Pro-lifers force US to slash Third World aid

[afro-elf]

Pro-lifers force US to slash Third World aid

The Bush files - Observer special

Ed Helmore in New York
Sunday June 30, 2002
The Observer

International efforts to control population growth in the developing world could be fatally undermined following a decision by President Bush to slash millions of dollars of funding for a UN family planning programme.
The move to end US contributions to the UN's population fund, and other aid programmes that provide assistance to women and children, will be announced early next month, according to administration officials quoted in yesterday's Washington Post. The move comes after intense pressure from anti-abortion groups and religious fundamentalists, who are opposed to the UN's efforts.

The decision is likely to cause a storm of protest, and critics will cite it as yet another example of the Bush administration disregarding America's global responsibility in order to satisfy domestic lobbying interests.

Anti-abortion groups have long claimed that US support of international family planning and education programmes is tantamount to promoting abortion and involuntary sterilisation.

In January, Bush withheld $34 million in payments to the UN's population fund after conservatives accused the UN of tacitly supporting China's 'one child per family' abortion policy. Next month's announcement will make this permanent.

UN officials have long denied that its population programmes support forced abortions or sterilisation.

Yesterday, international aid organisers warned that although the UN programme would probably survive without US backing, America's decision could seriously undermine its capacity to prevent 800,000 abortions and the deaths of 4,700 women and 77,000 children under the age of five.

Family planning groups say that by falsely identifying the UN's work in China as supportive of the country's abusive reproductive policies, anti-abortion activists are now threatening a far larger global programme that not only seeks to help women on family planning but also promotes HIV and Aids prevention, health and education in more than 140 countries.

Susan Cohen, director of government affairs for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, told the Washington Post that the most vulnerable of the world's poorest countries would be the first to suffer.

'It's the women in 142 developing countries, including Afghanistan, which the White House purports to care about so much, who are going to suffer as a result of $34m less going to prevent maternal death, infant death and abortions,' Cohen said.

Anti-abortion groups have welcomed the decision. Deal Hudson, of the Catholic magazine Crisis, said: 'It sends the message to the UN community that the administration is not going to be party to its ideological approach.'

US conservative anti-family planning groups have consistently sought to hitch US support for the UN and international aid agencies to their agenda and the latest move marks an escalation of that effort. Promoters of the UN programme say they have misrepresented the population fund's work in China in order to force a cut in funding. To clear up the issue, the Bush administration sent a delegation to China to look into its birth-control practices. However, the findings have yet to be released.

Last month, the US came close to boycotting a UN summit to advance the health, education and safety of children in developing countries after groups from the religious right labelled the conference's call for 'reproductive health services' as a covert endorsement of abortion.

Yesterday, senior Democrats warned of a serious legislative fight if Bush cuts payments to the UN's population fund. Democratic Senate leader Thomas Daschle said: 'We believe strongly that the programmes work, that they merit US support and that we should not be so dictatorial as to tell the UN not to do that.'

The move to cut funds also represents a marked change in the administration's prior policy to back the UN programme and sends a message that support from the US, which enjoyed an upsurge in the wake of 11 September, is waning again. Until the terrorist attacks, conservative lawmakers in Washington had blocked $1.9 billion in payments to the UN on the grounds that it might be used to promote advice on abortion. In retaliation, the US lost its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission.

[Darth Tater]

Good.

[emplynx]

"Family Planning" is a nice way of saying baby-slaughtering. Sounds good to me. That title makes it sound really bad though.

[AACHOO]

America should NOT support the UN in any way. I'm all for bootin' their anti-American , anti-Semitic butts out of our country.

[BeardofPants]

My god, you guys actually support this decision? These children are not going to be born into a lap of luxury... they're doomed to die! Either of starvation, or aids, or something worse!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by AACHOO
America should NOT support the UN in any way. I'm all for bootin' their anti-American , anti-Semitic butts out of our country.

This isn't about politics. This is about actual people suffering, and starving, because there aren't enough resources, and no means of birth control.

[Darth Tater]

So rather then give them the chance of surviving you want them to be murdered? Look, the science is obvious and its out there, the fetus is alive, the only reason anyone supports abortion is because of the rediculous idea created by the liberals that it's a "women's issue", which just sounds so goddamn good. Reality though, it's murder. Yeah, it's ok for women to murder cause, ya know, feminism and all. Yay.

[mirrille]

Hmmm... For all that these developing countries really need it, I think certain segments of the American population need to learn about family planning too. They seem a little bit confused about what it is all about, not to mention some of the problems these countries face as a result of a relatively uneducated population.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
So rather then give them the chance of surviving you want them to be murdered?

