More about UNFPA (Diotima on Gloria Steinem, part two)

(This is the fourth post in an ongoing exchange; first Sara at Diotima posted this commentary regarding a Gloria Steinem interview, followed by my response, followed by Sara’s response. Phew.)

Sara was bothered by the “nastiness” of my previous post. I apologize. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that she doesn’t care about the deaths of women in the third world. In fact, it’s just the opposite – it’s because I know Sara is not callous, that I was shocked by her apparent use of abortions in the USA to rebut Steinem’s concern for women in other countries.

Sara wrote:

I was genuinely taken aback by this linkage – so much that I suggested in my earlier post that it might have just been something Sara said in anger, and not a reflection of her real position.

Sara has now clarified this statement, writing that “my juxtaposition of the number of innocents killed since Roe with Ms. Steinem’s claim was a clumsy attempt to remind people that pro-lifers really do believe in the personhood of the fetus.” Fair enough – thank you for clarifying that. (However, in my own defense, I think it’s understandable that I didn’t infer Sara’s intent from her original wording).

* * *

There is also some discussion of the UN Population Fund, which Bush defunded due to allegations that the UNPFA supports coercive abortion in China.

First of all, Sara believes I questioned whether she, personally, is really interested in halting abortion. However, she’s mistaken. I did question the “pro-life leadership’s commitment to opposing abortion,” in a sentence about “pro-life organizations.” When I wrote that, I was specifically thinking “I’d better make it clear I’m talking about the leaders of the big organizations here, and not Sara.” However, it’s obvious I didn’t make the distinction clear enough; I apologize for that.

Nonetheless, I stand by my criticism of the pro-life leadership; as I’ve written in the past (in a different context), they often seem more interested in scoring partisan points than in pursing substantive policies which would reduce abortion. (Once again, let me clarify that this criticism is made of pro-life leadership, not of Sara.)

Speaking of substantive argument, Sara argues in favor of defunding UNFPA, writing:

Sara implies that the dispute over UNFPA is a dispute between pro-life research and pro-choice research. In fact, Bush’s own fact-finding mission found that PRI’s report was wrong. So did the right-wing MP Edward Leigh, who before visiting China was UNFPA’s strongest opponent in British government. (There’s more detail in this post). Leigh’s study “found no evidence of UNFPA advocating or facilitating coercive FP [Family Planning] laws. Indeed, it seemed precisely the opposite applied. The UNFPA projects, based on the IDPD Programme of Action, helped empower women by ensuring that they had the fullest possible information about reproductive health and choices.”

Keep in mind, that’s a statement a pro-lifer signed on to. This is not a dispute between pro-life and pro-choice researchers; even pro-life researchers who have examined UNFPA’s program in China have come away convinced that PRI is dead wrong, and recommending that UNFPA be fully funded.

And that, Sara, is one reason I find the Catholics for Choice report credible – because it matches what the British team and the Bush team found. (Also, pro-choice organizations have no particular reason to support UNFPA other than a belief that UNFPA saves women’s lives – remember, UNFPA is against abortion, and doesn’t provide abortions or fund any abortions). Both pro-lifers and Bush’s State Department (and, yes, some pro-choice ministers and ethicists) have examined and refuted PRI’s accusations. When pro-life and pro-choice researchers agree, doesn’t it seem probable that they’re telling the truth?

In any case, I can’t imagine what – “unless you have an agenda yourself” – would lead you to dismiss the British MP and US State Department reports.

That UNFPA has any involvement with China’s “One Child Policy” – other than working to end it – is a vicious lie, one that even pro-life researchers have disproved. Of course, feminists are concerned about women in China – which is why feminists don’t want to defund the only Western organization that is successfully opposing coercive practices there.

By spreading the lie, pro-life leaders like President Bush and “Feminists for Life” are greatly hurting the interests of women in China. UNFPA has done more to fight coercive reproductive policies in China than any other organization – period. And – because the UNFPA does not support abortion, and in fact reduces the need for abortion – the net effect of the pro-life leadership’s defunding of UNFPA is to increase abortion worldwide. How does that help anyone?

Sara points out that the $34 million taken away from UNFPA went to the US Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, a US government program. That’s no substitute. The US government money is deeply politicized, so it will go exclusively to programs that are “politically correct” even to the most fanatical pro-life organizations. For instance, none of that money will go to helping the women in China President Bush pretends to feel concern for.

Furthermore, the US program is simply less extensive and provides assistance to fewer women. Overall, the US program funds programs in about 65 countries, compared to the over 140 countries UNFPA is providing assistance to.

Finally, the program Sara refers to was created in 2002; it doesn’t have the experience or the proven effectiveness of UNFPA. Moving $34 million dollars to where the money will help fewer people less effectively isn’t really a wonderful approach to policy.

* * *

Sara writes “I was under the impression that Bush was actually spending a bunch of new money to help fight AIDS in Africa.” Yes, that’s the impression Bush gave – however, after taking the credit, Bush played games with the money, making it difficult to know if there even was a net gain in funding.

* * *

There are many other issues to address, but I’ve got to run. More later..