211 Congress members tried to fund coerced abortions in China

www.infowars.com/print/ps/coerced_abortions.htm

211 Congress members tried to fund coerced abortions in China

UnderReported | November 2 2004

According to a May 29, 2002 U.S. State Dept. report:
Report of the China UNFPA Independent Assessment Team
[...] Dear Secretary Powell,

We have just completed an intensive 14 day visit (May 13-26) to the People´s Republic of China. [...]

First Finding
We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.

First Recommendation
We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA.

Second Finding

We find that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved the population programs of the PRC retain coercive elements in law and in practice.

Second Recommendation
We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.

But when the issue of funding UNFPA came to Congress in 2003 in HR 1950, Rep. Smith (R-NJ) offered H.AMDT.235 which reads:
An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 108-206 to strike the Crowley amendment on UNFPA and returns the underlying legislation to a neutral position on UNFPA; and to eliminate the additional $25 million in funding for UNFPA.

However, as shown by Roll Call 362, 211 Congress members voted against it -- in other words in favor of funding the UNFPA despite that some of that money was shown by the U.S. State Dept. to be systematically diverted into coerced abortions. Many of those Congress members are up for reelection this year.
When Tom Davis (R-VA), one of 31 Republicans voting against the bill amendment (i.e. in favor of funding the UNFPA), came to town, I asked him why he voted that way. He didn´t understand the question, and thought I was talking about the Mexico City policy. I got a call later from his office to "clarify" his answer. The answer, it turns out, was just that he felt population control was very important and that´s why he voted that way.