U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | family planning |
family planning
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:92
Most would agree with the fungibility argument, even when funds are sent for reasons other than family planning and abortion like military assistance. The amazing thing is how important the debate can appear by threatening to withhold greatly sought after IMF funds for an argument that does not get to the heart of the issue. What should be debated is whether or not Congress has the moral and Constitutional authority to use force to take funds from American citizens for social engineering around the world, much of which results in resentment toward America.
family planning
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:3
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international “family planning” purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.
family planning
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:8
THE SO-CALLED “BARGAIN” The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing “some” members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that “the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that’s not worth compromising principle.
family planning
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:13
CONCLUSION Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called “compromise.” I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.
family planning
Population Control
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 84:2
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill.
family planning
Population Control
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 84:4
Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear-cut.
family planning
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:2
* For the past several years I have favored normal trade relations with the People’s Republic of China. Because of certain misconceptions, I believe it is useful to begin with some detail as to what ‘normal trade relations’ status is and what it is not. Previous ‘normal trade relations’ votes meant only that U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese goods will be no different than tariffs imposed on other countries for similar products — period. NTR status did not mean more U.S. taxpayers dollars sent to China. It did not signify more international family planning dollars sent overseas. NTR status does not mean automatic access to the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, or any member of other ‘foreign aid’ vehicles by which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries. Rather, NTR status was the lowering of a United States citizen’s taxes paid on voluntary exchanges entered into by citizens who happen to reside in different countries.
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:2
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert the following: TITLE VII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:5
(2) family planning services, including, but not limited to–
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:7
(B) printing, publication, or distribution of family planning literature; and
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:8
(C) family planning counseling;
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:10
(4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control. (b) Additional Limitation : None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to any organization which promotes or makes available–
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:12
(2) family planning services, including, but not limited to–
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:14
(B) printing, publication, or distribution of family planning literature; and
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:15
(C) family planning counseling;
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:16
(3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or (4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:18
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes all the funding for international population control, birth control, abortion, and family planning. This is not an authorized constitutional expenditure. It should not be spent in this manner.
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:19
More importantly, in a practical way, it addresses the problem of fungibility. Because so often we appropriate funds, whether it is funding for family planning with restrictions against abortion or whether we give economic aid or whether we give military aid. All funds are fungible.
family planning
LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS
July 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 64:25
That is not true. I mean, the language is true; but it does not accomplish that. What it accomplishes is that these funds go in for buying birth control pills and condoms, and the money that would have been spent on birth control pills and condoms go and is used to do the abortion. I believe in the fungibility argument in its entirety, not just in the family planning. As soon as you give funds in any way whatsoever to a country such as China that endorses abortion, I mean, we are participants, we are morally bound to say that we are a participant in those acts. Even though we say, I hope you don’t do it and you shouldn’t do it and we’re not authorizing you to do it, we have to remember that funds are fungible and that they can be used in this manner.
family planning
No Federal Funding for Abortion!
April 2, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills relating to abortion. First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.
family planning
Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 54:3
Bills like the one we are considering today also force Americans to fund programs and organizations that many find morally objectionable, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortion. While some amendments we are voting on today admirably seek to address some of these concerns, the fact remains that this bill even if amended unconstitutionally sends U.S. taxpayer money overseas and inappropriately engages in social engineering abroad. None of the amendments address the immorality of forcing Americans to fund organizations engaged in family planning, performing abortions, and distributing condoms. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas be disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” That is why I have introduced H.R. 1548, a bill to prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. What we are seeing today on the floor just underscores the need to pass H.R. 1548 — to end this tyrannical and sinful practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs they believe to be immoral and evil.
family planning
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
family planning
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:4
In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.
family planning
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
family planning
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:4
In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.
family planning
THE TAXPAYER’S FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ACT
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act, which forbids federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning.” The recent executive order allowing those who perform and/or promote abortion overseas to receive taxpayer money brings new urgency to the need to protect pro-life Americans from being forced to subsidize abortion.
family planning
THE TAXPAYER’S FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ACT
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 19:2
It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations’ abortion activities. Thus, the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act is the only way to protect taxpayers from having to support what they “disbelieve and abhor.”
family planning
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act also includes funding of so-called family planning and international population control activities, both of which are, in reality, back-door methods of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide. More than $385 million of US taxpayers' money is being spent on these programs.
family planning
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
It is in response to this portion of the "Foreign Ops" Act that I am introducing an amendment to be voted on this week to zero-out all taxpayer funding for international family planning activities, population control activities, and, of course, abortion services.
family planning
- Congress to tackle Education budget this week
08 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
My amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act finally came to the House floor for debate and a vote last week. My amendment would have ended the federal government's use of our tax dollars to subsidize overseas abortions and "population control" programs, including related family planning services. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to take your money and spend it in such a manner, whether here or abroad.
family planning
- Congress to tackle Education budget this week
08 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the House then overwhelmingly voted to pass the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. I voted against the measure not only because it includes the funding for population control, family planning and abortions, but also because this act called for spending more money on the so-called "peace-keeping" missions around the world. I cannot in good conscience vote to put the lives of our troops in very real danger for purposes that have nothing to do with our national defense. It's time to end our involvement in these activities and protect and support our troops, not open them up to more and more hostility and danger for no good reason.
family planning
Floor Votes Reviewed
06 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
In a fashion similar to that which I took in the 105th Congress, I introduced an amendment to stop all funding for so-called overseas family planning. This money is not only another form of foreign aid, it is also used to advocate the anti-life agenda of the most radical pro-abortion groups. Unfortunately, we lost ground on this issue in this Congress. This year we received 145 votes in favor of my amendment, whereas last Congress we had the support of 147 members.
family planning
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
I proposed two substantive amendments to the State Department bill, both of which were rejected without debate and without a vote. One would have eliminated US funding for UN "peacekeeping" missions; the other would have eliminated US funding for worldwide abortion and family planning. These proposals were ignored because Congress does not want to address the real issue of whether we should continue to participate in an organization that serves no national interest and threatens our national sovereignty.
family planning
Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
09 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
The obvious question remains: Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ? And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example - family planning facilities that perform abortions?
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.