c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service=
WASHINGTON—In a narrow victory for the Clinton administration,the House Thursday approved a measure to speed up the release ofmoney for family-planning programs overseas.
At the same time, it approved a separate measure that wouldreinstate Reagan-era restrictions preventing such money from beingdistributed to groups that perform or promote abortions—even ifthey use private money to do so. While that vote, by a much widermargin, signaled the relative strength of anti- abortion sentimentin the 105th Congress, the Senate has traditionally rejectedrestrictions on family planning and is not likely to go along withthis measure. If it did, the president would be certain to veto it.
So in practical terms, Thursday's passage of theadministration-backed measure virtually guarantees that under acomplex formula worked out last year $215 million will be releasedfor family planning by March 1—more than double the $92 millionthat would have been released on July 1.
The Senate is expected to approve the measure before the end ofthe month and President Clinton 
is certain to sign it. Thepresident, along with Vice President Gore and Secretary of StateMadeleine Albright, made personal appeals to wavering House membersup until the vote. Clinton even made calls to House members fromhis car on the way back to the White House from the funeral ofPamela Harriman, the ambassador to France.
The measure passed by a vote of 220-209, with substantialsupport from moderate Republicans who favor abortion rights.
The vote marks the first time in at least three years thatsupporters of family planning have succeeded in separating thatissue from the intense abortion politics of the House, which hasrepeatedly voted against money for family planning by contendingthat such money really goes for abortions.
During Thursday's nearly three hours of debate, abortionopponents insisted they supported family planning but again arguedthat family planning was a ruse for exporting abortion.
At one point, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who managed theadministration's measure on the floor, pleaded: ``Don't hold thepoor children of the world hostage to the politics of the House ofRepresentatives.''
The dramatic highlight of the debate came when Rep. Tony Hall,D-Ohio, a strong abortion opponent, declared his support for theadministration's position. ``The pro-life forces have gone too farin the effort to make the release of funds a pro-life issue,'' heasserted. ``Because of massive cuts to international familyplanning and very restrictive language that has held up other fundsrelated to it, the pro-life forces have caused great damage, in myopinion, to poor communities all over the world.''
While he was applauded by the Democrats, Hall, like 26 others,voted in favor of both measures.
Abortion opponents hammered away at the theme that Americantaxpayers were subsidizing abortions even though the law hasprevented family planning money from being spent on abortions since1973.
As Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., bluntly put it: ``American dollarsshouldn't be used to kill innocent little children around theworld.''
Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., who led the crusade against theClinton measure, said: ``Mr. Clinton's resolution is a fat paydayfor abortion providers. If you vote for Clinton, you furtherempower, strengthen and tangibly aid and abet the abortion industryoverseas.'' He said the release of money would most benefit theInternational Planned Parenthood Federation, a group whose goal, hesaid, was the worldwide legalization of abortion.
Smith attributed the administration's slim, 11-vote win to thepresident's phone calls, which he called a ``power play.'' He saidsome members were ``pushed and told of linkages to projects intheir districts,'' but he offered no specifics.
A White House spokeswoman said that among Clinton's calls wasone to a freshman Republican, Kay Granger of Texas, who still votedagainst Clinton's measure. He also called Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.,who opposes abortion. Murtha voted in favor of both measures.
Still, without the support of several abortion opponents as wellas a strong contingent of moderate Republicans, the administrationwould not have prevailed. Joining 175 Democrats in voting yes were44 Republicans and one independent; 27 Democrats and 182Republicans voted no.
Leading the moderate Republicans was Rep. James Greenwood ofPennsylvania, who made the most sweeping case for theadministration's measure, touching on matters of women's health,population growth and the environment. He said that during one hourof debate, 250 women around the world would die frompregnancy-related complications that could have been prevented by contraception.
Ms. Pelosi credited the Republican with making ``the definitivestatement'' for the administration.
Smith also offered the alternative measure, which wouldreinstate the policy of the Reagan and Bush administrations to barfederal money from any organization that promotes abortion. Thispassed 231-194. Voting yes were 194 Republicans and 37 Democrats,while 30 Republicans and 163 Democrats and one independent votedno. The wider margin allowed Smith to contend that ``there is noloss of momentum on abortion'' as the House considers perhaps adozen other abortion-related votes later this year.
The votes show just how political the matter of abortion hasbecome, with 15 Republicans voting for both measures and 12Democrats voting for both. Greenwood said some members wanted tosupport family planning but also needed the political cover thatvoting for Smith's anti-abortion position would provide. Thosevoting for both measures included Rep. David Bonior, Democrat ofMichigan, and Rep. Jon Fox, R-Pa.
c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service<
NEW YORK—Since Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took office with apledge to tackle domestic violence, battered women have been urgedto come forward by subway and bus posters and by specially trainedpolice officers and hospital emergency room workers. But when theydo, by calling a special hot line, there is often no help availablefor them: no shelter and no social services.
While shelter space has increased under Giuliani, so too has thedemand, propelled specifically by his public education campaign.Every day, about 65 battered women, most considering themselves tobe in danger in their homes, call New York City's domestic violencehot line to request shelter. And every day, about 60 of them aretold that there are no empty beds in the city.
Some—about 40 a month—are so desperate for help that theyagree to be bused upstate, where shelters are often half-empty.That remedy gets the women out of harm's way but runs the risk ofwrecking their work lives, endangering their welfare checks anddisrupting their children's schooling.
