Erin Flynn

April 18, 2002

The international need for family planning is critical.  The world's population is growing at an alarming rate; since 1960 our numbers have doubled to 6.1 billion.[1]  The increase in human population is an additional strain on the Earth's natural resources.  The combination of sustainable development and voluntary family planning can limit the destructive impact of population growth.  Exposure to education and voluntary family planning allows women to choose how many children they will have and control the direction of their lives.[2]  Typically, reproductive education postpones childbearing and often results in smaller families.[3]  Overall, education and empowerment of women decreases population growth and improves their quality of life.

In the past President Bush claimed to be in support of international family planning.  His recent actions indicate otherwise.  President Bush is currently appeasing anti-abortion extremists by withholding $34 million from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).  This action would be a devastating blow to an agency that provides women access to education, voluntary family planning and economic opportunities.

Current Political Environment

In a bipartisan compromise, Congress appropriated $34 million for the UNFPA in the fiscal 2002 foreign operations spending bill.[4]  A group of lawmakers fueled by disinformation and led by Rep. Christopher H. Smith, a New Jersey Republican, urged President Bush to withhold the money.  The letter, signed by 55 lawmakers states, "An honest investigation will show UNFPA's complicity in forced abortions and sterilization, which should disqualify them from receiving government funding.  We do not want our constituents to have to support human rights violations with their tax dollars."[5]

In stark contrast, a bipartisan group of 126 House members sent a letter supporting the agency to President Bush and asked him to release the UNFPA funds.[6]  The letter stated, "The UNFPA has repeatedly proven these charges to be false, confirming that its limited activities in China, like its programs around the world, adhere strictly to the highest standards of human rights, and reject and discourage coercive practices."[7]

Members of both parties have warned President Bush of the potential repercussions of withdrawing the UNFPA funds.  House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe, R-AZ, is concerned about "the consequences."[8]  Although the spending bill enables the administration to spend as much as $34 million for the program, there is no set minimal amount.  Kolbe stated that spending the entire $34 million was "clearly the intent" of Congress.[9]  Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, stated Bush's withdrawal of the funds was "against the will of Congress, against the written support of Secretary of State Colin Powell, and against the crucial needs of millions of women and children around the world."[10]

United Nations Population Fund

The UNFPA was established in 1969 and is active in approximately 160 countries.[11]  UNFPA's promotes "the right of all individuals to develop to their fullest potential."[12]  The agency feels that in order "[t]o exercise this right, all people, especially women, need access to information and services on reproductive health, including family planning and sexual health, to enable them to make informed and voluntary choices and decisions."[13]

Rep. Smith's recent accusations are not the first witch-hunt UNFPA has endured.  Anti-abortion activists have been critical of the agency's presence in China for years.  These extremists allege that UNFPA is involved with China's coercive abortion policies.[14]  In reality, the UNFPA does not provide support for abortion services.  The agency aims to prevent abortion through family planning and to enable countries to provide services for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortions.[15]

UNFPA adamantly disputes these extremists' allegations.  Peter Purdy, president of the US Committee for UNFPA wrote to Bush explaining the allegations as "simply not true, and are, in fact, scurrilous lies."[16]  Purdy stated, "Are there human rights abuses in China? Absolutely. Does the UNFPA have anything to do with them? Absolutely not."[17]  Withdrawing the funds "would be an act of bad faith" with Congress and with the president's own Fiscal 2002 budget request, which entailed full funding for the UNFPA."[18]

UNFPA closely monitors their programs in China and last year sent an independent team to investigate the alleged human rights violations of the Population Research Institute (PRI).[19]  In preparation for the investigation, the independent team requested specific information from PRI but the organization was suddenly less vocal and "unwilling or unable to provide a response."[20]  The independent team searched for credible evidence of human rights violations but found that UNFPA "appears to be playing a positive and catalytic role in the reform of reproductive health services- away from an administrative approach to a client- oriented approach that promotes informed choice of contraceptive methods through information, education and counseling."[21]  Although voluntary family planning services are not yet standard in China, the investigation found that UNFPA's program served as a model for Chinese officials illustrating that voluntary family planning programs are an effective method to reduce population growth.[22]

In actuality UNFPA's presence in China has decreased human rights violations.  As Werner Fornos, President of the Population Institute, astutely pointed out, the claims against China's programs have never been substantiated to the satisfaction of any other country that contributes to the fund besides the U.S.[23]  These extremists' allegations are ridiculous; UNFPA is only guilty of providing indispensable, international help to families.

The critics of UNFPA claim to be concerned with the human rights violations in China but this is a thinly disguised extension of the American abortion debate.  Despite assurances from UNFPA and an independent team of investigators, critics seem convinced the agency is involved with abortions in China.  Unfortunately critics have grossly overlooked the obvious consequence of withholding the agency's funds.  The UNFPA estimates that the "loss of United States funding could undermine their capacity to prevent 800,000 abortions and the deaths of 4,700 mothers and 77,000 children under the age of 5," stated Stirling D. Scruggs, an agency spokesman.[24]  Scruggs also said that the withdrawal of funds would take a "huge bite" out of UNFPA's international AIDS prevention programs.[25]  Family planning functions as a deterrent to abortion, denying family planning increases not decreases the number of abortions.  The real human rights violation is the reneging millions of dollars of promised funds and putting thousands of lives around the world at risk.

