World Population Awareness

Funding, Accords, Politics, Legislation

Americans spend, per capita, $1.44 a year each - less than a tube of toothpaste on international population assistance.   October 2010, National Audubon Society doclink
More money is spent on cosmetic sales in the United States than is needed to provide prenatal and reproductive care for all the world's women. Dr. Arsenio Rodriguez speaking at Elon College   March 8, 2001, News & Record (Greensboro, NC) doclink
From the 1960s through the mid-1980s, U.S. funding, scientific expertise, and political leadership helped establish family-planning programs across the globe. Stabilizing population growth was deemed important to promote sustainable development, improve trade, mitigate illegal immigration, and ease potential conflicts.

But after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, a small group of antiabortion House members succeeded in slashing U.S. overseas family-planning funds by about one third to the current $385 million a year. U.N. Population Fund Executive Director Nafis Sadik believes the United States will resume its leadership role when congressional opponents come to realize that family planning will reduce the abortions they abhor.   October 11, 1999, US News and World Reports doclink

ICPD Cairo 1994, UNFPA

End of "ICPD Cairo 1994, UNFPA" section pg ... Go to page 1 2

The United Nations Fund for Population (UNFPA)

Controversy Shadows UN Population Meeting

   April 29, 2013, International Development

Last week the 46th session of the Commission on Population and Development concluded at U.N. headquarters. 45 member nations participated. The five-day session was described as fraught with tension and disagreement because most of the states were "concerned about the economic implications of migration, looking at the effects of remittances," said Mohammad Zia-ur-Rehman, chief executive of leading Pakistani NGO Awaz Foundation. He said the connection between health and migration was frequently overlooked. "Many member states are less interested in highlighting issues related to particularly HIV/AIDS and overall sexual and reproductive health rights and gender identity issues and how these can particularly affect migrants," he continued.

The global remittance flows of migration were an estimated $534 billion in 2012, although the U.N. estimates that twice this amount could have been transferred informally.

In October a high-level dialogue on migration and development will be held that will help lay the foundation for how migration will be incorporated into the post-2015 agenda.

The number of internagional migrants reached 214 million in 2010, up from 155 million in 1990, according to U.N. figures.

About half of today's international migrants are women, an extremely vulnerable group, unlikely to receive access to the social and health protections that they need from gender-based violence, unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Member states from South Asia and some Arab nations like Qatar, as well as Nigeria and the Vatican, opposed the inclusion of sexual and reproductive health language in a consensus agreement. doclink

Karen Gaia says: I found the coverage of this meeting sparse and confusing. I welcome any better explanation of what happened at this meeting.

Support the UNFPA

   July 31, 2012, Friends of UNFPA

UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, works to deliver a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person's potential is fulfilled. Your support today will help improve and save lives in the 150 countries around the world where UNFPA operates. doclink

Family Planning Summit Could Mark Turning Point for Maternal Health

   June 7, 2012, Mail and Guardian

Enabling women to control the number and spacing of their children is essential to reducing maternal deaths and human misery.

Over 200 million women, mostly in the least developed countries, want to use modern family planning methods but can't access them, facing cultural barriers or family resistance, or not having access to contraceptives, or there is a lack of information or trained workers to give advice.

In London in July a family planning summit is being co-hosted by the UK government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation where an initiative will be planned to tackle the estimated $3.6bn (£2.3bn) annual shortfall in investment. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) is supporting the initiative so that it can gain traction and support among other donors and UN member countries.

The summit's aim is to mobilise the political will and extra resources needed to give 120 million more women access to family planning by 2020. This ambitious target is one that is desperately needed. Hundreds of thousands of women continue to die from complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Without new urgency and impetus, many developing countries will not only fail to meet the MDG target to reduce maternal mortality by 75% by 2015 but for decades to come. This would be a betrayal of the most vulnerable people and communities on our planet and an affront to our sense of justice.

For every mother who dies, 20 more suffer from chronic ill health and disability. Uncontrolled pregnancy has a much wider impact on the life chances of women and their children - and the health and strength of their communities. doclink

House Foreign Affairs Committee Votes to Defund UNFPA

   October 6, 2011, Ms Magazine

The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to defund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), with the vote 23 Republicans to 17 Democrats.

The Huffington Post said, "If the U.S were to give $50 million to the UNFPA in 2012" it "could prevent 7,000 maternal and newborn deaths, provide surgeries to 10,000 women afflicted by an obstetric fistula, and offer contraception to about 1 million couples who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it."

Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA) stated, "Tragically, the bill takes aim at poor women and children in the developing world - women and children who all too often suffer from the effects of disease, war, rape, and a host of absolutely horrid conditions that few of us can even begin to imagine. Rather than helping these desperate people - as UNFPA seeks to do - the legislation makes them pawns in a debate over social issues that often seems divorced from reality."

House Republicans claim that their desire to defund the UNFPA stems from the organization's support of China's one-child policy, which requires women obtain abortions and sterilization. However, Sarah Craven, chief of the Washington branch of the UNFPA, denied these claims, stating, "Not a dime of U.S, money goes to China, and not one dime goes to abortion." An investigation conducted by the State Department, which found "no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization," supports Craven's assertion. doclink

According to Engenderhealth: Democrats on the committee offered various amendments to allow U.S. money to UNFPA to be directed to specific programs, such as ending child marriage and female genital mutilation, preventing and repairing obstetric fistula, and providing safe birth kits to pregnant women following a natural disaster, but these were turned down by the Republicans.

Navigating the Turbulent Waters of Religion and Women's Rights: An Interview with Thoraya Obaid

   Huffington Post

Thoraya Obaid, a proud Muslim and Saudi Arabian citizen, just completed ten years as Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). In her reflections, she said:

"My father was a devout Muslim who took very seriously the first principle in the Quran which is about learning. He insisted that his daughters get a good education and he never interfered with my life choices.

"It was clear from the day I started at UNFPA that it was the most controversial of the UN agencies. The attacks were strongest during the Bush 43 administration years, but we have been attacked all the time, including by feminist groups that fear that UNFPA has 'sold out'".

The attacks come only from the United States. Recent Republican administrations have withdrawn United States funding from UNFPA, citing the "Kemp Kasten Amendment" which was enacted to ensure that no US money goes to any organizations that participates in the management of coercive population policies.

"The issue is that UNFPA works in China, and China is considered by some in Congress and the US administration (when there is a Republican President), to be subject to the Kemp Kasten Amendment. UNFPA's work in China has been reviewed many times, and always with the conclusion that UNFPA has a positive influence on China's policies. The Bush administration sent a team to China that reached the same conclusion, but that made no difference. Throughout President Bush's tenure, Congress appropriated funds for UNFPA but Bush would not release them. It all was the result of the influence of the religious right.

"Democratic Presidents (Clinton and Obama) release the funding, after deducting the small amounts that would be spent on UNFPA's China program; we are asked to put the funds in a separate account and be held accountable for it."

