The London Family Planning Summit expects governments to provide permanent funding for contraception programs. Where will the money come from? Developed countries will likely siphon scarce funding from other programs to comply.
Current family planning funding in the developing world is $4 billion.1
The Gates Foundation is a large stakeholder in population control programs. In 2009, it spent $437.2 million on population funding, including family planning and contraceptives.2
USAID is budgeted to cut maternal and child health funding by $28 million from 2012 to 2013, including reductions to nutrition pro- grams while budget requests for family planning have increased.3
The London Family Planning Summit creates preferential treatment for contraception groups, above programs providing basic healthcare, education, infrastructure, economic programs – measures that lift women and communities out of poverty. In fact, this is already a problem:
The U.S. spent $72.2 million inter- nationally on contraceptive and condom supplies in 2010. By contrast, USAID spent $75 million on its entire global nutrition budget during the same time period.4
The U.S. government shipped abroad 744,366,780 total contraceptives in 2010.5
The USAID Family Planning & Re- productive Services 2012 budget is set at $524 million. This is more than the budgets for tuberculosis, public health threats, pandemic influenza, vulnerable children, and nutrition combined.6
Family planning is the wrong way to address maternal health concerns. The London Family Planning Summit assumes that pregnancy is the problem to be eliminated rather than addressing medical care for pregnant mothers. Setting timetables and goals to bolster contraception usage in the name of maternal health only leads to coercive family planning programs. For instance:
WHO reports that 89% of partnered women between ages 15 and 49 already have access to and are using an “effective method” of contraception.7
UNFPA supports population control through vasectomies and tubal ligations to reduce maternal mortality by 75%, inspiring forced sterilization campaigns in Uzbekistan and China.8
U.K. Department for International Development gave $268 million in 2005 to Reproductive and Child Health Phase II program in India. That program is accused of forced sterilization campaigns against the poor and lower castes.9
Pregnant women in developing countries need basic medical care. Contraception programs do not provide any support for pregnant mothers or newborns.
Monitoring of these contraception programs will be assigned to groups like the Summit’s partners, with a history of population control, promoting abortion and abuses. For example, Planned Parenthood faces charges of fraud, sex–selection abortions, assisting suspected child sex traffickers, and violating statutory rape laws.
To find out about what you can do to TAKE ACTION NOW against the London Family Planning Summit, please click on the button below!
- http://deliver.jsi.com; http://foreignassistance.gov/Initiative_GH_2012 aspx?FY=2012#ObjAnchor
- http://www.unfpa.org/emergencies/manual/6.htm; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17612550;
- http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-u.k.-foreign-aid-tied-to-indias-forced-sterilization-campaign/; http://www.hrln.org/hrln/reproductive-rights/pils-a-cases/884-supreme-court-issues-notices- in-public-interest-litigation-regarding-unsafe-and-unethical-sterilizations.html; http://online.wsj. com/article/SB10001424052702304050304577377811263434578.html
“The UK Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with the support of UNFPA and other partners, is to host the International Family Planning Summit in London on 11 July.” Dismayed at losing Rio+20, the abortion providers of the world are banding together to strategize on the provision of family planning services to a bunch of poor women. Melinda Gates, world-famous billionaire, is sponsoring this effort to reduce the population of poor people (and thus reduce our ‘ecological footprint’-see my previous article on the New Environmentalism) by limiting the ability of their women to produce more children. This must stop! To stop this modern-day eugenics, click the button below to sign the petition to Melinda Gates to protect women and children around the globe, and to allow our future generations to thrive on this planet we hold so dear!
In a few weeks, the Gates Foundation and the UK Department for International Development along with other partners such as the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) and UNFPA will host the Family Planning Summit in London. The goal is to raise funds for family planning for people around the world.
The Guardian is hosting a section on its website called Global Development which is actually funded by none other than the Gates Foundation. They are asking for comments about family planning before they discuss the issue in June’s Global development podcast. Most of the comments so far have been in support of the Summit’s goals. It would be great to see some diversity among the comments. Let’s rally the troops and set the record straight about the consequences of funding groups like IPPF and UNFPA.
Here’s the link to the Guardian’s article.
On December 13 1968, Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist, published The Tragedy of the Commons, one of the most quoted and talked about papers on overpopulation, which presented the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons, and proposed “relinquishing the freedom to breed” as a solution (Science 1248). The Tragedy of the Commons, an idea first introduced by William Forster Lloyd in the early 1800s is an agricultural allegory for the current state of overpopulation in the world.
As depicted in the cartoon, four farmers find themselves unable to keep adding cows to the common because overpopulation depletes the resources of the land. While the cartoon then seeks to compare humans to the farming situation, it does not propose a solution. Hardin, when interviewed about his views proposes two solutions to the problem: either reduce the American standard of living, or reduce the number of people living.
He claims that since there are no natural variables controlling population growth, the responsibility finds itself in the hands of the public interest, especially that of the then “Planned Parenthood-World Population Organization” (Science 1246). He suggests “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of people affected” (Science 1247) as the means of guaranteeing the loss of the freedom to breed and “openly deny[ing] the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Science 1246), set forth by the UN in 1967. “Freedom to breed,” Hardin reiterates, “will bring ruin to all” (Science 1248). In other words, our rights to reproduce should merely not exist, and the decision to have children should rest on that of a governmental organization such as Planned Parenthood or the UNFPA.
Now you might ask, “what do the abrasive mutterings of some ecologist from the 60s have to do with the current state of affairs?” Yesterday, I had the pleasure to attend my first meeting as a C-FAM Intern, at which Wendy Wright, the Interim Executive Director for C-FAM in New York, presented recent updates concerning the upcoming Rio+20 Summit from June 20-22 on Sustainable Development. It seems Planned Parenthood is at it again, but how do reproductive rights relate to climate change? Remember the two solutions Hardin proposes to fix this “Tragedy of the Commons”: Planned Parenthood, an organization founded on a philosophy of death and characteristic of taking the quick-and-easy fix over a more difficult or longer approach, has chosen the solution to reduce the number of people over the solution of reducing the American standard of living. The fewer the people in the world, the less overpopulation there is, and therefore the greater the sustainability of the earth.
Planned Parenthood disregards reducing the American standard of living or simply increasing our efficiency for the cheap and easy fix: abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and sterilization.
Forced sterilization campaigns have been going on for years. In the 1990s, for example, UNFPA supported Fujimori’s forced sterilization programs in Peru: systematic and brutal, the government invited rural Peruvian women to participate in “litigation festivals” turned sterilization clinics, in which they sterilized 300,000 women.
While the US has since enacted investigations and laws prohibiting future funding of organizations which promote such forced sterilization, the question should still be proposed, “does Planned Parenthood or UNFPA have a connection to forced sterilization?” Considering Planned Parenthood’s approach of population control- climate change, connections to forced sterilization epidemics may not be far off.
Reading this, you may feel inclined to do something. Pope Benedict offers a solution:
Today the great gift of God’s Creation is exposed to serious dangers and lifestyles which can degrade it. Environmental pollution is making particularly unsustainable the lives of the poor of the world … we must pledge ourselves to take care of creation and to share its resources in solidarity.
It is our duty as Catholics and Christians alike to protect this great environment God has given us. Why take the easy way out and reduce the population size, when everyone can live in peace with better sustainable living techniques? Whatever the case, St. Francis had it right in his Brother Sun and Sister Moon Canticle when he said, “Praised be You, my Lord with all your creatures“.
To follow in his footsteps towards Jesus, check out the link below to take the St. Francis Pledge. As patrons of God’s creation (Gen. 2), we must daily reaffirm our promise of responsibility for this incredible world God has given us by respecting it not by destroying it!