Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Blackwell, Morton: Files Folder Title: “Pro-Life” Box: 22 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ WITHDRAWAL SHEET Ronald Reagan Library Collection: Blackwell , Morton C.: Files Archivist: kdb/bcb QA/Box: 1244,3., cA 9~s, FOIA ID: F00-140 [Critchlow] File Folder: "Prolife" Date: 5/14/01 ','- ;,J/~o/o f DOCUMENT SUBJECTrrlTLE DATE RESTRICTION NO, & TYPE 1. letter Re Abortion, 1p . 4/22/80 B6 RESTRICTIONS B-1 National security classified information [(b)(I) of the FOIA]. B-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices ofan agency ((b)(2) of the FOIA]. B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIA]. B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information ((b}(4) of the FOIA]. B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]. B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]. B-7a Release could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings ((b)(7)(A) of the FOIA). B-7b Release would deprive an individual of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication ((b)(7)(B) of the FOIAJ B-7c Release could reasonably be expected to cause unwarranted invasion or privacy ((b )(7)(C) of the FOIA). B-7d Release could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source [(b)(7)(D) of the FOIA]. B-7e Release would disclose techniques or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law ((b )(7)(E) of the FOIA ). B-7f Release could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual ((b )(7)(F) of the FOIA]. B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA]. B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]. C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift. ,, ftalional Suite 402, 419 7th Street, N.W. RIGHT TO LIFE Washington D.C. 20004 - (202) 638-4396 committee, inc. July 22, 1982 Joseph S. Patti, Secre tary National Eligibility Committee for the Combined Federal Campaign Office of the Special Assistant for Regional Operations U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20415 Dear Mr. Patti: As a follow-up to our letter of yesterday regarding objections and observations about Planned Parenthood's participation in the Combined Federal Campaign as an International Service Agency, we submit the attached written comments. We strongly object to Planned Parenthood's continue d participation in the Combined Fede ral Campaign. These matters should be thoroughly researched to insure that the eligibility criteria are met. We would especially point to Planned Parenthood ' s promotion of abortion abroad in direct violation of statutory prohibitions against such activity . As requested in our previous letter, we request per­ mission for our General ·Counsel, Mr. James Bopp, to address the Committee for five minutes on this matter. cerely yours, l} 1/ 0 Warrenaw- G. LJ4~Sweeney ~/ Executive Director WGS/ir Enclosure ***Exhibits Attached. 0 0 STATEMENT By the National Right to Life Committee Before the National Eligibility Committee For the Combined Federal Campaign By James Bopp, Esq. July 23, 1982 I. THE FAMILY PLANNING INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE (FPIA) PROGRAM SHOULD ESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY ON ITS OWN MERITS. We recommend that the Committee judge the eligibility of the Family Planning International Assistance (FPIA) pro­ gram on its own merits as an international service agency separate from the domestic operations of the headquarters unit of Planned Parenthood-World Population and the Planned Parenthood affiliates. Planned Parenthood is asking the CFC to fund FPIA as an international agency, but it is using financial data from its domestic operation to justify its eligibility. In relation to this observation, we would invite the Committee's attention to the following three points: A. FINANCIAL DATA ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S DOMESTIC OPERA­ TIONS IS IRRELEVANT TO ELIGIBILITY AS AN INTERNATIONAL AGENCY. In the application, Planned Parenthood focuses on its local domestic affiliates' medical service, fundraising, and participation in local community affairs and the United Way as a basis for proving eligibility under national scope and public acceptance. In the application, the FPIA program receives only a relatively brief mention while the discus­ sion focuses on domestic national and local activity. However, these are irrelevant to activities overseas, which are handled solely by FPIA out of New York. B. THE FPIA SHOULD SUPPLY MORE FINANCIAL INFORMATION ABOUT ITS OPERATIONS BEFORE BECOMING ELIGIBLE. We ~ote that Planned Parenthood's application provides several sets of financial data about its operations, but none of them identify how well the FPIA, the