Thoraya Obaid met several times with the Holy See's representative to the United Nations. They agreed to disagree. It was significant that they opened a channel that would allow them to communicate if times got tough. On the ground, in many parts of the world, we work all the time with the Catholic Church on common agendas such as ending violence against women.

"We are working to build relationships and partnerships with a wide range of groups, including but also going beyond the traditional feminist/reproductive health groups. It is important to broaden the base of understanding and support and find ways to support each other. Some groups still have doubts about UNFPA's commitment and approach and some are uneasy specifically about our effort to work with faith groups, fearing that it signals an erosion in our commitment to human rights. It absolutely does not. Today, over 400 faith based groups form the Global Network of Faith-based Organizations for Population and Development.

"By dealing with cultural values and religious beliefs, we aim to promote human rights, never to accept the status quo or harmful practices but rather to expand the reach of the human rights agenda."

"There are some things that we, UNFPA, cannot address and discuss, while some things women's groups can address less effectively.

"Abortion is the most controversial topic. We, UNFPA, are mandated to consider abortion within the context of public health, but never as a right, as some NGOs do. That is a clear parameter from the ICPD Programme of Action, the famous and much contested clause 8.25 which set out the position towards abortion. It states that abortion should never be a form of family planning and that when family planning services are available and accessible that lowers abortions. Abortion is a national issue to be decided by national laws and legislations. Where it is legal, it should be done under good medical conditions. Some women's groups approach the issue differently, viewing abortion in the context of a woman's right to choose. So, though we have many common interests, we deal with them differently.

"Thus there are areas where we can work together with a wide range of religious leaders and women's groups - violence against women, child marriage, and female genital cutting are among them. On the more controversial issues, we need to give some more space and time and show mutual respect for our differences. doclink

Family Planning and the Path to Progress

   January 24, 2009, New York Times*

Obama pledged to restore the money while signing an order reversing a move by Bush that banned American government aid for family-planning organizations that, promoted or conducted abortions.

Sixty percent of people living in poverty are women. Two-thirds of the 960 million illiterate adults are women. Seventy percent of children out of school are girls. Women are the givers and keepers of life.

A cofounder of Friends of the UNFPA, was elated to see the Global Gag Rule gone and to see President Obama's statement of support. As of 2009, our movement, (begun in 2002 when the Bush Administration refused to release $34 million) asking at least one dollar from 34 million Americans, has garnered $4,000,000.

The money has permitted UNFPA to increase its support for family planning, to train doctors and midwives, save women's lives in childbirth, repair obstetric fistulas, discouraged forced early marriage, and to educate adolescents about AIDS.

By 2050 the world's population is expected to rise to nine billion people, all of whom will be seeking food, water, and other resources. This growth in population will exacerbate every environmental and humanitarian crisis we face today. Gender inequality is at the base of population and environmental issues. Hillary Clinton stated: Of particular concern is the plight of women and girls who comprise the majority of the world's unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid.

UNFPA offers the family planning that allows women to choose if and when have children. In the world there is a vast unmet demand for family planning, that can mitigate the worst of humanitarian and environmental crises. doclink

UN Official Urges More Investment, Efforts on Issues of Population Amid Financial Crisis

   March 30, 2009, Xinhua General News Service

A senior UN official urged countries to increase social investment and redouble efforts for an international population agenda. The financial crisis threatens to push 200 million people back into poverty. The financial crisis is threatening to wipe out progress in improving health and reducing poverty.

Countries must put people first and the long- term well-being of the majority over the short-term interests of a few.

Increase social investment and redouble efforts for the ICPD agenda by investing in women, youth and migrants.

Established in 1946, UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) is an international agency that promotes the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. doclink

End of "The United Nations Fund for Population (UNFPA)" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6

US Foreign Funding for Family Planning, USAID

Aid Rises for Family Planning in Poor Nations

   November 13, 2015, Voice of America News   By: Carol Guensburg

A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that international government funding for family planning services climbed 9% to $1.4 B in 2014. The money will help low- and middle-income nations pay for education, contraceptives delivery, counseling and other services.

The U.S. gave $637 M, almost half of all donations, Australia gave $39M, Canada gave $48 M, and the following E.U. nations provided most of the rest: U.K. $328 M, the Netherlands $164 M, Sweden $70 M, France $70 M, Denmark $29M, Germany $31M and Norway $21M.

At the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning, all but two of these countries formed a partnership and pledged to increase their funding until 2020. (Most of them had also upped their 2013 donations.) That partnership's progress report shows just over 290 million women and girls in the world's poorest countries are now using modern contraceptives - - up from 266 million in 2012.

Yet the World Health Organization still estimates that 225 million women in developing countries who want to delay or halt childbearing aren't using modern methods of contraception. Meeting their needs would eliminate 54 million unplanned pregnancies and 26 million abortions, said Rhonda Smith, a research associate at the Population Reference Bureau. She noted that Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest level of unmet need and the world's highest fertility rate, averaging five births per woman. That more than doubles the rate in Asia and almost quadruples the rate in Europe.

Surveys find that lack of access - in terms of cost or distance - is not the foremost reason why many people don't use the services. Smith blames false information. Some women "don't even perceive themselves at risk for pregnancy, either because they're breastfeeding or having sex infrequently." She also noted cultural or religious barriers and unfounded concerns about health risks and the side effects of contraception. doclink

This U.S. Law Contributes to Women's Deaths Around the World

   May 26, 2014, Huffington Post   By: Alissa Scheller

The Helms Amendment, which passed in 1973 - more than 40 years ago, prevents U.S. foreign assistance funds from being used to pay for abortion as "a method of family planning" or "to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions." in 1994 Congress passed legislation to clarify that women in countries receiving aid could be counseled on all pregnancy options, including abortion. However, the Helms Amendment still inhibits funding to family planning agencies.

According to Al Jazeera, in Ethiopia, "a woman living in an area where health facilities receive USAID support will be denied the abortion care that is legal in her own country, whereas a woman living in a different district funded by another donor will have access to safe care." More than 100 women die each day from complications of unsafe abortions. These deaths often occur in poor countries that receive aid from the U.S. for other medical treatments.

U.S. anti-abortion rules endanger women around the world. WHO studies show that where women can access safe abortions, fewer women have unsafe abortions, and a study in Nepal showed that legalizing abortion cut the maternal mortality rate in half. doclink

House Bill Slashes Family Planning

   June 11, 2015, Population Connection Action Fund

Today the House Appropriations Committee completed work on the Fiscal Year 2016 State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

In it, funding for family planning programs in the developing world were cut by almost $150 million, leaving funding for international family planning programs to "not more than $461 million.

The bill also bans any U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) despite its work to expand access to birth control, to prevent and treat obstetric fistula, to eliminate female genital mutilation, to ensure access to basic reproductive health care to women in emergency situations, to end the practice of child marriage, and to eliminate coercive practices in China.

In addition the bill calls for a reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, which bans family planning aid to foreign health care agencies that use other, private funding to provide legal abortion, to offer counselling or referrals on legal abortion, or that publicly support a policy of legal abortion within their own countries.

This, in effect, disqualifies the most effective, experienced, and respected family planning providers in the developing world from receiving U.S. aid. The results are disastrous. When it was in effect from 2001 to 2009, clinics were forced to close, services had to be cut back, and contraceptive supplies ran dry. AS a result, abortions in several African countries affected by the policy doubled, according to researchers from Stanford University.

The bill is now on track to go to the House floor for a vote by the full chamber. doclink

Guess How Much of Uncle Sam's Money Goes to Foreign Aid. Guess Again!

   February 10, 2015, National Public Radio   By: Poncie Rutsch

Less than 1 percent of the $4 trillion federal budget goes to foreign aid. In a survey, the average respondent estimated that 26% went toward assisting other countries.

Once they were told that the U.S. spends less than 1% of the federal budget on foreign aid, only 28% still thought the nation was overspending.

The U.S. is pretty generous ... until you consider how much money it has. "On the one hand, you can say that the U.S. is the most generous because it is one of the biggest donators to foreign aid," says Phyllis Pomerantz, a professor of public policy at Duke University. "But on the other hand, we have one of the lowest percentages of gross national income donated to foreign aid," she says. doclink

House GOP Again Targets Birth Control

   June 19, 2014, Population Connection   By: Brian Dixon

The House bill would slash funding for family planning programs in the developing world where there are already a quarter billion women who want to prevent or delay pregnancy but have no access to affordable, appropriate birth control. Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), who chairs the subcommittee that wrote the bill and who calls herself a supporter of family planning, is proposing a 25% cut in overall funding that would help women in the poorest countries take control of their own lives and futures.

The bill would also ban any aid to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) despite its work to expand access to birth control, to prevent and treat obstetric fistula, to eliminate female genital mutilation, to ensure access to basic reproductive health care to women in emergency situations, to end the practice of child marriage, and to eliminate coercive practices in China.

Granger's bill also calls for a reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, one of the most misguided policies ever created. It bans family planning aid to foreign health care agencies that use other, private funding to provide legal abortion, or to offer counselling or referrals on legal abortion, or that publicly support a policy of legal abortion within their own countries. It effectively disqualifies the most effective, experienced, and respected family planning providers in the developing world from receiving U.S. aid.

The same bill would block U.S. funding to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

We'll be working hard to make sure that this bill never becomes law. Please join us in that fight. Click on the link in the headline to send a Thank You note to Senator Jeanne Shaheen for sponsoring a bill to permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule. doclink

Just the Numbers: the Impact of U.S. International Family Planning Assistance

   June 15, 2014, Guttmacher Institute

For over 45 years the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been a major provider of contraceptive services to the world's poorest people. Helping poor women and families gain control over childbearing choices means fewer unintended, unwanted, and/or risky pregnancies. It also reduces the motive for wanting abortions, which poor people often resort to under unsafe conditions. Planned birth spacing contributes to healthier mothers, babies and families. Having affordable numbers of children improves prosperity for families, communities, and nations. For FY 2014, USAID has allocated $610 million to assist family planning and reproductive health programs, of which $35 million is designated for the UN Population Fund.

This modest funding level is enough to:

• Provide contraceptive services and supplies to 31 million women or couples;

• Avert 7 million unintended pregnancies and 3 million induced abortions;

• Avert 13,000 maternal deaths, meaning that 60,000 fewer children will lose their mothers.

These gains are seriously jeopardized when program funding gets targeted for budget cuts . For example, each $10 million decrease in USAID international family planning and reproductive health assistance:

• Reduces the number receiving contraceptive services and supplies by 520,000;

• Results in 110,000 more unintended pregnancies, including 50,000 more unplanned births;

• Results in 50,000 more mostly unsafe abortions and 200 maternal deaths affecting 900 children. doclink

Worth the Wait: President's Fy 2015 Budget Request for Family Planning and Reproductive Health

   April 21, 2014, Population Action International

Six weeks after posting its general initial budget, the Obama Administration released the details of its FY-2015 request for international family planning (FP) and reproductive health (RH) programs. Its call for $644.3 million is $34.3 million -- nearly 6% -- higher than the current appropriated level enacted in January. It allocates $538 million to the Global Health Programs account, $71 million to Economic Support Funds, and $35.3 million as the U.S. contribution to the UN's Population Fund. At a time of increasing budgetary pressures, these requested increases suggest strong administration support for FP/RH programs.

Nevertheless, this proposal remains lower than the $669.5 million the Senate Appropriations Committee approved in FY 2014-a level of funding endorsed by 124 House members and 24 Senators in letters to their respective Appropriations Committee colleagues earlier this month. It also falls far short of the $1 billion that is the U.S. fair share of total global expenditures required to address the unmet need of 222 million women in the developing world who want FP services where they are not yet available.

Of course, now that Congress has received the budget request, it still must decide over the next several months whether to grant the requested amounts or continue underfunding these urgent projects at current levels. doclink

Karen Gaia says: 8 billion is needed. $4 billion has already been supplied. That leaves $3.4 billion to meet the unmet need of 222 million women for access to -- and accurate information about -- affordable effective contraception.

End of "US Foreign Funding for Family Planning, USAID" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

US Foreign Funding for Family Planning, USAID

Why an AIDS Fight Faces Delay; Democrats Seem Reluctant to Delete Abstinence-Funding Rule

   May 21, 2007, Wall Street Journal

When Democrats took over Congress, liberal AIDS activists thought they would see the end to a requirement that the government pay to promote sexual abstinence. Activists say the conservative-backed rule diverts money from programs that promote condoms into abstinence efforts of dubious effectiveness. Meanwhile, proponents of abstinence say that Uganda shows abstinence works.

There are signs that Democratic leaders don't want to get into the fight.

Democrats are preparing a draft of their foreign-aid spending bill and appear reluctant to enact a measure that deletes the abstinence language. Democrats seem likely to push the issue off until later this year, when Congress will have to reauthorize the president's AIDS initiative. Behind the fight over spending is a debate over whether abstinence delay the onset of sexual activity among young people or draw funding away from more-effective approaches.

Supporters say that programs advocating sexual abstinence until marriage and sexual fidelity would get shortchanged. The opponents point to scientific evidence to back up their claim that the abstinence provision inhibits progress against HIV. A new study concludes that congressional provisions dictating how the administration must spend AIDS money tie the hands of health professionals on the ground.

Another study, found that abstinence-only programs in the U.S. have had no impact on the sexual behavior of young people.

If the Democrats fail to delete the abstinence provision, "they'd leave themselves open to the charge of being public-health frauds."

Before winning control of Congress, Democrats attacked the Republicans for failing to complete spending measures on time.

In an email, Bush said, "We'll certainly fight to maintain a balanced approach" in HIV-prevention grants, in other words, to support abstinence and fidelity programs in addition to condom promotion.

