Bush Administration to Withhold $34M for U.N. Family Planning Effort
By Scott Lindlaw
The Associated Press
Monday, July 22, 2002; 2:29 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration announced Monday it will withhold $34 million that it earmarked for U.N. family planning programs overseas, an initiative aimed at controlling population but one that conservative groups charge tolerates abortions and forced sterilizations in China.
Secretary of State Colin Powell decided that the funds will instead be spent on child survival and health programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
Boucher said that after careful consideration of the law and other factors, the administration "came to the conclusion that that the U.N. Population Fund monies go to Chinese agencies that carry out coercive programs."
Boucher said the decision was made after the administration learned that in certain areas of China, families that violate China's programs to limit family size can be subject to severe penalties
The decision was based largely on a legal analysis of congressional statutes that govern how U.N. funds for population planning can be spent, he said. Boucher added that the United States continues to fund population programs worldwide, contributing more than $400 million this year.
Conservative activists helped carry Bush to the presidency, and White House political advisers have carefully tended them with an eye to his re-election. But the decision on family planning could also damage Bush's standing with moderates and women.
The White House has kept the politically delicate decision a closely guarded secret. It has refused to divulge it even to allies in Congress, such as the Pro-life Caucus.
<snip>
A study from a U.S. government fact-finding mission to China in early May reportedly found no evidence that the U.N.'s program directly or indirectly facilitates forced sterilizations and abortions in China. A British delegation visited China a month before the U.S. team arrived and its investigators also did not find evidence that U.N. funds were misused for such purposes.
<snip>
"I think UNFPA does very essential work and we have made it clear that it does not go around encouraging abortions. It gives good advice to women on reproductive health and does good work around the world, including in China," he said in an interview with CNN.
Annan said the United Nations would "try and see if other donors will step up and make up the difference because the work we are doing is absolutely essential and we do not want women, particularly poor women, to suffer."
<snip>
Bush sent $600,000 to the U.N. fund in November for humanitarian relief in Afghanistan. The money has been used to provide sanitary napkins to Afghan women and medical assistance with labor and delivery, officials said.
In advance of the administration's formal announcement, 48 members of Congress asked Bush last week to explain why he had withheld the $34 million after approving it in January.
posted on July 22, 2002 01:54:26 PM newAnnan said the United Nations would "try and see if other donors will step up and make up the difference because the work we are doing is absolutely essential....
What a good idea. Other donors.
On the abortion issue in China, I've just read somewhere that they were forcing abortions on Taiwan women who had more than one child, when they came to live ? in China. More than one child is against China's laws. They encourage abortions.
On aid to Africa....we could provided zillions of $$ for rubbers but in the African men refuse to use them...what good will it do to keep providing them?
I certainly hope that the money originally promised will be made available.I posted the link above because the US papers did not discuss the possible AIDS problem involved in this cutback. It's shameful what a politician will do to acquire votes.
"A spokesman for the fund, Stirling Scruggs, said that according to its estimates of how the loss of $34 million would affect the recipients of family planning aid, "this could mean 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths."
Amy Coen, the president of Population Action International, a private organization in Washington that focuses on voluntary population planning and related health issues, criticized the freeze as motivated by domestic politics.
"When the most powerful president in the world will not release money already allocated to prevent unwanted pregnancy, to stop the spread of H.I.V./AIDS, for the poorest citizens in the world," she said, "where is the morality in that? This is pure politics."
The population fund has programs that supply condoms to men in groups at high risk for H.I.V./AIDS, and these expenditures may also be cut, fund officials say. Supplies are already scarce.
South Africa will be faced with 1,85-million Aidsorphaned children in 2015, according to the Medical Research Council?s burden of disease research unit. This figure represents 15% of children under the age of 15, whose mothers would have died of Aids.
posted on July 22, 2002 03:09:25 PM new"When the most powerful president in the world will not release money already allocated to prevent unwanted pregnancy, to stop the spread of H.I.V./AIDS, for the poorest citizens in the world," she said, "where is the morality in that? This is pure politics." The population fund has programs that supply condoms to men in groups at high risk for H.I.V./AIDS, and these expenditures may also be cut, fund officials say. Supplies are already scarce.