Sometimes, as in the last month, when calls inexplicablyincreased by 20 percent to nearly 6,000, hot-line counselors do noteven have the time to help women devise a basic plan for theirsafety.
Advocates for battered women, while applauding Giuliani's focuson domestic violence, nonetheless say his efforts have beenundercut by his failure to spend enough money on services forvictims.
``We think it's irresponsible to launch a public educationcampaign and not combine it with an adequate safety net,'' saidMary Trinity, executive director of the Coalition of BatteredWomen's Advocates. ``It's just outrageous that dozens of womenevery day, fearing for their lives, turn to the city because thecity has advertised help, and there is really nothing the city cando for them.''
With the ouster this week of the entire staff running the NewDay Shelter in the Bronx, an unflattering spotlight shone on onecomponent of the mayor's domestic violence program, the onlycity-owned shelter. Saying he was embarrassed by the cityDepartment of Investigation's findings of abuses by the staff, themayor acknowledged that the residence was not properly overseen.Advocates had long been urging the city to appoint a full-timedirector there.
Shelter space has increased by nearly 30 percent underGiuliani's administration—much of it in the last year—butadvocates say the need remains double the current capacity of about1,110 beds.
Also, the city has yet to offer nonresidential services forbattered women, although the state not only mandated such a programthree years ago but also offered financing, almost $2 million. Afirst request for proposals from nonprofit organizations waswithdrawn suddenly last fall; a second one just went out.
Administration officials speak L with pride of their domesticviolence program, including what they see as a substantial increasein shelter beds. ``Over the past three years, New York City hasbeen a pioneer in the area of family violence,'' Colleen Roche, aspokeswoman for the May- or, said Thursday night. ``Beds are impor-tant, but they are not the only impor- tant thing. Our emphasis ison taking the batterer, not the victim, out of the house.''
One woman who was alarmed by the city's failure to help her is aday-care worker in Brooklyn with two young children. She said in atelephone interview that her husband has been slapping and verballyabusing her for years but that in recent months, the abuse hasbecome more violent and less predictable.
After what she called the ``first really bad punching'' he hadever given her, the woman called the city's hot line last week froma pay phone outside her workplace. She had copied the number downon the back of her Social Security card during a subway ride lastyear.
The hot-line operator told her that absolutely nothing wasavailable and suggested that she keep calling back, the woman said.Then she lost her nerve, and moved in with a cousin, where shetrembles every time the doorbell rings.
``I just thought it would be 1-2-3 help if I called that hotline,'' she said. ``I kind of like got hanged up on, even thoughthey were nice about it.''
The line, run by Victim Services, a nonprofit organization undercontract with the city, receives about 200 calls a day, and 60 to70 are from women looking for shelter, said Lucy Friedman,executive director of Victim Services.
``When the call level spiked in January—for reasons we don'tquite understand—we know that there were women who didn't evenget through the first time,'' Ms. Friedman said. ``So, if acounselor's talking and can see five calls lined up in the queue,it's inevitable that she's not going to have time to go through asafety plan with everyone.''
Critics of the mayor's domestic policy program say he hasfocused too much on treating the problem through law enforcement,on arresting batterers rather than helping their victims.
``Their view of the world, their mantra, is you increase policeactivity you solve problems,'' said City Councilman StephenDiBrienza, who is chairman of the General Welfare Committee. ``Theywant to arrest the batterer, and let the victim fend for herself.''
Giuliani has designated domestic violence prevention officers inevery precinct, and arrests involving domestic violence rose 18percent last year. Some of that is due to a two-and-a-half-year-oldstate law taking away police officers' discretion in domesticviolence cases by requiring them to arrest anyone suspected ofserious spousal abuse.
Administration officials did not respond to requests for commentThursday, but they have often spoken with pride of the mayor'sdomestic violence program. mayoral aides have told critics thatthey did not think too much emphasis should be placed on creatingmore shelter space. Instead, they have said, their focus is onremoving the batterer from the home because the victim should notbe the one who has to leave.
Advocates believe that the police response to battered women hasimproved but needs to continue improving.
New York City police officers make arrests in about 10 percentof the domestic incidents they are called to, up from about 7percent before Giuliani took office. The rate is low when comparedwith other states with mandatory arrest laws—New Jersey's rate is35 percent—but the low rate also reflects the peculiarities ofcriminal law in the state. A good deal of serious harassment, eveninvolving shoving, hitting and kicking, does not constitute a crimehere.
In some cases, the mandatory law has propelled police officersto arrest both the batterer and the victim, who may have defendedherself by scratching or biting. Advocates consider these dualarrests to be a serious problem.
But they consider the lack of social services to be the realthreat, especially when women are enticed to come forward by thebus and subway posters.
``In many ways the promises made to battered women are emptypromises,'' said Dorchen Leidholdt, director of the Center forBattered Women's Legal Services at the Sanctuary for Families.
One of Ms. Leidholdt's clients was recently followed by herbatterer from Family Court to the shelter that was supposed to beher safe house. She needed to be transferred immediately to anothershelter, but no bed was available. So she was sent to the city'semergency assistance unit in the Bronx, where she and her two youngchildren slept on chairs and tables for a week. The conditionsprecipitated a seizure, and the woman was hospitalized last week.
``All this trauma was brought on by the fact that there was noplace to send her, which is the fundamental crisis here,'' Ms.Leidholdt said.
Go back to SOCIOLOGY 260 -- Sociology of Marriage and the Family Page
If you have any questions or comments please email: