{"id":273,"date":"2003-07-17T11:13:33","date_gmt":"2003-07-17T19:13:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2003\/07\/17\/pro-life-lies-about-the-un-population-fund\/"},"modified":"2003-07-17T11:13:33","modified_gmt":"2003-07-17T19:13:33","slug":"pro-life-lies-about-the-un-population-fund","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=273","title":{"rendered":""Pro" life lies about the UN Population Fund"},"content":{"rendered":"

The so-called “pro” lifers and Republicans in congress have succeeded in defunding the UN Population Fund <\/a>(also called UNFPA). This move will, without any doubt, lead to more women and infants dying; how is favoring the deaths of women and infants pro-life?<\/p>\n

The Republicans claim they’re doing this to help women in China, but in fact UNFPA has done more to help women in China than any other western agency I know of – more on this below.<\/p>\n

For a clear view of the appalling lies and ignorance that substitute for thought among influential pro-lifers, it’s hard to beat National Review Online<\/a>. Here’s just a few of the errors Kathryn Jean Lopez makes:<\/p>\n

Error number 1. Lopez doesn’t know the difference between a “country” and a “county.”<\/b><\/p>\n

In a report issued earlier this year, the State Department found that forced abortion and sterilization policies exist in 32 countries where the UNFPA has operations.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Actually, what State Department reports<\/a> examine are UPFPA’s operations in the 32 counties<\/i> in China UPFPA runs programs in. This wasn’t just a typo on Lopez’s part; she goes on to complain about UPFPA’s alleged history of cooperating with “tyrannical regimes,” plural.<\/p>\n

It’s impossible that anyone who actually read the State Department report, rather than just skimming the first few paragraphs, could make this error.<\/p>\n

What’s worse, even if we correct Lopez’s awesomely ignorant mistake, she’s still dead wrong<\/i>. Which brings us to point two:<\/p>\n

Error number 2. Forced abortion and sterilization policies exist in the 32 Chinese counties where the UNFPA has operations.<\/b><\/p>\n

This is the opposite of the truth. According to the Bush Administration’s own fact-finding team<\/a> – which not only talked to officials, but spoke to “ordinary Chinese in spontaneous\/no-notice encounters” – they found no evidence of coercion in the counties in which UNFPA operates, since UNFPA set up its program. They did find “ample evidence” of coercion – but they’re careful to specify that this is referring to “abusive and coercive practices outside the 32 counties” UNFPA operates in.<\/p>\n

Of course, that’s the Bush administration’s version of events, which is spun to avoid making UNPFA look good. They carefully skip over the most important fact about UNFPA’s participation in China – which is that UNFPA negotiated with China to end China’s coercive policies in those 32 counties<\/i>. If it wasn’t for UNFPA, thousands of Chinese women who have been released from China’s horrible population-control policies would still be suffering under those policies. (UNFPA’s goal is to demonstrate to China that non-coercive policies that empower women work better than China’s past policies do. And it’s working: according to a British fact-finding report, China is considering implementing UNFPA-type programs in another 800 counties).<\/p>\n

The Bush administration report carefully avoids talking about the good UNFPA is doing for China. For a less biased view, read the “China Mission Report” (warning: PDF file<\/a>) co-written by three British members of Parliament – including the right-wing MP Edward Leigh, who before visiting China was UNFPA’s strongest opponent<\/i> in British government.<\/p>\n

[UNFPA’s] project is being implemented throughout 32 counties in 22 provinces. The Chinese Government, while still pursuing China’s overall national demographic targets, agreed to lift acceptor targets and birth quotas in these areas. […]<\/p>\n

The study team 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. […]<\/p><\/div>\n

The truth is exactly the opposite of what the right-wingers claim – UNFPA is the reason there isn’t coercive family planning in those 32 counties.<\/p>\n

Error number 3. Sending the money to a U.S. government program will be just as good.<\/b><\/p>\n

Lopez and other pro-lifers try to claim that they are not hurting women and children by saying they don’t want to cut off funds, just “divert” them to a different program.<\/p>\n

The problem is, the program the money will be diverted to the State Department’s Child Survival and Health Programs Fund. While that’s a worthwhile program, it simply doesn’t have a record of effectiveness that can match UNFPA’s; dollar-for-dollar, the money would do more good with UNFPA.<\/p>\n

Just as importantly, the US State Department is a political organization; spending decisions will inevitably be politicized. Spending will be based on what will help George Bush’s re-election, or to reward and punish countries based on irrelevant factors like “did they support Bush in the UN vote?,” rather than basing spending on what will do the most good for women and children in need.<\/p>\n

A clear example of this is the China policy. As the British report showed, the UNFPA is actually helping women in China, giving them real reproductive choice and bringing needed reforms to the areas where they operate. Absolutely no help to Chinese women can be funded by the US State Department, however, because George Bush needs the votes of pro-life fanatics who object to such programs.<\/p>\n

Error number 4: The pro-lifers are acting for the benefit of oppressed women in China.<\/b><\/p>\n

Lopez writes, “Do they really believe they have more to fear from George W. Bush and pro-life conservatives than the women of China, or other authoritarian human-rights violators do from their regimes?” But in fact, the UNFPA is helping Chinese women, by getting real concessions from the Chinese government to switch from coercive policies to policies that empower women to make their own reproductive choices.<\/p>\n

As far as I know, no other Western organization<\/i> can show having made concrete improvements in reproductive freedom for Chinese women. No other organization can demonstrate that they’ve successfully negotiated with China to release some women from coercive population control practices. Only UNFPA can make that claim. So why are the pro-lifers against it?<\/p>\n

To quote Brian Dixon<\/a> of Population Control:<\/p>\n

The UNFPA program in China is perhaps the most heavily monitored international project in the world. Only PRI–an organization opposed to contraceptives and dedicated to ending all public support for family planning–has found any “evidence” that UNFPA supports coercive practices. No other independent monitoring organization makes that claim.<\/p>\n

Among the recent investigators to monitor the program, in addition to the United States team, were an international team headed by a former Dutch ambassador to NATO, and three members of the British parliament–including a leading opponent of UNFPA in the House of Commons. Each found that UNFPA serves as a “force for good” in China. […]<\/p>\n

If PRI were concerned about improving human rights in China, it would be supporting the only agency that has had any success in moving that country away from coercion and toward a rights-based approach.<\/p><\/div>\n

In the right-wing, pro-life viewpoint, defunding the only Western program that can be shown to help Chinese women is an example of helping those women. How backwards can they be?<\/p>\n

UPDATE: Body and Soul<\/a> is discussing this, too..<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The so-called “pro” lifers and Republicans in congress have succeeded in defunding the UN Population Fund (also called UNFPA). This move will, without any doubt, lead to more women and infants dying; how is favoring the deaths of women and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-273","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-unfpa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/273","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=273"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/273\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}