The spread of aids will not stop unless/until the condoms are used. Nor will a drop in population be seen, if they're not used. IMO, this is a front to pay for abortions.
posted on July 22, 2002 03:25:06 PM newOn aid to Africa....we could provided zillions of $$ for rubbers but in the African men refuse to use them...what good will it do to keep providing them?
So we just give up? There have been many news articles about educating the women of these countries. If they understand that women are now the fastest growing AIDS group maybe they will rise up like the Nigerian women with the oil companies. No condoms, no sex.
It has already been established that when women are educated about family planning they have fewer children and
their income levels may raise. [From listening to NPR all day.]
We are becoming a nation that looks like a bunch of unfeeling people. AND, not just on this issue either.
We can spend millions on learning about Clinton's private life and billions on mutating our food supply without letting anyone know until 10 years later. I don't know how much we spent trying to squash voting irregularities information. But we can't spend money to cover many different problems like AIDS, family planning education in poorer countries? It is appalling.
posted on July 22, 2002 03:26:23 PM new
I don't know the percentage, but African women get AIDS from being raped. Africa is one of the worst countries for rape. How can you make a rapist wear a condom? They'd probably give them to all their kids to blow up as balloons.
posted on July 22, 2002 05:33:05 PM newGreeks are animals...no doubt about it LOL!
..
It really amazes me how insensitive people seem to be about people in other countries! It's becoming a small world and I think that it's time to be concerned. When I was looking for this link I discovered that England has imported Aids positive health care workers from South Africa.
The catholic religion discourages the practice of birth control even in an area experiencing an epidemic of aids. Isn't that unbelievable?
posted on July 27, 2002 11:06:55 PM new
Okay, sigh, it's the old story. People are opposed to birth control, opposed to condoms, opposed to abortion. But are these people stepping forward to support all those children no one wants?
Family PLANNING means generally planning AHEAD. Preventing unwanted pregnancies, not supporting abortions. Get your head out of the sand!
You have permission to deny family planning help to 3rd world countries WHEN you can show me a card that identifies you as an adoptive parent of 10 or so of those poor children. Until then, how can you justify the way you think?
Sorry to sound so hostile, but right this minute I FEEL hostile. Worked for Planned Parenthood in the past and am proud of the service they provide to women everywhere.
posted on July 28, 2002 03:55:59 AM new
I hope this isn't too far OT, but just I read where a Fed Judge in the south stopped a program of religious groups preaching abstinence with Federal grant money. The groups were openly targeting the audiences for religious conversion etc..
In researching how effective abstinenece based on religion works, I found that in the American colonies of Puritans, premartial pregnancies were at 20%. This is about the same as the percentage today for whites. Bare in mind that the religious control of one's life was far mor restrictive in the Puritan social construct than today, and the stigma and personal social costs for out of wedlock pregnancies were far greater than today.
I guess the question should be why the other 80% of births were/are to married partners. It seems to me that there must be other factors besides religion based abstinence varibles that produces these results.
Ignorance, religion based abstinence, and lack of resources are no substitute for knowledge and resources when it comes to family planning.
[ edited by REAMOND on Jul 28, 2002 04:13 AM ]
posted on July 28, 2002 05:29:01 AM new
Roadsmith - Family PLANNING means generally planning AHEAD. Preventing unwanted pregnancies, not supporting abortions. Get your head out of the sand!
My head isn't one of those in the sand. I worked in the Family Planning department of a large HMO in CA. It was an office to schedule abortions....and little else. Did we try to speak to the women about preventing future pregnancies? Yes, but most weren't interested. They already knew, but for different reasons they chose not to use them. Sure...some were 'unplanned' pregnancies, but my experience was too many were using abortion as their form of birth control.
For me personally, this doesn't have a thing to do with religion. It's a system that, I believe, is being abused.
posted on July 28, 2002 05:51:48 AM newThe money that had been designated to the fund will instead be spent on child survival and health programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Boucher told reporters Monday. In all, the United States continues to fund population programs worldwide to the tune of $400 million.
Obviously each administration sets their own priorities.
posted on July 28, 2002 07:29:52 AM new If spent by the UN, the funds would have prevented 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 abortions, 4700 maternal deaths, almost 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths, according to the UN.
posted on July 28, 2002 09:19:06 AM new
[i]"Have you noticed a decrease in the incidences of HIV/AIDs or a decrease in their population when these
funds were being used for that purpose?"[/i]
That's a great question Linda. I'd like to see something like that too. This is similar to the NRA. They claim the number of people that have been saved by owning a gun is great, but have never shown any statistics to prove it.