international service arm, meets the financial eligibility criteria. The See audit for 1981 describes the finances of the headquarters Exhibit 1. unit in New York but does not include the affiliates . On the other hand, the Source of Funds and Costs Report gives data for the entire organization and does include the affil­ iates . Neither one, however, provides either a complete 0 0 - 2 - list of the income and expenses for the FPIA or a list of the programs carried out by that agency. No data is sup­ plied to show that the Family Planning International Assis­ tance program meets the criteria of CFR 950.405(a) (2) about receiving less than 50 percent of its funding from the Federal Government and more than 20 percent from direct and/ or indirect contributions. C. FPIA IS ALMOST ENTIRELY FEDERALLY FUNDED, WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE 50/20 GOVERN­ MENT AND PUBLIC FUNDING CRITERIA. When evaluating the FPIA financial data, we would direct the Committee's attention to "income " in Planned Parent­ hood's audit for 1981 which lists almost $11 million in grants from governmental agencies, "substantially from the Agency for International Development." Under "expenses," See Planned Parenthood lists $12 million for ''international Exhibit 2. assistance family planning," of which 98 perc ent is "re­ stricted" funds, presumably from the Federal Government. Thus , it would appear that Planned Parenthood ' s interna­ tional program is totally made up of Federal Government funds from the Agency for International Development and contributions from the Combined Federal Campaign. We suggest that the Committee request that the Family Planning International Assistance provide both a Sources of Costs and Funds Report and a summary of financial activity by program income and expense. " We also suggest that the "restricted" funds be de­ scribed in more detail to determine whether they are for either domestic or international programs. II. QUESTIONS ARISE ABOUT WHETHER PLANNED PARENTHOOD MEETS THE 50/20 CRITERIA FOR GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SUPPORT. If the Committee does not wish to evaluate the Family Planning International Assistance separately from the parent organization of Planned Parenthood, we would again recommend that the affiliates' operations not be included in any assessment of eligibility . We would also invite the Committee's attention to the issue of whether the Planned Parenthood headquarters organization, taken by itself, meets the requirements of· CFR 950.405(a) (2) (iii) regarding the 50/20 split. In evaluating this requirement, we woulp point out the following four points: A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S LOCAL DOMESTIC AFFILIATES SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE HEAD­ QUARTERS REPORTS BECAUSE FPIA WORKS SOLELY IN NEW YORK WITH NO FORMAL ASSOCIATION WITH DOMESTIC PROGRAMS. 0 - 3 - 0 According to the application, the Family Planning International Assistance p r ogram is operated solely by the Federation's headquarters. B. THE PPFA HEADQUARTERS DOES NOT MEET THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT CRITERIA BECAUSE IT IS OVER 50 % FEDERALLY FUNDED. According to the 1981 audit, federal government funds clearly make up over 50 percent of the Federation head- quarters' income. C. CFC CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD NOT COUNT IN MEETING ELIGI­ BILITY CRITERIA. In checking to determine whether at least 20 perc ent of the headquarters' income comes from direct or indire ct public contributions, it seems r e asonable that income from the Combined Federal Campaign should not be used to determine eligibility for the Campaign. D. PPFA'S DOMESTIC RESTRICTED INCOME SHOULD NOT APPLY TOWARD ESTABLISHING INTERNATIONAL ELIGIBILITY. Much of the "direct contributions" listed in the audit came in the form of "restricte d" funds, and we suggest that the Committee determine what part of those funds is for international operations and what part is r estricted t o domestic operations. Since the application for the CFC is being made by an international agency, we suggest tha t funds earmarked as restricte d to dome stic operations be subtracted from the tota l income when ·the 20 percent eli gi­ bility criteria is checked. Substantial amounts of "restr icted" income and expense in the 1981 audit ha v e no notation as to which part should be attributed to inte rnational operations. Obviously, some of it is being used for domest ic oper ations. For examp le, See it should be noted that the 1980 audit sta t e d that appro x - Exhibit 3. imately $400,000 of the r estricte d funds we re r e served to establish a loan fund to pay f or abortions, under the name of the Abortion Fund.