I recently got into a conversation about this with a family member and found myself ill-equipped--can anyone suggest a good article or series of articles on the policy to date?

Even so, it's a good thing, because it forces the Republicans to take a position. It showcases yet another difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and makes arguments like Nader's (and would would assume, Bloomberg's, if he runs) less meaningful.

It's commonly called the "Global Gag Rule"--I don't know why the NY Times didn't call it that. Here's a summary.

http://www.iwhc.org/global/uspolicy/ggr/index.cfm

and another: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/international-issues/gag-rule-13105.htm

Even if it gets vetoed I'm so, so glad the topic even came up. The political climate has been so bad that anything even calling attention to something that has been so seriously wrong feels like a little triumph.

I wouldn't expect anything other than a veto from Bush. But I'm glad the Democrats aren't just rolling over--this is an issue that there should still be outrage over and they should take a stand.

Thanks for the links--I googled around and for some reason didn't find the IWHC website.
I was thinking the best way to go about convincing an anti-choicer like my aforementioned family member would be to play up the fact that the clinics whose $ is drying up as a result are often the only primary care centers available, and thus taking away the money is taking away regular old health care, and we can all get on the same page about that.
But then is that trying to wiggle out of the issue by shunting abortion off to the side?
Or does this approach reinforce the fact that abortion is a necessary part of reproductive care and normalize it somehow? Or on the other hand, poison anti-choice minds against all other reproductive care (not that they need any help in that direction)?

The nature and variety of the Attaches' duties preclude any clear definition of the qualities required for appointment as Attache to an Olympic team.

Some teams required their Attache to be an executive, second only to the Chef de Mission. Others relied on the Attache to arrange entertainment and social contacts inseparable from presentation of the Olympic Games. Some used their Attache only as an emergency chauffeur and general messenger; and a small number virtually did not use their Attache at all.

It is regarded as important that every National Olympic Committee intending to send a team to the Olympic Games should assist the Organizing Committee by appointing its Attache at least six months before Opening Day.

The desirable qualifications are—ability to speak the national language of the host city and that of the team to which he is attached; an intimate knowledge of the host city, its environs and its people; executive or administrative experience; freedom from all business and other commitments during the period of the Games (most of the Attaches in Squaw Valley gave almost their full time for at least a month), and a general knowledge of sport and sportsmen.

Some of the Attaches appointed from overseas and interstate lacked knowledge of Squaw Valley and were perhaps not able to offer the same opportunities for team hospitality and sightseeing as a resident. Many Attaches had clearing-up tasks to be completed after the departure of their teams.

Although it appears to be general practice to turn to the Consular Corps for Olympic Attaches (and that group provided many in Squaw Valley) Diplomats and Consuls have already sufficient responsibilities to their nationals during the Games and should not have this additional burden imposed on them. In Squaw Valley, the Junior Chamber of Commerce provided a group of enthusiastic Attaches.