Whatever. I would rather see the UN go in and try and install birth control, and terminations if necessary, than see thousands of starving, aids infested infants.

It has nothing to do with feminism issues, actually. It has to do with suffering, and a very real lack of resources, and education. 1 in 3 have aids in the third world. How do you think the chances of survival are going to favour the offspring?

[Darth Tater]

Going a bit overboard aren't we AACHOO? Hate to say it but Israel's just as bad as Palestine, probably worse, and the US's position in the middle east is disgraceful.

[Darth Tater]

There's a huge difference between birth control and abortion

And you really think it's a good idea to murder someone to avoid the possibility of a painful life? You could be murdering someone who will rise above their status and, despite terrible hardships, lead their country to a better place. But no, we gotta avoid the possibility of hardships by murder. Yeah, smart.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
Going a bit overboard aren't we AACHOO? Hate to say it but Israel's just as bad as Palestine, probably worse, and the US's position in the middle east is disgraceful.

Okay, for once I agree with you here. I think I'm gonna die of shock.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
There's a huge difference between birth control and abortion

Do you even know what "family planning" means?! It's basic health care, birth control, check ups, education etc. Only a small part of it is actually terminations.

[Darth Tater]

I know. ANd despite all that good stuff, it's important not to support a plan that will assist those who wish to comit murder.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
I know. ANd despite all that good stuff, it's important not to support a plan that will assist those who wish to comit murder.

Better get Bush to pull the plug on Israel then!

Really: this argument is just gonna go 'round in circles. Saying that abortion is murder is incredibly subjective. To do that, we have to start that bullshit debate about when life starts etc.

In the meantime, every second, thousands of children are dying. Why? Because there are not enough resources to go around, and because there are no condoms to protect against AIDS. This isn't about politics - it's about *actual* people who are suffering and dying. And now the funds have been cut.

[Darth Tater]

OH MY GOD "Every second thousands of children are dying" so you want to up that number by killing them before they even have a chance to live? Medical science is out there proving left and right that the fetus is alive, but the pro-lifers are ignoring it and their ideas are so ingrained that people aren't accepting that it's time to leave what initially seemed like a good idea to some but what we can all plainly see now is murder. Look, I'm not a religious guy, so I'm not saying this because some church person told me to. I've seen the facts, and I've evaluated them for myself. Anyone here formiliar with partial birth abortions? When you've got to jam a surgical tool into a babies scull and destroy their brains to kill them after you've pulled them out of your mother, don't you think it's rather obvious you're killing something that is alive?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
OH MY GOD "Every second thousands of children are dying" so you want to up that number by killing them before they even have a chance to live?

But family planning is all about prevention, NOT cure. Educating them to use birth control and stuff. It also provides natal and post natal care and stuff. Terminations are only a small part of it. By blocking the funding, they're also preventing the women from getting post-natal care - which could potentially kill far more children than any abortion proceedure.

[Darth Tater]

Uh no, by blocking the funding they're sending a message saying "take out the murder part or you don't get our support"

[azalea]

You all know I'm against abortion, but I am absolutely for the use of birth control to control the population. I am also for sterilization for those who want it. I think Tater's right, the US can use it's influence to have the abortion part of the family planning taken out, and instead have it be the providing of birth control of all kinds, and education for both men and women.

I saw a program about this, and two major problems are that in some countries children are seen as free help -- they can help on the family farm, earn wages at a job, or, in the worst cases I've heard of, be maimed and sent out as beggars, or sold into slavery. This mindset needs to be changed, and that's going to be a hard job. These people are so selfish -- I mean, they can't be that stupid, to not see that bringing a child into the world for that reason is harmful. The other problem is that men in some third world countries don't care. They rape or marry young girls, and the young girls just keep having children. In many of these countries girls are only educated through elementary school, if that, so I guess they just can't see beyond that life.
so pop control is a very important issue, part of the reason being that very thing, bringing unwanted children into the world who will grow up suffering. But the focus should be completely on prevention, no babies should be killed that are already in the works, so to speak.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
Uh no, by blocking the funding they're sending a message saying "take out the murder part or you don't get our support"

No, by blocking funds they are allowing people to die, so that they can convey a hypocritical pro-life message.


If they are pro-life, fine, let them be so. Yet, stopping those funds is going to have real consequences upon real people. How many people will die as a result of the withdrawal of health care services associated with that program?