a subrecipient is 
false and the recipient failed to make reasonable efforts to verify the 
validity of the certification prior to furnishing assistance to the 
subrecipient; or (iii) the recipient knows or has reason to know, by virtue 
of the monitoring that the recipient is required to perform under the terms 
of this award, that a subrecipient has violated any of the undertakings 
required under subparagraph (7) and the recipient fails to terminate 
assistance for family planning to the subrecipient, or fails to require the 
subrecipient to terminate assistance to a sub-subrecipient that violates 
any undertaking of the agreement required under subparagraph 7(vi), above. 
If the recipient finds, in exercising its monitoring responsibility under 
this award, that a subrecipient or sub-subrecipient receives frequent 
requests for the information described in subparagraph (13)(iii)(A)(II), 
below, the recipient shall verify that this information is being provided 
properly in accordance with subparagraph 13(iii)(A)(II) and shall describe 
to USAID the reasons for reaching its conclusion.

(10)

In submitting a request to USAID for approval of a recipient's decision to 
furnish assistance for family planning to a subrecipient, the recipient 
shall include a description of the efforts made by the recipient to verify 
the validity of the certification provided by the subrecipient. USAID may 
request the recipient to make additional efforts to verify the validity of 
the certification. USAID will inform the recipient in writing when USAID is 
satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made. If USAID concludes that 
these efforts are reasonable within the meaning of subparagraph (9) above, 
the recipient shall not be liable to USAID for a refund in the event the 
subrecipient's certification is false unless the recipient knew the 
certification to be false or misrepresented to USAID the efforts made by 
the recipient to verify the validity of the certification.

(11)

It is understood that USAID may make independent inquiries, in the 
community served by a subrecipient or sub-subrecipient, regarding whether 
it performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning.

[[Page 17311]]

(12)

A subrecipient must provide the certification required under subparagraph 
(6) and a sub-subrecipient must provide the certification required under 
subparagraph (7)(vi) each time a new agreement is executed with the 
subrecipient or sub-subrecipient in furnishing assistance for family 
planning under this award.

(13)

The following definitions apply for purposes of paragraph (e):

(i)

Abortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of 
spacing births. This includes, but is not limited to, abortions performed 
for the physical or mental health of the mother but does not include 
abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the 
fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest 
(since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act).

(ii)

To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are 
performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are 
clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning 
programs. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries 
or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-
abortion care.

(iii)

To actively promote abortion means for an organization to commit resources, 
financial or other, in a substantial or continuing effort to increase the 
availability or use of abortion as a method of family planning.

(A)

This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(I)

Operating a family planning counseling service that includes, as part of 
the regular program, providing advice and information regarding the 
benefits and availability of abortion as a method of family planning;

(II)

Providing advice that abortion is an available option in the event other 
methods of family planning are not used or are not successful or 
encouraging women to consider abortion (passively responding to a question 
regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained is not considered 
active promotion if the question is specifically asked by a woman who is 
already pregnant, the woman clearly states that she has already decided to 
have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably 
believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires 
a response regarding where it may be obtained safely);

(III)

Lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make available abortion as a 
method of family planning or lobbying such a government to continue the 
legality of abortion as a method of family planning; and

(IV)

Conducting a public information campaign in USAID-recipient countries 
regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion as a method of 
family planning.

(B)

Excluded from the definition of active promotion of abortion as a method of 
family planning are referrals for abortion as a result of rape or incest or 
if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
term. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or 
illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion 
care.

[[Page 17312]]

(C)

Action by an individual acting in the individual's own capacity shall not 
be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, 
provided that the organization neither endorses nor provides financial 
support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the 
individual does not improperly represent the individual is acting on behalf 
of the organization.

(iv)

To furnish assistance for family planning to a foreign nongovernmental 
organization means to provide financial support under this award to the 
family planning program of the organization, and includes the transfer of 
funds made available under this award or goods or services financed with 
such funds, but does not include the purchase of goods or services from an 
organization or the participation of an individual in the general training 
programs of the recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient.

(v)

To control an organization means the possession of the power to direct or 
cause the direction of the management and policies of an organization.

(14)

In determining whether a foreign nongovernmental organization is eligible 
to be a recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient of assistance for 
family planning under this award, the action of separate nongovernmental 
organizations shall not be imputed to the recipient, subrecipient or sub-
subrecipient, unless, in the judgment of USAID, a separate nongovernmental 
organization is being used as a sham to avoid the restrictions of this 
paragraph (e). Separate nongovernmental organizations are those that have 
distinct legal existence in accordance with the laws of the countries in 
which they are organized. Foreign organizations that are separately 
organized shall not be considered separate, however, if one is controlled 
by the other. The recipient may request USAID's approval to treat as 
separate the family planning activities of two or more organizations, which 
would not be considered separate under the preceding sentence, if the 
recipient believes, and provides a written justification to USAID therefor, 
that the family planning activities of the organizations are sufficiently 
distinct so as to warrant not imputing the activity of one of the other.

(15)

 Assistance for family planning may be furnished under this award by a 
recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient to a foreign government even 
though the government includes abortion in its family planning program, 
provided that no assistance may be furnished in support of the abortion 
activity of the government and any funds transferred to the government 
shall be placed in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not 
be used to support the abortion activity of the government.

(16)

 The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to child spacing 
assistance furnished to a foreign nongovernmental organization that is 
engaged primarily in providing health services if the objective of the 
assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and 
children and child spacing is one of several health care services being 
provided by the organization as part of a larger child survival effort with 
the objective of reducing infant and child mortality.

[[Page 17313]]

(f)

 The recipient shall insert paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of this 
provision in all subsequent subagreements and contracts involving family 
planning or population activities that will be supported in whole or in 
part from funds under this award. Paragraph (e) shall be inserted in 
subagreements and sub-subagreements in accordance with the terms of 
paragraph (e). The term subagreements means subgrants and subcooperative 
agreements.''

                III. Exceptions

                The paragraphs set forth in sections (I) and (II) above 
                may be omitted from the Standard Provision in the 
                situations described below:

(1)

 While the paragraphs are to be used in grants and cooperative agreements 
(and assistance subagreements) that provide financing for family planning 
activity or activities, if family planning is a component of an activity 
involving assistance or other purposes, such as food and nutrition, health 
for education, paragraph (e), ``Ineligibility of Foreign Nongovernmental 
Organizations that Perform or Actively Promote Abortion as a Method of 
Family Planning,'' applies only to the family planning component.

(2)

When health or child survival funds are used to provide assistance for 
child spacing as well as health purposes, these paragraphs are applicable 
to such assistance unless: (a) the foreign nongovernmental organization is 
one that primarily provides health services; (b) the objective of the 
assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and 
children; and (c) child spacing is one of several health care services 
being provided as part of a larger child survival effort with the objective 
of reducing infant and child mortality. These paragraphs need not be 
included in the assistance agreement if it indicates that assistance for 
child spacing will be provided only in this way. USAID support under these 
circumstances is considered a contribution to a health service delivery 
program and not to a family planning program. In such a case, these 
paragraphs need not be included in an assistance agreement.

(3)

These paragraphs need not be included in assistance agreements with United 
States nongovernmental organizations for family planning purposes if 
implementation of the activity does not involve assistance to foreign 
nongovernmental organizations.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, March 28, 2001.

[FR Doc. 01-8011
Filed 3-28-01; 11:42 am]
Billing code 6116-01-M

(As found at Federal Register, March 29, 2001)