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)?