The Bush Administration

Although President Bush is stalling on the easiest decision of his administration, he recently made a shaky domestic reproductive health decision with confidence.  President Bush increased funding for abstinence programs by one-third through direct grants from the Department of Health and Human Services.[26]  Apparently the abstinence program budget enjoyed one of the highest percentage increases this fiscal year, second only to the Defense budget.[27]  These abstinence-only programs offer no information on any types of birth control or disease prevention.[28]  It is difficult to imagine anyone promoting this viewpoint with a straight face, the programs are unrealistic and there is no evidence of their effectiveness.[29]  Is the president waging a war against family planning?

President Bush should follow the lead of his Secretary of State Colin Powell.  Powell has consistently offered support for UNFPA from the State Department, which is responsible for providing the family planning funds.[30]  Last spring Powell testified in front of a House committee that UNFPA "provides critical population assistance to developing countries."[31]  Colin Powell has also distanced himself from the ludicrous abstinence-only programs.  On Valentines Day Powell appeared on an MTV forum and responded to a viewer question regarding condoms by stating, "I not only support their use, I encourage their use among people who are sexually active and need to protect themselves."[32]  Powell then commented on the rising epidemic of AIDS around the globe, in India, China, Africa and the Caribbean especially.[33]

Conclusion

It is imperative for President Bush to release the $34 million in UNFPA funds.  Due to rapidly escalating population growth, access to voluntary family planning is a fundamental need for the global community.  UNFPA family planning educates women and enables them to improve the quality of their lives.  The anti-abortion extremists' allegations about UNFPA are unfounded.  Although these extremists express concern for the loss of life, they have naively overlooked the massive devastation that withdrawal of UNFPA funds will cause.  As Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. stated, any UNFPA funding cuts would "appease extremism on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable women and children in the world."[34]

______________

[1] United Nations Population Fund, The State of the World Population 2001, at http://www.unfpa.org/swp/swpmain.htm, (last visited Mar. 30, 2002).

[2] See Sierra Club, Global Population and Environment, at http://www.sierraclub.org/population/unfpa/threa.asp, (last visited Mar. 30, 2002). [hereinafter Sierra Club]

[3] Id.

[4] Amy Fagan, U.N. Population Fund Controversial for Bush, WASH. TIMES, (Feb. 1, 2002), available at http://www.washtimes.com. Last year President Bush actually requested $25 million for UNFPA when his budget was submitted. Zero Population Growth, Take Action: Bush Administration Poised to Eliminate Family Planning Funds, (Jan. 17, 2002) at http://www.zpg.org/Action/Alerts/alert233.html.

[5] Fagan, supra note 4.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] CONG. DAILY, A.M., Appropriators Warn Bush to Spend Money for U.N. Population Fund, (Jan. 24, 2002), available at 2002 WL 11269044.

[9] Id.

[10] Juliet Eilperin, Family Planning Funds Put on Hold, WASH. POST, (Jan. 12. 2002) available at http://washingtonpost.com.

[11] UNFPA, Frequently Asked Questions, at http://www.unfpa.org/about/faq.htm (last visited Mar. 30, 2002). [hereinafter UNFPA]. UNFPA was established as United Nation Fund for Population Activities in 1969. In 1987, the agency was renamed United Nations Population Fund but the retained the original acronym. Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] U.S. Funding for the UN Population Fund: The Effects on Women's Lives, Congressional Testimony by Federal Document Clearing House, (statement of Dr. Nicolaas H. Biegman), (Feb. 27, 2002) available at 2002 WL 2011489 [hereinafter Statement of Biegman]. The allegations against UNFPA were brought by PRI at a hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Relations on October 17, 2001. Id.

[15] UNFPA, supra note 11. In 1994, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt stated that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. Id.

[16] U.S. NEWSWIRE, UN Supporters Blast 'Scurrilous' Attacks on Population Fund, (Jan. 17, 2002), available at 2002 WL 4573416.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Statement of Biegman, supra note 14.

[20] See id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Werner Fornos, Editorial, U.N. Population Fund Is 'Line of Defense' Against Abortion, WASH. TIMES, (Jan. 31, 2002) available at 2002 WL 2903842.

[24] Sierra Club, supra note 2.

[25] Id.

[26] National Partnership for Women and Families, February 7, 2002: Edit Memo on President Bush's Budget, available at http://www.nationalpartnership.org/Content.cfm?L1=202&TypeID=1&NewsItemID=431 [hereinafter National Partnership].

[27] Id.

[28] Id. Both the Center for Disease Control and the American Medical Association support educating sexually active teens about using condoms to prevent AIDS, other STDs and unwanted pregnancy. See Tell Bush "Colin Powell is Right," at http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=101296&type=PR (last visited Mar. 30, 2002).

[29] National Partnership, supra note 24.

[30] Eilperin, supra note 10.

[31] Id.

[32] National Organization of Women, NOW Applauds Powell Support for Safer Sex, (Feb. 15, 2002), at http://www.now.org/news/goodnews.html.

[33] Id.

[34] Janelle Carter, Possible UNFPA Cuts Rile Activists, AP ONLINE, (Jan. 11, 2002) available at 2002 WL 3703399.