They need to teach men not to rape. That would cut the number of AIDS case to way less than half. Family Planning in Africa??? Yeah, right.
posted on July 28, 2002 10:08:41 AM new
Morning Kraftdinner - I'd be very surprised to see a report that said HIV/AIDs or the population numbers were decreasing because of the funds previously given to help.
Just read an interesting article this morning, that can be found on the Associated Press [health/science section] that spoke of a new book [Staying Alive, Fighting HIV/AIDS]. An American publisher and a British author have written this for children.
Among other things they said, "Denial of the scope of the crisis both on a government and community level has made educating the public a special challenge.
The book, in part, teaches the ABCs.
A= Abstinence
B= being faithful and being tested
C= is for condoms and caring about each other.
Again quoting, "No one should be forced to have sex." and "Aids cannot be cured by having sex with a young girl." It states that the researchers there have found that in So. Africa the myth that sleeping with a virgin cures AIDS is prevalent.
posted on July 28, 2002 10:19:01 AM new
Well ... there is family planning going on in Africa now, but it is Darwinistic family planning.
But there can be no mistake why Bush withheld the money, it was due to pressure from the religious right. They have made it clear to "their" president that they want no money used in programs that offer abortion.
posted on July 28, 2002 10:28:17 AM new
Lindak and Kraftdinner.
Bush withheld the money to appease right wing conservative concerns....for the almighty vote.
"China imposed a strict policy in the late 1970s of allowing only one child per family in the cities, and generally two children in the countryside. Beijing introduced the measure to curb the country's population growth. The population stands now at 1.3 billion. The family planning policy has been steadily relaxed since the early 1990s, when the government began to punish officials who forced women to have abortions or be sterilized."
"The U.N. Population Fund says it does not support abortion anywhere, and says it does not spend American donations in China"
Furthermore, The UN agency says it has made progress toward more voluntary family planning practices in the 32 Chinese counties where it works and that it does not spend US cash in China.
About Africa
My question is how you cannot care? What an inhumane and in my opinion immoral reaction! The fight against aids will be a long term project because of cultural differences and may take as long as ten years. It will be a long battle ....like Bush's long war. Can you understand that?
posted on July 28, 2002 10:52:31 AM new
Helen - My question is how you cannot care? What an inhumane and in my opinion immoral reaction! The fight against aids will be a long term project because of cultural differences and may take as long as ten years. It will be a long battle ....like Bush's long war. Can you understand that?
When you address my questions to you, I will answer your questions to me.
posted on July 28, 2002 10:55:22 AM new
Reamond - Of course...I agree. It's no different when a democratic president is in office. They vote/make decisions that follow the beliefs of those who put them in office too.
posted on July 28, 2002 02:25:43 PM new
Helen, I'm not against aid going to China for family planning. Although I'm pro-choice, doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. China's been known to do some weird things so if there's a chance this money could be used towards forced abortions/sterilizations, I'd want to know for sure before handing over aid money. Is it a ploy for votes? Could be.
As far as Africa goes, I'm trying to look at the cause, not what a band-aid could provide. The men need to learn that monogomy helps. They also need to learn not to rape women - two difficult things to learn when you grow up in that type of enviroment. The problem is, if something isn't done quickly, we're going to loose an awful lot of people and I'm not sure giving out condoms is the answer.
posted on July 28, 2002 04:38:57 PM new
Kraftdinner,
The money is used for purposes other than "only giving out condoms". The UN saves lives and reduces abortions by educating women, providing gynecological services, distributing safe-birth kits and more. This Bush decision will result in the death of poor women all over the world while his act will only appease his right wing faction and garner him a few votes.
Forget the Africans and the condoms and think about the disease - AIDS Maybe you and Linda can do that.
The disease travels.
Think about that.
It's sad that you can consider the problem only on that level but it's an important consideration to the wellfare of those not in the jungles of Africa as you and Linda percieve the situation.
posted on July 28, 2002 05:55:23 PM new
Helen, there are around 42 million people worldwide suffering from AIDS. Of those 42 million, 30 million are from Africa. Aid has been going to Africa since the late 80's but the numbers keep growing. I wish I knew what the solution was.
posted on July 28, 2002 09:02:42 PM new
It is thought that Aids has been in Africa longer than anywhere else. The country also lacks the medical infrastructure to combat the disease, even if they had the money to educate to change behaviors.
