Dear Colleague:

The priorities of international organizations and European governments for
Third World people remain the same: Fewer of them even as they are having
fewer babies.
 
Steven W. Mosher
President

PRI Weekly Briefing
10 February 2006
Vol. 8 / No. 6
 
 
Yet More Money for Human Extermination Campaigns
By Joseph A. D'Agostino

 
In a world of already-low and rapidly declining birthrates, and soon to
experience a dramatic aging trend, European governments have decided to
devote yet more money to the extermination of children in the Third World.
 This act of prioritizing comes in the form of new money to support
Communist China's coercive population control program, and more new money
for the Global Safe Abortion Fund created by the International Planned
Parenthood Federation (IPPF).  In both cases, Great Britain took the
initiative in rounding up support.
 
On January 30, the New York-based Executive Board of the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) approved, as UNFPA itself put it, "the sixth UNFPA
programme of assistance to China, totaling $27 million over five years.
As they did so, board members and other United Nations countries praised
UNFPA as a 'force for good' that promotes and protects human rights,
implicitly repudiating a claim that the Fund abets coercive practices."
That last clause refers to the Bush Administration, which has withheld
American money from UNFPA because of its assistance to the Chinese
population control effort.  In China, women and their husbands are
severely penalized for having more than their quota of one or two
children.  UNFPA officials do not directly engage in the forced abortion
and sterilization practices of the Chinese regime, but subsidize them with
its financial and technical assistance to Chinese population control
bureaucrats.
 
Ten European countries led by Britain issued a strong statement of support
for UNFPA.  These nations provide most of UNFPA funding.  Britain, Norway,
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Switzerland
and Germany signed the joint statement.  UNFPA has long claimed that
coercive practices have lessened in the areas of China where it operates,
but a September 2001 PRI investigation found that forcible coercion
continues in the same counties in which UNFPA works.
 
How hard UNFPA tries to end coercion is questionable.  UNFPA money flows
to China without any public strings attached.  Even a Dec. 15, 2005
article by UNFPA itself raises questions about what coercive practices
UNFPA opposes in any case.
 
"Lifting birth-spacing rules is an important step towards a fully
voluntary approach to pregnancy decisions," said UNFPA Representative Siri
Tellier in the article, which praised an end to birth-spacing regulations
in Hainan Province and the subgroup of penalties that went with them.
"Around 40% of penalties involve cases of birth spacing, so eliminating
that requirement is significant.  However, it goes only part way to
meeting international human rights standards.  We would like China to
eliminate any economic penalties for out-of-plan births."  The article
discussed the difficulties poor families faced in paying the astronomical
fines levied on them for violation of their birth mandates.
 
It seems curious that he would say "economic penalties" instead of "all
penalties" or something to that effect.  Third World governments practice
various kinds of coercion, from fines to denial of education benefits to
ineligibility for government jobs to loss of employment altogether, to
keep couples from having as many children as they would like.  China
employs all of these methods plus simply rounding women up by the
thousands and forcibly sterilizing them, which is not an economic penalty
(for examples, see Time magazine, "Enemies of the State?", Sep. 19, 2005).
 
Hu Daji, Deputy Director of the Hainan Population and Family Planning
Bureau, told UNFPA that guaranteeing women's rights was a goal, but it has
to be pursued alongside another one.  "Our challenge is to not have more
births and to protect clients' rights," he said.
 
The article also discussed the crisis of too few girls in China due to
families' preference for sons if they are allowed only one or two
children, a problem China is trying to solve with yet more government
meddling.  Girls are often aborted by boy-seeking families trying to stay
under the child quota.  Sons carry on the family in China while daughters
join their husbands' families.  UNFPA's article showcased a minority
family that was allowed by the government to have three children because
the first two were girls (ethnic Han Chinese are not allowed such an
exception unless they can afford to bribe officials).  But the third was a
girl as well, causing the parents to lament their lack of a son to carry
on the family and support them in their old age.  Instead of condemning
the government's rule preventing this couple from freely trying for a son,
UNFPA gently criticized them for having backwards attitudes toward gender.
 
A few days after UNFPA reaffirmed its commitment to China, Britain
announced $5.3 million to support groups that perform or promote abortion
overseas.  This contains another tweak for the United States, since the
Bush Administration resurrected a version of the Mexico City policy when
it came into power.  Currently, U.S. policy withholds U.S. funds from
groups that promote abortion abroad.  IPPF does not receive funds due to
President Bush's decision and was overjoyed by Britain's contribution to
its new Global Safe Abortion Fund.  "It is a big boost for us, politically
and philosophically, that a sovereign government is prepared to stand up
and say 'we support what the IPPF is trying to do to expand the
availability of safe and legal abortions around the world,'" Reuters
reported IPPF Director-General Steven Sinding as saying.  Said Gareth
Thomas, British Minister for International Development, "I would urge
other donors to follow our lead."
 
The Global Safe Abortion Fund targets groups that lost American funding
when Bush changed Clinton Administration policy.  Thomas spoke what has
been repeatedly demonstrated as the opposite of the truth when he said,
"We know from experience that the absence of sexual and reproductive
health services results in an increase in unintended pregnancies and,
inevitably, a greater number of unsafe abortions.  That is why the UK will
support organisations like the IPPF and Marie Stopes that are providing
medical care and information to help save women's lives."
 
Using a classic propaganda technique, Sinding said, "What I have never
been able to figure out about American policy is why they persist in
cutting down funding to organisations that are about preventing unwanted
pregnancies."  Of course, the Bush Administration withholds money only
from such groups that also promote abortion.  It unfortunately continues
to fund contraception and sex education around the world.  In any case,
Sinding made IPPF's goal crystal clear: more abortion, no matter what the
country, culture, or availability of contraceptives.  "We are committed to
the expansion of safe abortion because in any society, no matter how
efficiently contraception is made available, there will be unplanned and
unwanted pregnancies," he said.
 
International pro-abortion groups have targeted pro-life populations in
the eastern Caribbean for recent efforts, and one of the region's chief
abortion advocates wasted no time in praising Britain's decision.
Reported the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation on February 7, "Executive
Director of the Barbados Family Planning Association George Griffith has
welcomed the announcement by Britain to fund support groups that will
offer safe abortions and family planning.  Mr. Griffith says the new
global safe abortion programme which was developed by the International
Planned Parenthood Federation, will greatly assist his organisation in
achieving some of their primary goals, one of which is women's health and
safety.  Mr. Griffith hopes that people will not subscribe to the view
that the programme will encourage women to have abortions, but rather as
one that will assist those who make that decision, to do so safely."
 
Declining birthrates, aging populations, human rights abuses, U.S.
opposition, local opposition--none of these factors have stopped the
global abortion juggernaut.


Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the
Population Research Institute.


_____
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, Va. 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
Website: www.pop.org
_________
(c) 2006 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
http://pop.org/donate.cfm. All donations (of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated.
_________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, go to:
http://pop.org/subscribe-weekly.cfm or email us at pri@pop.org and say
"Add me to your Weekly Briefing."
__________
The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."