Funding Related to Mexico City Policy Shows Obama Decision Quite Pro-Abortion

International   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Feb 11, 2009   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Funding Related to Mexico City Policy Shows Obama Decision Quite Pro-Abortion

by Steven Ertelt Editor
February 11
, 2009

Washington, DC ( — New research from pro-life activist Jill Stanek finds that the financial numbers behind the decision by President Barack Obama to rescind the Mexico City Policy shows the decision is quite pro-abortion. Stanek finds that the decision covered a small portion of the total family planning funds.

To hear the mainstream media and pro-abortion groups tell the story, revoking USAID funds from pro-abortion groups, as the policy did, placed the health of millions of women worldwide in jeopardy.

But Stanek, who presents her findings in a new article in WorldNetDaily, reveals that the Mexico City Policy affected only about $6 million of a $393.5 million USAID budget or only 1.5 percent of the total.

Though the media — including one BBC report — claims the policy hurt hundreds of groups, just five pro-abortion organizations refused to stop promoting or performing abortions so they could receive the USAID funds.

They were: International Planned Parenthood Federation, Marie Stopes International, Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, Family Planning Association of Kenya and Family Planning Association of Nepal.

Stanek says she was surprised to learn that, when examining the total budgets of the groups, the funding they lost from the Mexico City Policy was almost inconsequential.

"Five million dollars is nothing to International Planned Parenthood Federation. Recalling that Planned Parenthood Federation of America reported $1 billion in income in its 2007 annual report, I sought to learn how many billions the international group earns a year," Stanek writes.

"I got as far as finding IPPF’s London corporate headquarters alone made $120.5 million in 2007 and then got bogged down by the fact that three of their six regional offices (by ‘region’ IPPF means entire continents or partial continents) didn’t post earnings," she adds.

Stanek learned some of the regional affiliates are owned by governments and it is difficult to figure out how much income they generate.
She also determined that Marie Stopes International, a British-based abortion business with 452 clinics in 38 countries that did 500,000 abortions worldwide in 2007, is a behemoth as well.

"Its corporate office reported earnings of $93 million in 2006, but pinpointing all of its income in various pockets of the world is as difficult as pinpointing IPPF’s," Stanek writes.

Of the remaining three, two – Family Planning Association of Kenya (now Family Health Options Kenya) and Family Planning Association of Nepal – are IPPF affiliates, she indicates.

The last, Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, reported earnings of $313 million for 2007.

"None of these groups needs American taxpayer money. What they refused was chump change to them anyway," Stanek writes.

"So why the histrionics whenever a pro-life president reinstates the Mexico City Policy? Fact is, pro-aborts let nothing get by them with without getting hysterical, which is very unfeminist," Stanek says.

"But, as it has worked for women throughout time on a small scale, pro-aborts are making them work on a grand scale. Their overreactionary and relentless hysteria over the slightest encroachment is one reason pro-life politicians go weak at the thought of taking them on, and pro-abort politicians are reminded to fear the devil," she concludes.

Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From

Daily Pro-Life News Report Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report
Receive a free daily email report from with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here. Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.