There are folks out there working to help educate women and physicians around the world — in the case I know the most about, the Arab world — about sexual health, reproductive options and choice.

The organization that recently came to my attention is called Ibis Reproductive Health, and they have recently published a guide to medication abortion (e.g., mifepristone and methotrexate) in English and Arabic. (PDFs on the web site)

No federal dollars, obviously. But it’s worth mentioning that there are American organizations still fighting the good fight.

Umm, Andrew, it would appear that you’re looking at the wrong part of the commerce clause. The two cases to which you refer had to do with interstate commerce, whereas appropriations for foreign aid would clearly fall under the portion of the commerce clause that kate cited: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations…” not interstate commerce.

Yeah, I know US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison involved regulating interstate commerce. I brought them up because someone said that the federal government should provide contraceptives to poor women to prevent unplanned pregnancies. I asked how this would be constitutional and someone suggested the Commerce Clause, so I was simply pointing out that the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn’t allow Congress do do whatever the hell it wants.

And how would foreign aid to family planning organizations qualify as “commerce with foreign nations”?

Also, the case law behind the current interpretation of what can be regulated under the interestate commerce clause is much more complicated than the two cases cited, but that’s another post.

Andrew-
Commerce clause?
“To regulate commerce with foreign nations”
- Article 1, Section 8

Yes, I am well aware of the fact that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states and foreign nations. But the Commerce Clause doesn’t give Congress unlimited power – such as the power to provide free contraceptives to poor women. There were two important cases during the last 10 years in which SCOTUS set limits to Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. Perhaps you should learn something about them before you use the Commerce Clause to defend proposed laws that have no constitutional basis.

In United States v. Lopez, Alfonso Lopez carried a gun into his high school in Texas, was caught with it, and indicted under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it illegal to carry guns in or around schools. He sought to dismiss the charges because the law exceeded Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and the case made its way to SCOTUS. The federal government argued that guns in schools can lead to violence, which harms the economy, so Congress had the power to make carrying a gun in a school a federal offense. SCOTUS overturned the law, ruling 5-4 that there was no evidence that possessing a gun in school harmed interstate commerce and that Congress can’t regulate something that doesn’t have substantial impact on the economy.

Five years later, in US v. Morrison, Antonio Morrison was sued in federal court under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 by Christy Brzonkala, who alleged he raped her when they were students at Virginia Tech. VAWA had a provision that allowed victims of “gender-motivated violence” (ie. rape) to sue their alleged attackers in federal court. The case eventually reached SCOTUS, where the Department of Justice argued that Congress had the authority to enact this law because rape affects the economy (due to medical costs, leave from work, etc.), so it was allowed under the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS didn’t buy that argument and voted 5-4 that this provision of VAWA was unconstitutional. Majority opinion writer Justice Rehnquist noted that “gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense, economic activity.”

Here’s more information on those cases:
US v. Lopez
US v. Morrison

So as you can see, the Commerce Clause is not a blank check for Congress to do whatever the hell it wants. Laws passed under the Commerce Clause have to either regulate interstate commerce or something that substantially affects it.

The US constitution ends at the US borders except for US government-owned lands abroad (embassies, military bases, etc). Saudis own many US companies and employ many Amercans. Could they enforce their constitution on Americans just because they pay them money?

It’s the law in Missouri that certain organizations cannot receive federal family planning funding if any individual member of that organization lobbies the government for reproductive rights? Show me this law.

The Missouri law prohibits the use of state funding and property to perform abortions. Yes, I realize it’s not as draconian as the Mexico City Policy. I never said it was identical, I said it was similar.

*Increasing access to contraception for all the women who want it could prevent 22 million abortions, 23 million unplanned births, and 1.4 million infant deaths. $3.9 billion dollars — less than four days of the Pentagon’s budget — could prevent 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths annually.

What part of the Constitution allows the government to do that?