We eradicated Small Pox world wide, including Africa. This included a vast education campaign to get Africans to even accept vaccinations and to report and isolate Small Pox cases. There is no reason that AIDS can not be controlled in Africa, other than the industrialized world lacks the will to do it.
Bill O'Reily sound bites the problem by saying that the African men won't wear condoms. There was also a time when third world cultures wouldn't allow pictures to be taken because it would steal their spirit, as well as food delivered to starving Africans but we forgot they didn't know how to use a can opener nor that the cans actually contained food.
One thing we are finding out- for every region we refuse to interact with to resolve these problems, there are groups like al Qaeda that are willing to go there, and they are going there.
The choice is not about "throwing money away" on these issues, it is about whether the democracies of the West will facilitate these changes or whether fundementalist Islam will be there.
Edited to add: The US also has coersive family planning.
posted on July 29, 2002 06:11:05 AM new
Reamond - Once again stating that I respect your opinions. [so you sense the tone of my post.]
Bill O'Reilly has good reason to focus on condoms. If condoms are not used or abstinence practiced....HIV/AIDs will continue. If you are aware of another way to prevent the spread of this disease, please share it with me.
And we can try to teach all we want ....so far it hasn't made a difference. How many years? America does not have unlimited resources to take care of the world. Shoot... we don't have enough to take care of our own properly. So when most of America agrees with an international issue then it has the support of the nation [bipartisan]. When millions of taxpayers disagree with an issue [abortion] then they have a right to have their voice heard too and their tax dollars not be put towards supporting that issue. That's where I'm coming from.
I'm sure you're aware that new cases of the HIV/AIDs, in the gay community, was on the downswing in the US. But, once again that trend is reversing itself in the gay community. Why? They know what the causes are. They know how to prevent it. And they have access all preventative measures. They're choosing not to use protection. That's what I view we're up against in countries like Africa, only on a much much larger level. You can't help those who won't help themselves. We can encourage them to practice safe sex, but we can't force them to. No more than we can force anyone else to use protection.
On coersive measures: I know you're not saying that two men who are busy overpopulating the US [I know there are more] can be compared to what's gone/going on in countries like China. All their women were forced to have abortions. All their women were forced to be steralized. That's not choice. Now some say they're being coerced...same thing. Punished severely if they don't abide by the law. Now China is trying to do the same thing with the Tiwanese population who are coming to their country. So..this practice still exsists. People who do not suport these practices, have a right to be represented by a president that agrees.
In another thread we were speaking to the issue of illegals. You stated [paraphrasing] that in order to keep our own 'culture' we'd have to start multiplying. That's another issue I see affecting abortions. While many support the abortion issue, to varying degrees, most are aware that women from those cultures moving here are also practicing their beliefs here. I don't think many American women would support abortions because the fetus is female. But that's what's happening here in the US. Both Asian and Indian women want those ultrasounds done early to find out the sex of a fetus....and when it's female they want, and get, an abortion. [I understand there are some who don't support abortion at all, and those who will say this is the womens choice.] But to me it's wrong.
posted on July 29, 2002 07:11:16 AM new
It comes down to this. If you are casual about sex or sharing blood with other people you stand a good chance of getting HIV.
Doesn't matter how deeply that offends your world view that I'm OK you're OK no matter if you have the morals of a dog in heat.
The people that are hypocrites about morality - that know how loose and wanton the African people are and yet can't bring themselves to speak bluntly to the public about it - pretending it will just go away - will die.
For example there is a strong cultural need to deny that homosexuality exists in most African lands. So if you can't speak to the truth of what it does. That would embarrass too many people. Better to die than be embarrassed.
There is a similar denial about anything sexual in the American Bible Belt. No problem - you deny reality you die.
The same thing may happen in Asia. A big chunk of the third world is going to die for no real good reason. It would not matter how much money you throw at it. Might as well save your funds for helping the survivors.
