The American Spectator

The Washington Post’s David Broder is outraged that President George Bush would withhold U.S. taxpayer dollars from the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund.

Depriving the group of the $34 million U.S. contribution Clinton used to toss at it is “deadly politics,” Broder says, which will “cost uncounted women and children their lives.”

Unborn children don’t appear on Broder’s index of suffering. If they did, he wouldn’t be able to dismiss Bush’s decision so smugly. The burden is on Broder, not Bush, to explain why U.S. taxpayers should subsidize a United Nations group that works with Chinese Communists who coerce women into having abortions and sterilizations. Bush’s decision in fact shows a respect for women and children that only liberal elitists like Broder could find baffling.

In a fit of apocalyptic sophistry, Broder suggests that Bush’s decision will “translate to 2 million more unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 more abortions, 4,700 more dead mothers and 77,000 more deaths among children under 5.” What’s the proof for this? The United Nations Population Fund says so, writes Broder, and even “if those estimates cannot be proven, the loss of American support clearly will be paid in human suffering.” This is as ludicrous as the liberal elite’s contention that the elder George Bush’s reluctance to spend billions on AIDS research in the 1990s contributed to the spread of AIDS.

Broder opines that Bush’s decision is wholly political — just a bone thrown to social conservatives. Any evidence for this assertion? No, but Broder plows on anyway: “Every administration makes certain compromises — in policy and appointments — to satisfy important political constituencies. But most administrations draw the line at compromises that cost lives. The Bush administration now has crossed that line — not accidentally but deliberately.” He concludes that “when our government allows special-interest pleading to cost lives, it shames us all.”

Is Broder himself engaging in “special-interest pleading”? Of course not. He alone holds the principled position on this issue. Only someone in the grip of base politics could possibly disagree with him. Besides, Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose moral wisdom is bottomless, says the United Nations Population Fund “does invaluable work through its programs,” reports Broder.

The Chinese Communists enthusiastically agree. They have been gladly taking $3.5 million from the group to promote their “population planning.” Broder can’t see why Americans should object. After all, the Chinese Communists say they don’t use those funds to sterilize women and kill babies. Chinese officials even pointed to signs at United Nations Population Fund-sponsored clinics saying “no birth quotas, no targets.” So that settles it for the savvy investigative reporter David Broder.

Broder is disappointed that the saintly Colin Powell had to sign a State Department letter “someone wrote” saying that the United Nations Population Fund’s monies in China “allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.” Poor Powell — he too has to play politics. But he’s a good guy, Broder reassures his liberal readers, because he, “to his credit, said the $34 million will be added to the United States’ own overseas health programs.”

In the Broder worldview, U.S. taxpayers should pay for the world’s dysfunction, give money to United Nations officials who despise them, and support “human rights” organizations which violate human rights. And if a Republican president should recognize the taxpayer’s displeasure at footing these bills, he is guilty beyond doubt of crass politics.

Let’s hope Bush continues to resist such silly carping. His decision will ensure that taxpayer money does not advance the “deadly politics” of the Chinese Communist regime.

Broder needn’t panic too much. The United Nations Population Fund will continue to teach Third World women how to model their lives after characters on “Sex in the City.” Now it will just have to draw a little bit more upon the largesse of liberals like him.