Molly Ivins May 5

NEW YORK — Hello ... Earth to Republicans ... anyone home? Thanks for another brilliant stroke of policy-making — in this case, cutting family-planning aid to developing countries.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, an anti-abortion crusader, succeeded in cutting 35 percent of the family-planning aid to Third World countries. Not because these agencies perform or promote abortion — under U.S. law going back to 1973, no international-aid money can go to any clinic that does either. But some of the anti-choice lobby has convinced itself that there is no distinction between contraception and abortion.

We see the same confusion on the domestic front, where anti-choice activists picket Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood of San Diego, just for an example, says that less than 5 percent of its services is for abortion — 95 percent is for family planning. An abortion, obviously, represents the failure of family planning. One would think that anyone opposed to abortion would want to put more money into family planning. But no such luck.

Smith's plan, for which the May 6 Time magazine named him a winner in its "Winners & Losers" feature, is even more damaging to family planning than it first appears. Funding has been cut from $547 million down to $356 million, but in addition, none of the aid can be distributed until July 1 (even though the federal fiscal budget starts in October), and then the money is to be dribbled out at no more than 6.7 percent of the total per month.

This effectively means that only $72 million of the total can be spent in fiscal year 1996. And in the world of government, if you don't spend your entire appropriation in one year, the next year they cut you back to what you did spend.

Five respected family-planning organizations, including some that do research and advocacy and some that do only research on population, cooperated in funding a study on the effects of the cuts, and the results are appalling. Population Action International reports that as a result of these cuts, we can expect 7 million couples to be without family planning.

There will be an additional 4 million unintended pregnancies, 1.6 million additional abortions, 1.9 million additional unintended births and close to 8,000 maternal deaths from the complications of pregnancy or unsafe abortions.

In addition, family planning is a child-survival strategy in Third world countries, in that few infants will survive the death of their mothers during childbirth.

It is estimated that an additional 134,000 infant deaths will result from these funding cuts.

That's a hell of a steep price for being a Winner of the Week.

In addition, there is the damage to family-planning programs themselves. This has been one of the most remarkable, and most unsung, success stories of our time. In developing countries, the use of family planning has grown from 10 percent of couples 30 years ago to 55 percent today — the average family size has fallen from six children to less than four.

In the wake of the Cairo conference, family-planning groups were poised to make a big difference in the lives of millions of men and women. Our country has taken a leadership role on this issue for years. Sally Ethleston, media relations director at Population Action, was almost distraught over the budget cuts: "I cannot believe they could be so shortsighted and mean-spirited."

The apparent inability of Smith and others to distinguish between family planning and abortion advocacy is difficult to credit. It is not entirely clear that some of the more rabid anti-abortion activists, those who equate family planning with abortion, even understand basic biology.

Polls now show a 20-point gap between men's and women's political views. As Barbara Ehrenreich, now an essayist for Time magazine, points out, this has led to a rather comical revival of the old question, "What do women want?"

I've never thought there was all that much difference between men and women, and what there is belongs in the "viva la difference" category. (Always excepting the "guy thing" about being unable to stop and ask for directions for fear their hair will fall out.)

But congressmen like Smith and Henry Hyde make me think that perhaps we should fund a study to see if men enjoy watching famines in Third World countries on television more than women do. Is there any other reasonable explanation for this?

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.