I'm sure some asses will continue to say it is the wrath of God on the unrighteous. It is simple biology. If you dig your well too close to the privy the wrath of God sends Cholera to your drinking water Jack. Well if you hop in bed whenever and with whatever the fancy takes you end up with this crappy little virus. Talk about Darwin awards - this has to be the biggest Darwin award of all time.
posted on July 29, 2002 10:04:06 AM newBill O'Reilly has good reason to focus on condoms. If condoms are not used or abstinence practiced....HIV/AIDs will continue. If you are aware of another way to prevent the spread of this disease, please share it with me
Abstinence will never work. Although the religious right would have us believe differently, humans are sexual beings.
The use of condoms can be acheived. The problem is that we can not merely give directives to a country and dictate what they must do. There must be a presence there that educates towards behavioral change. Machiavelli told how to do this centuries ago. You can not cause change pontificating from a distance. You have to have people and resources on the ground where the problem is.
On coersive measures: I know you're not saying that two men who are busy overpopulating the US [I know there are more] can be compared to what's gone/going on in countries like China. All their women were forced to have abortions
All of China's woman are not forced to have abortions. The coercive methods used by China are the loss of state support and subsidies if the woman refuses to terminate the pregnancy. The family loses education benefits and subsidies if they have more than one child. No one is forcibly taken to have an abortion. China uses economic coersion. The US uses it too, only we call it a "free market" and criminal non-support.
All their women were forced to be steralized. That's not choice. Now some say they're being coerced...same thing. Punished severely if they don't abide by the law
The economic coersion is EXACTLY what is going on here in the US. Men are sterilized because they can not AFFORD to support their children. Woman have abortions because they can not afford a child.
Now China is trying to do the same thing with the Tiwanese population who are coming to their country. So..this practice still exsists. People who do not suport these practices, have a right to be represented by a president that agrees
If they don't support this practice, then why aren't they working against it here in the US. They are against abortion, but do nothing to support child that are born. What they do support is getting rid of welfare and no taxes on the wealthy. Look at the child welfare system in Florida. Florida has an anti-choice Governor in Jeb Bush and yet they can not find the money to take care of foster children properly, but they have all the political resources they can muster to outlaw abortion and cut taxes for the wealthy.
What you seem to propose is that no one but wealthy people should have the right to have children. Anyone who doesn't have a bank account that shows they can feed, cloth, house and educate a child for 22 years should not give birth.
Any system of governemnt is coersive. The results of a free market are many times no better than a state controlled system. Coersion comes in many forms. Does it really make any difference who is on the end of the stick that is beating you ?
posted on July 29, 2002 11:39:40 AM new"What you seem to propose is that no one but wealthy people should have the right to have children. Anyone who doesn't have a bank account that shows they can feed, cloth, house and educate a child for 22 years should not give birth."
I almost agree with this statement REAMOND. Does that make me a bad person? Maybe I live in left field, but I would hope that anyone in North America would choose NOT to have children if they knew beforehand they couldn't support them. What is the point otherwise?
posted on July 29, 2002 11:55:34 AM newIf they don't support this practice, then why aren't they working against it here in the US. There are many groups [elected officials too] who try to change or put some restrictions on abortion laws. But everytime anyone tries to set any limits on the abortion issue everyone starts screaming [and labeling] them to be anti-choice, anti-abortion from the religious right, etc. When, just like myself, I am pro-choice AND NOT pro-abortion and believe some restrictions are very much needed.
Abstinence will never work. Although the religious right would have us believe differently, humans are sexual beings. Never? [and see what I mean about the labeling that only 'the religious right' would believe this?] I've seen people myself who aren't from the 'religious right' state they have made a decision that they're going to abstain until either marriage or a long term partership is formed, mainly because they don't to contact HIV/AIDs. Not a large group...granted, but some are becoming smart enough to either abstain or use protection...rather than 'throw caution to the wind'.
So that still leaves condoms. Even with complete knowledge there are many people, for many reasons, who refuse to do so. Their choice.
posted on July 29, 2002 11:57:15 AM new
"Abstinence will never work. Although the religious right would have us believe differently, humans are sexual beings."
I agree the religeous right is nuts.
However I have lived 55 years and been married twice. I have never cheated on either wife although I had a number of blunt offers.
So am I a non-sexual being and a wierdo because I keep my word? You seem to be saying more that humans are cheating liars more than sexual beings. I happen to think the two are seperable. If I am odd then so be it. I also don't have to worry at night about what horrid disease is going to show up and ruin my life from my last light hearted little "fling". I would no more jump in bed with some semi-stranger than stop along the road and quench my thirst from a puddle.