Health activists are pressing for repeal of a controversial measure which requires grant recipients to have written policies opposing prostitution. AIDS advocates thought their efforts to repeal the prostitution-pledge requirement, but Congress shows less appetite for taking on the prostitution issue than it does the abstinence issue. doclink

UK Withholds World Bank Donation

   September 14, 2006, BBC News

The UK is withholding 50 million pledged to the World Bank in protest at conditions it attaches to aid.

Oxfam said it welcomed the move, adding that the World Bank's policy on aid was "disastrous."

The Bank has been demanding too strict conditions before giving aid to developing countries. It has for a long time insisted that the countries it lends to meet economic targets and has encouraged trade liberalization. World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz has made it his mission to tackle corruption in poorer countries and his campaign has led to loans and contracts to countries like Chad, Congo, Ethiopia and Bangladesh being suspended.

Last year, the UK provided 1.3 billion to help poorer countries and promised to donate a further 50 million in 2007, provided it eased the strings attached to aid. doclink

Australia Allocates Funds to the Global Fund

   June 7, 2005, UN News Centre

The Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis, initiated by Kofi Annan, has welcomed Australia's plan to allocate a further $US38.2 million over three years. The Fund called on other donor governments to follow, and to at least double their pledges for 2005 and beyond to help the fund respond to projected resource challenges. We will need $2.3 billion in 2005, $3.5 billion in 2006 and $3.6 billion in 2007, the foundation's Executive Director said. doclink

Europeans Unaware of Millennium Goals

   February 28, 2005, InterPress Service

European citizens expect the E.U. to play a central role in development, but most are unaware what is being done. A survey reveals that 51% believe that Europe is "best placed" to play a central role, especially in Africa. More than three-quarters were unaware of the E.U. contributions, despite the fact that Europe is the leading donor. The E.U. and member states spend more than 30 billion euros (39 billion dollars) a year to developing countries and is committed to raising the total to 39 billion euros (51 billion dollars) by 2006. 88% of European citizens have never heard of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). A summit later this year will review progress and set the agenda for the next decade. Each EU country has agreed to contribute more than 0.7% of its gross national income (GNI) by 2015 to meet the United Nations target. A report found that only four EU member states -- Sweden, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark -- have met the 0.7% target. Some of the richest states such as Germany and Italy are doing little. 29% said the EU could help halve poverty and hunger by 2015. Only 5% were confident those goals would be met. Two in five citizens believed universal primary education and promotion of gender equality would be achieved, but only 7% said the EU would achieve those goals. European taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being spent, how we help the developing countries, how we are fighting against poverty and infectious diseases and what we are doing to promote good governance, democracy and fundamental rights. doclink

US House Panel Stops UN Family Planning Funds Again

   July 9, 2004, Reuters

U.S. House of Representatives backed a $19.4 billion foreign aid bill but defeated a bid for a U.N. family planning agency (UNFPA) opposed by anti-abortion groups. This funding will help build maternity wards in Iraq, reduce the rate of maternal mortality in Afghanistan, and prevent HIV in Kenya. Lawmakers opposed to the amendment argued there was no way to track where the money went after arriving in U.N. coffers. The bill provides $2.2 billion to fight AIDS, and sets aside $2.2 billion for military assistance for Israel, $300 million for Pakistan and $66 million for Poland. The panel dealt a blow to Bush's plan to reward countries for economic and political reforms, halving the $2.5 billion he sought. Republican lawmakers say a spending squeeze this year has meant that the bill did not include enough money to fully fund Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. The bill also cut the U.S. contribution to the World Bank by $90 million from 2003. doclink

End of "US Foreign Funding for Family Planning, USAID" section pg ... Go to page 1 2

Legislative Updates, Alerts

Representatives Call for Family Planning Support

   December 10, 2010, Population Connection

85 members of the U.S. House of Representatives urge the President to provide significant increases for family planning programs around the world and in the United States when he submits his budget to Congress. Click the link to see if your representative signed the letter. doclink

U.S.: Legislative Alert : Proposed Foreign Assistance Cut Imperils International Family Planning

   May 24, 2010, The Population Institute

The President's proposed foreign aid budget request of $58.8 billion for the State Department and foreign assistance, has met with opposition in Congress, and the President's proposed increase in international family planning assistance may also be in danger.

The Senate Budget Committee, on April 22, adopted a budget resolution for fiscal year 2011 that trims the President's budget request by 7%. If upheld by the House and Senate, it could translate into a comparable size reduction in the $715.7 million proposed by the President for international family planning assistance, which is contained in the international affairs budget.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Christopher Bond (R-MO), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) are trying to build support in the Senate for fully funding the President's budget for international affairs, and asking their fellow Senators to join them in signing a letter to Appropriations Committee Chair Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS), urging them fully fund the President's $58.8 billion request in the all-important 302(b) appropriation allocations.

28 Senators have signed onto the bipartisan Kerry-Lugar-Durbin-Bond-Feinstein letter in support of fully funding the FY2011 International Affairs Budget - very encouraging, but several more co-signers are needed before the letter closes on Wednesday.

You can help by calling the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121 if one or both of your Senators appears in this list: Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Roland Burris (D-IL), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Al Franken (D-MN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Herbert Kohl (D-WI), George LeMieux (R-FL), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), John Rockefeller (D-WV), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mark Warner (D-VA)

You could say something like: "I'm a constituent, and I am calling to ask Senator ________ to sign the Kerry -Lugar-Durbin-Bond-Feinstein letter on foreign assistance. It's important that we provide full funding for international family planning assistance." doclink

House Vote on Major Family Planning Bill

   April 25, 2003, Patrick Burns

The House International Relations Committee has endorsed HIV/AIDS legislation which exceeds that which President Bush asked for in his State of the Union message. It authorizes $15 billion for overseas HIV/AIDS, $3 billion a year for five years, and earmarks a greater percentage for the global AIDS fund. Most of the HIV/AIDS money will go to countries in sub-Saharan Africa where condoms are an important part of slowing HIV. The Bush White House has greenlighted inclusion of condoms in the bill. doclink

Budget Cuts for International Family Planning Programs, Millennium Challenge Account, HIV/AIDS Threatened

   May 2003, National Audubon Society population news list

Immediate Action is needed in support of Lugar Amendment to the Budget resolution for FY2004. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) has filed an amendment (S. Amdt. 280) yesterday to restore $1.1 billion proposal to be stripped from the Administration's request for the
FY2004 International Affairs Budget. This includes resources for important international family planning programs as well as for the President's new
initiatives on the Millennium Challenge Account and HIV/AIDS. For details on how you can help, click on the title of this article above. doclink

End of "Legislative Updates, Alerts" section pg ... Go to page 1 2

US Funding History

The Future of Population Funding in the U.S.: Mixed Prospects for Foundation Support

   May 15, 2014, New Security Beat   By: Laurie Mazur

While world population will rise to between 8 and 11 billion by 2050, private funding for population and Family Planning (FP) programs keeps falling. The Funders Network (FN) on Population, Reproductive Health, and Rights said that in 2000 U.S. foundations spent $96 million on population-related initiatives, but by 2012, funding from the donors in its data bank fell below $7 million. Some new entrants to the field, e.g., Bloomberg Philanthropies, did not get counted, and some grants that aid population initiatives may now fall under other titles. The Gates Foundation and one anonymous donor together accounted for 74% of the population and reproductive health-related funds in the FN database in 2012. All other foundation support is near its lowest level since the FN began collecting data in 1999. This drop-off in funding reflects a sea change in support for FP and reproductive health programs.

Opponents of population programs have targeted abuses, so the field now focuses less on birthrates and more on health and rights. World governments endorsed that change at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, and even those who worry most about population growth have embraced it.

The Cairo paradigm has reduced abuses in FP programs, but it now makes little reference to slowing population growth or protecting the environment, and that may be hindering foundation support for all areas of reproductive health. The FP movement addressed the fear of dire consequences if population growth goes unchecked, and "it was fear of population growth that moved the money," said Peter Belden, a former program officer in the Global Development and Population Program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. As contraceptives became widely available and fertility rates dropped, many pronounced the problem solved, and several large donors left the field. Belden said that "People think the unchecked population growth problem has been solved," but the problems have not gone away. While fertility rates are down globally, high rates persist in many of the world's most impoverished countries, guaranteeing high population growth in places that can least meet the needs of swelling populations.

Follow the link in the headline for more on this subject doclink

Art says: As for government spending on these programs, Reagan and the Hyde Amendment drove it down, but the Obama presidency has halted the decline.

Karen Gaia says, Regan and every Republican president since have driven down government FP/RH spending while Democrats have pushed it up. However, with the conservative climate in the legislature, it may be more difficult this time.

Both the Hyde Amendment and the Global Gag Rule has put a cold chill on the activities of NGOs even if abortion is/was not part of their services.

Religious Extremism Cloaked in Diplomacy

   October 2012   By: Kim Puchir

For 20 years the Holy See has claimed statehood at the UN, which grants it special status. Its dogmatic views on the provision of reproductive healthcare services and the family place it squarely in the way of policymakers who wish to guarantee rights and provide services to people around the world.

The Holy See's impact has used its prestige and resources to stymie attempts at the United Nations, state and local levels to provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare services. Though cloaked in language that seems to respect women's needs, without access to abortion, contraception and other basic services people die, and value systems that undermine women's well-being are fostered. Other legislative bodies have been affected as well. In 2002 that the EU adopted language about reproductive health that made no reference to abortion because of the UN Programme of Action the Holy See helped shape in 1994.

The dual nature of the papacy started with Pope Leo IX in 1054 when it was perceived that the Emperor Constantine I transferred the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. In 1095, Pope Urban II used his influence to enlist most of Western Europe in a war to capture the Holy Land that would bring bloodshed to every region that stood in the way.

In 1859 French writer Edmond About described a pope who presided over a territory where the educational system was poor; the force of law practically dysfunctional; the tax system in disarray; and whose inhabitants were "all crying out loudly against him." About said this was an odd social structure where "the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are united, confounded and jumbled together in one and agreement established the Holy See within the area of Vatican City, the size of which has been described as "about the size of an 18-hole golf course".

The Holy See began participating in international organizations such as the World Health Organization and in 1964 joined the UN as a Nonmember State Permanent Observer, a designation it once shared only with Switzerland, which became a full member in 2002. This elevated status grants the Holy See much more direct access to UN proceedings than other religions participating as nongovernmental organizations. Since 2004, the Holy See has had some of the privileges of a member state at the UN, such as being able to speak, reply and circulate documents in the General Assembly.

The 108.7-acre Vatican City has a small population where many residents never obtain citizenship, and those that do have their citizenship revoked upon termination of their employment. All member states have a definite population, but when the Holy See decides to speak as a religion, its numbers jump from 1,000 Vatican City residents to 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide.

In 1964 UN Secretary-General U Thant based his decision to allow the Holy See's entrance as a permanent observer on the fact that it enjoyed diplomatic recognition by most UN member states. As powerful as it is, diplomatic recognition can be revoked in certain situations: many countries withdrew recognition from South Africa towards the end of the apartheid era.

One of the United Nations' foundational principles, the Rule of Law, which is embedded in the UN Charter, demands that all states are accountable to the same laws and human rights norms. In other words, states around the world should all follow the same rules when dealing with each other and at the UN, because they are all basically the same.

At the United Nations, however, the Holy See signs treaties as a state, but does not bind itself to those treaties. The Holy See signed on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but did not submit a mandatory progress report due on the Rights of the Child in 1997, and although it was supposed to be released last year, the document is now 15 years late.

The Holy See has a ready exit if it is called to account: it can face its critics as a religion which lets the Holy See claim almost anything to be true.

Where the 1995 Beijing Declaration pledged to ensure the rights of women and girls as "inalienable," the Holy See rejected this very premise, saying, "Surely this international gathering could have done more for women and girls than to leave them alone with their rights!"

In 1994 the Vatican sent special envoys to Tehran and Tripoli to drum up support for the Holy See's planned anti-reproductive rights stance at the forthcoming International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. Pope John Paul II also sent letters to every head of state worldwide warning that the wrong policy decisions at the conference could bring about an impending "moral decline resulting in a serious setback for humanity."

The Holy See's many objections at Cairo delayed the conference for a full week in order to exclude abortion from the definition of "reproductive health." Instead of a commitment to safe abortion access for all women, the resulting Programme of Action merely stated, "In circumstances in which abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe."

The Holy See declared in 1989 that it "interprets the phrase 'Family planning education and services' ... to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning."

When the Holy See objected in 1999 to the UN's provision of emergency contraception to rape victims in Kosovo, there was an international outcry. Reflecting in 2008 on the early years of the UN aids response, Adrienne Germain, former president of the International Women's Health Coalition, said, "I remember when people literally gasped when the Holy See said no condoms for AIDS."

Holy See has made claims that a rights-based reproductive health model turns women into victims, or that abortion has been documented to harm a woman's mental health. Faced with allegations like these, other UN actors must choose between refuting each and every claim or moving forward. As a result, falsehoods like "as a matter of scientific fact, a new human life begins at conception," were entered in the minutes of a 2011 General Assembly session.

Many people think the Catholic faith can be defended even better at the UN as an NGO. it would be a powerful gesture for the Holy See to voluntarily join the ranks of the other religions as an NGO, and concentrate on partnering with other religious leaders to bring solace to a troubled world. Such a move would probably do wonders for the Holy See's public image, so badly in need of repair after the sexual abuse crisis and the recent clampdown on dissent.

It's hard to justify Pope Paul VI's eloquence before the General Assembly in 1965-when he said that as representative of the Holy See he was at the United Nations as an "expert in humanity." doclink

U.S.;: House Challenges Global Gag Rule

   January 25, 2007, Ms. Magazine

A bipartisan coalition led by Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) reintroduced a bill to overturn the global gag rule that prohibits family planning programs in developing nations that accept US aid from counseling women about abortions or advocating for legal abortion.

It rule was instituted by the Reagan administration, repealed by Clinton, but reinstituted by Bush. US dollars to foreign family planning programs cannot fund abortions overseas due to the 1973 Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. doclink

Why are Population and Development Issues not Given Priority?

   April 2005, Asia-Pacific Population Journal

Economists have recognized linkages between population and economic development. Yet, the attention given to these linkages has varied enormously over time. Looking over recent decades, it is hard to escape two conclusions: (a) politics plays a more important role than academic discourse and this influences the attention given to population matters; and (b) fads are almost as ubiquitous in international thinking on development issues as they are in issues of dress, eating habits and youth culture. The role of politics in influencing debate on population is seen at the series of UN population conferences. Each was diverted by unexpected developments.

At Bucharest in 1972, there was an ideological confrontation over the structure of the international economic order; China and India, both of which had strong domestic programmes to control population growth, were in denial such programmes were needed, while the US was seen as the key proponent of population programmes and the key opponent of a new international economic order, and most developing countries were loath to be seen as lining up on its side. In 1984 at the Mexico City conference, officials in the United States Government having population responsibilities and lead by a "right to life" spokesman, promoted a line that the relationship between population growth and economic development is not necessarily a negative one and that what is needed is economic reform consistent with a market economy. At Cairo, the networking skills of feminist groups managed to upstage the efforts of the UN, through prior population conferences and group meetings, and to deliver an outcome that differed widely from original expectations. These unexpected political intrusions served to reduce attention to many items that deserved more debate. They did not prevent the emergence of valuable documents, which helped to guide population policy over the decade that followed each of them. At the Population Conference in Bangkok in 2002, tactics by one delegation failed to shake the unity of the Asian and Pacific delegations. We have witnessed a succession of emphases that have demanded priority attention. Environment, sustainable development, gender equity, refugees, human trafficking, HIV, poverty reduction all important in their own right, but turning into the issue of the moment in the hallways of international conferences and meetings of international agencies. Note that population was ignored at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, despite evidence of important linkages between population and environmental issues. At the time that in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines devastating flooding and landslides have been blamed on deforestation, we need a discussion of the causes of illegal logging and population pressures on vegetation cover through expansion of settlements and changing patterns of shifting cultivation. The sustainability of the world's megacities also needs study. Some analysts conclude that the rapid growth of megacities has ended and are the result of ignoring the growth outside metropolitan boundaries. This neglect of the population factor in sustainable development comes when the consensus on the negative impacts of high fertility are widely recognized among academic economists, and new studies of population waves on development are yielding interesting findings. What can explain this neglect of population issues in the broader development community? Perhaps one problem is the academic and policy community that operates on the premise that demography is central to understanding development issues. This group finds it hard to carry much weight in the general community, now that the specter of the population explosion has receded. The UN show a leveling off of world population by the middle of this century, so for many the time has come to move from population to serious issues. The fact that global population size could grow by another 40% to 50% before levelling off no longer seems to cause much concern and in the Asian and Pacific region ignores two key points: (a) population is a factor in development when it is stabilizing and promising to implode because of very low fertility; and there is a wide range in population circumstances throughout Asia. Planners in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Singapore are preoccupied with how to deal with declining labour forces and rapidly ageing populations. This does not negate the relevance of the issues for Pakistan, where fertility is falling to moderate levels, and the Philippines, where fertility is declining only very slowly amd these trends portend massive increases in population, which these countries appear ill-equipped to deal with. The forces that have blocked effective family planning in these two countries is weak government, corruption and social injustices that are preventing economic development. The counter argument is that rapid population growth exacerbates problems of weak government, corruption and social injustice. It is the interplay of population trends fertility, mortality and migration that is crucial economic, social development and social cohesion. The migration factor is uppermost in Europe, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Singapore, as they contemplate the population future. Perhaps those of us who have the conviction that populations matter in development and the training to demonstrate that this is so, are not engaging in enough dialogue with those who are preoccupied with globalization, poverty, injustice and environmental issues. doclink

A Bit of Good News on Foreign Aid

   March 26, 2003, Patrick Burns

The Senate adopted by voice vote the Lugar-Feinstein amendment restoring $1.1 billion to the Senate Budget Resolution that had been previously stripped from the Administration's request for the Fiscal Year 2004 International Affairs Budget (also called the 150 Account). After the unanimous vote, the Senate's budget resolution now allocates $28.5 billion for the international affairs budget (which includes family planning). This was the Administration's full request for Fiscal Year 2004.

For a side-by-side of the FY 2003 and FY 2004 budget requests, see As the pie chart graph at the bottom of this page notes, foreign international affairs assistance totals less than 1% of the total FY 04 budget of the U.S.

The Senate also more than cut in half the Administration's proposed tax cuts. Cutting taxes in order to generate deficits, which are then used to justify cuts in programs that include environmental protection, family planning, and foreign assistance, is a time-honored tradition on Capitol Hill. A smaller tax cut means less cuts to programs most Americans care about -- and millions of people in the developing world depend on. doclink

End of "US Funding History" section pg ... Go to page 1 2

US Funding Background

End of "US Funding Background" section pg ... Go to page 1 2

The Mexico City Policy aka Global Gag Rule

30 Years is Enough: End the Global Gag Rule

   June 7, 2014, Population Action International


Senate Committee Approves Permanent Ban on Global Gag Rule

   July 29, 2010, Population Connection

Late July, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment which permanently repeals the notorious Global Gag Rule, preventing a future President from unilaterally reinstating the policy. President Obama repealed the Gag Rule in the first week of his presidency, but the fact that the policy could be reinstated with the next Presidency has a chilling effect on US family planning efforts overseas. The amendment passed by a vote of 19-11.

The Committee also approved $700 million for international family planning, including $55 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The amount is $50 million over the current funding level, but less than the $716 million requested by President Obama, and less than the $735 million approved by a House subcommittee.

The amendment has not yet come before the full Senate. doclink

Obama's "Population" Moves: Also Good for the Environment

   February 26, 2009, RH Reality Check

President Obama has rescinded the Mexico City population policy and promised to restore funding to UNFPA. He means to revive U.S. leadership in support of family planning around the world, and to sustain the global environment.

These actions will help women realize their right to control their own fertility; and help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

But we must also address the fact that stabilizing population growth worldwide is critical if we are going to balance the number of people on the planet with its environmental base. The roles of family planning and per-capita resource consumption in achieving a sustainable environment cannot be understated. Serious attention must now be given to population issues, or environmental sustainability won't happen.

We have overstepped the boundaries on C02 emissions, resulting in climate change; water scarcity affects 1.1 billion people worldwide, including in the western U.S.; and misguided development has destroyed the habitat of many plant and animal species.

We seem to have forgotten that stabilizing earth's population is an essential part of achieving a sustainable environment. In 2009, our footprints don't come cheap in environmental terms.

Great Britain is among the industrialized nations beginning to take a serious look at the way family size affects the environment. Here in the U.S. we too can begin to consider whether two children might be sufficient if we want to be realistic about our collective environmental footprint. It's a subject for discussions, public education campaigns, and a new national awareness.

President Obama has given a sign that America recognizes its responsibility to lead the world in achieving a population-environmental balance. doclink

Religious Left's Wrong-Minded Appeal on Global Gag Rule

   January 22, 2009, RH Reality Check

Pro-life Obama has repealed the Mexico City "gag rule" which prevents American dollars from going to groups that offer abortion services. But some are urging the Obama administration to delay that until he can put it in a broader "abortion reduction" agenda.

First the religious left's explanation of what the Mexico City Policy or Global Gag Rule does is inaccurate. The Global Gag Rule was first put in place by Ronald Reagan, to deny funding to international family planning organizations unless they agreed to specific curtailments as set by the US on the medical services and information they provided to their patients. Health centers in developing nations, which help women and men plan their families and avoid unintended pregnancies, would not be allowed to provide abortions discuss abortion or even hang a poster that mentions abortion.

In countries like Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, imposition of the global gag rule has meant the loss of funds for the contraceptive supplies and services needed to prevent unintended pregnancies. If a woman is in need of a life or health saving abortion? The health center is censored from providing a referral or even telling her that is what she needs.

If you block funds to family planning organizations for family planning and contraception provision, this usually leads to abortion.

The Global Gag Rule was put in place to appease anti-choice voices. President Obama understands that these nods or gestures are are harmful to women and global society's efforts to grow and evolve.

The religious left is not helpful to anyone by perpetuating these false ideas. doclink

Top 5 Actions for the New Administration to Ensure Sexual and Reproductive Health

   December 2008, EngenderHealth

EngenderHealth is mobilizing efforts to improve global reproductive health. The first action is to overturn the Global Gag Rule, which was meant to target abortion providers, and over the last eight years it has had terrible consequences for the health and lives of poor women and their families in ways that have nothing to do with abortion. The domino effect from this policy has affected family planning services, maternal and child health care, and HIV services.

Obama has said that he intends to overturn this disastrous policy. doclink

Global Gag Rule: Just Repeal it

   December 12, 2008, Reality Check

By Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY). .. President Obama and our new Congress can place American foreign policy firmly on the side of free speech, of women's health, and family planning, which is a cornerstone of social stability, economic growth, and public health in the developing world. And we can do it easily, with no cost to the taxpayers, by repealing the "Global Gag Rule," which was enacted by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and restored by George W. Bush. The rule restricts U.S. family planning assistance from going to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to perform abortions; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country.

It is responsible for untold misery and, has increased the number of unintended pregnancies and put millions of women's and children's lives at risk. The Bush Administration has resisted reasonable compromise. which passed Congress with the support of pro-choice and pro-life Members, but President Bush threatened to veto all funding for international aid to prevent it from becoming law.

Few actions would benefit more people with less effort, or send signal to the world that America is prepared once again to be a leader for individual rights, personal dignity, and commonsense policy that saves lives. doclink

What Obama Should Do for Women

   November 20, 2008,

Women's rights activists see an open door to Barack Obama, and they plan to walk right in. They have a long list of recommendations for Obama, who is viewed as more receptive than his predecessor.

"For eight years, we have suffered under an administration that has suppressed science to the detriment of health and has done damage to constitutional and human rights values", said Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a letter to Obama. doclink

End of "The Mexico City Policy aka Global Gag Rule" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6

Family Planning Prevents Abortions!

Poll Finds Widespread Support for Funding Health Care Services Through Planned Parenthood

   August 19, 2015, National Partnership for Women and Families

The antiabortion group CMP (Center for Medical Progress) recently distributed a series of videos showing Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of donated fetal tissue with CMP activists posing as buyers. Planned Parenthood supporters say that these videos are part of a long-term campaign against Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood notes that 1) While it is reimbursed for costs associated with fetal tissue donations, which is legal, it does not profit from the donations. 2) The officials filmed in the heavily edited videos did nothing illegal.

A Reuters/IPSOS poll found that 73% of U.S. respondents say they support federal funding for unnamed groups to provide women's health exams and screenings. 69% said they supported such funding for prenatal services, and 59% said they did so for contraceptive services. However, although Planned Parenthood provides all of these services, the poll found that only 54% of respondents said they support federal funding if Planned Parenthood provided the services, while 26% said they oppose it.

The poll's findings show that conservative lawmakers' efforts to defund Planned Parenthood could be problematic in the 2016 presidential election. Only 34% of those who saw CPM's videos said their opinion of Planned Parenthood remained unchanged. When the videos were described to respondents, 34% said the group should continue to receive federal funds.

StemExpress, after facing harassment by antiabortion activists because of CPM's video, decided to end its relationship with Planned Parenthood. Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik noted, "Absolutely no evidence has been presented that Planned Parenthood has broken the law regarding the acquisition or distribution of fetal tissues." He concluded that, "Patients of all kinds are the losers, as is the respectability of our political process. ...Among the most disturbing aspects of this affair is its effect on the legal and often necessary use of fetal tissue in biological research," which is "needed in work toward cures of muscular dystrophy, diabetes, degenerative eye disease and other conditions." doclink

Art says: This survey raises the question whether more people would support federal funding for family planning so long as Planned Parenthood does not receive the funds. Since federal funds are not allowed for abortion services, the money Planned Parenthood uses to provide abortions must come from private donations. If Planned Parenthood encouraged another entity to assume responsibility for its non-abortion services, this survey suggests that more people would support a higher level of federal funding for the new provider. Presumably, Planned Parenthood would then go on providing the same level of abortion services using private funds as it now does.

U.S.: Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life in a Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

   July 30, 2015, Daily Kos   By: Leslie Salzillo

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." -- a quote form Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B., an author of 50 books and a lecturer.

This quote applies well to many Republican lawmakers who continue to introduce or pass misogynist laws restricting a woman's reproductive rights while they are cutting government programs like schools lunches for children, cutting aid to families who are homeless and/or in need, and blocking free college education. The goal of these hypocrites seem to be to control women's bodies and women's futures. doclink

EACH: Each Woman Act is a 'Game-Changer for Latinas' Seeking Abortion

   August 4, 2015, National Partnership for Women and Families

in a Politic365 opinion piece, Kimberly Inez McGuire, director of public affairs at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health writes that the EACH Woman Act would "stop politicians from interfering in healthcare decisions by making sure abortion is covered for all -- however much money make, whatever kind of health insurance have, and wherever live."... "Practically speaking, this means Medicaid will cover abortion, as it did in the years after Roe v Wade and before Representative Henry Hyde began his crusade against abortion rights in the late 1970s."

"Latinas played a crucial role in the introduction of groundbreaking new legislation" (HR 2972).

The Hyde Amendment has "pushed women seeking abortion into poverty, forced women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and caused families to make impossible choices between paying for rent or groceries and paying for needed healthcare."

In addition, "The impact of the Hyde amendment has been made even worse by the passage of an avalanche of state-level restrictions on abortion." she said. "For large and growing Latina populations in Florida, Virginia, Texas, and elsewhere, these restrictions mean delays in accessing care, invasive and medically unnecessary procedures, and politicians stepping between women and their doctors."

Latina House representatives who have co-sponsored the measure include Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Michelle Lujan Grisham (D- N.M.) and Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) She writes, "We stand with other women of color, young people, and low income communities in saying 'enough is enough'" and "demand change" doclink

Karen Gaia says: there are 91 co-sponsors for this bill.

Florida Governor Signs Bill Further Restricting Later Abortions

   June 16, 2014, RH Reality Check and   By: Teddy Wilson

Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill into law Friday that places additional restrictions on abortions performed in the third trimester, and bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy if a doctor determines the fetus could survive outside the pregnant person's body.

HB 1047 passed the state legislature mostly along party lines.

Jessica González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), said the law places unnecessary restrictions on women's access to later abortion care, without taking into consideration the woman's unique and complex circumstances. doclink

Fix the Helms Amendment

   June 17, 2014, Population Connection

The Helms Amendment bars the use of U.S. foreign aid for "abortion as a method of family planning." Although the law clearly indicates that funding is allowed under some circumstances, for decades our government has treated the amendment as a blanket ban. In fact, the law has been enforced so strictly that health care providers cannot use U.S. funds even to purchase equipment to treat women suffering the consequences of unsafe abortions. The end result is that women who have been raped and those whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies often find little help in clinics that receive U.S. funding. The Helms Amendment shows little concern for what women struggling with unwanted pregnancies in the developing world face.

In today's political climate we should not expect an outright repeal of the Helms Amendment, although it offers no benefit to foreign policy or global health. However, the Obama administration can clarify misinterpretations of the law without Congress having to change the law. Instead of a new law, he just needs to clarify what the current law actually says. President Obama has the authority to bring our overseas abortion policy in line with domestic abortion funding restrictions and with American public opinion. doclink

Women in These 16 States Face An Additional Obstacle to Getting An Abortion

   November 5, 2013, Huffington Post   By: Katy Hall and Alissa Scheller

medical abortion infographic

A new U.S. Supreme Court decision has blocked a challenge to the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling that a state law effectively banning medical abortions was unconstitutional. Still, women in Oklahoma and in many states must take abortion-inducing drugs in the presence of a physician, which limits access to the non-surgical procedure for those who live in rural areas or must arrange childcare and time off work.

And Texas, Arizona and Ohio have passed measures requiring adherence to an outdated FDA protocol for medical abortions, while the World Health Organization has more recently determined that a smaller dose administered until a later date in the pregnancy and with fewer doctor's visits is equally effective and less invasive.

Laws restricting medical abortions are just one way that state legislatures across the country have worked in recent years to make abortions more unpleasant, expensive and drawn out. doclink

Spurious Science Triumphs as U.S. Court Upholds South Dakota "Suicide Advisory" Law

   Guttmacher Institute

In July the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 24 upheld a 2005 South Dakota law requiring physicians to advise women seeking abortions that they face an increased risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts if they obtain the procedure. This requirement is unsupported by the evidence, and is one of the many hurdles states have enacted designed to dissuade women from obtaining an abortion. While these measures are labeled "informed consent" laws, on the contrary they undermine the fundamental ethical principle of informed consent by requiring health care providers to provide misinformation to their patients.

In December 2011, a systematic review commissioned and published by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (funded by the UK Department of Health, and carried out by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health at the Royal College of Psychiatrists) concluded that "rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth," that an "unwanted pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of mental health problems" and that the "most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems was having a history of mental health problems before the abortion."

This was backed up by an August 2008 report by the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion which concluded that "the best scientific evidence indicates that the relative risk of mental health problems among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy is no greater if they have an elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver the pregnancy."

The court decision on the South Dakota law appears to rely heavily on the work of Priscilla Coleman, a professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green University. However, Coleman's work has repeatedly come under strong criticism by respected members of the scientific community, including the study of March 2012 by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco and the Guttmacher Institute which determined that a 2009 study by Coleman and colleagues purporting to show a causal link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems has fundamental analytical errors that render its conclusions invalid. Most egregiously, the study did not distinguish between mental health outcomes that occurred before abortions and those that occurred afterward, but still claimed to show a causal link between abortion and mental health disorders.

Laws such as South Dakota's, which are grounded in spurious research rather than the best-available scientific evidence, not only represent a gross intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, they also endanger the health and rights of women, by intentionally misinforming them on important medical matters. doclink

End of "Family Planning Prevents Abortions!" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5

Related Foreign Aid: Development, Disease Treatment and Prevention, Microcredit

U.K.: MEPs (Members of European Parliment) Must Support Aid for Population Assistance

   April 28, 2014, Population Matters

Only by promoting smaller families can we avoid dramatic population increases in the poorest countries.

Population Matters chief executive Simon Ross commented, "To end aid dependency, we must tackle population growth in the poorest countries. We call on those standing in the forthcoming elections for the European Parliament to commit themselves, if elected, to supporting the maintenance and increase in aid for population assistance and family planning."

The biggest driver of the scale of future aid dependency, together with climate change, is population growth. The UN estimates that the population of Africa alone will rise from one billion in 2010 to more than four billion by 2100. This will put enormous pressure on resources of all kinds. Emerging services, from health and education to transport and housing, will struggle to cope. One could question whether there will be sufficient employment opportunities to meet demand, while the challenge of supporting this population can only divert the resources required for social and economic development. Such population growth will also be a contributor to increased migratory pressure on Europe's borders.

Yet the EU, while increasing spending on reproductive health and family planning, often as part of wider health system strengthening, still spends relatively little in this area. The European Parliament and Commission have designated 2015 the European Year for Development. The EU is the world's biggest multilateral donor and the third biggest donor after the US and UK, spending over nine billion euros per annum in bilateral aid. Of this, the EU spends around 90 million euros (1 per cent) on population assistance.

Of course, reproductive health is not just about lowering unsustainable birth rates. Reproductive health conditions are the leading cause of death and illness in women of reproductive age worldwide. For this reason, too, reproductive health has a claim to our attention and support.

There are those who oppose support for family planning on the basis that some of it might go to providing abortion services. However, the best way to lower the rate of abortion is to improve the provision of family planning, not to cut it. Countries in which abortion is illegal often have a higher termination rate than those in which abortion is permitted. A safe and legal abortion is much better than an unsafe and illegal one. Also, it is hardly appropriate for those in the EU, where abortion is generally available, to seek to limit access to abortion elsewhere.

We welcome the EU's verbal and financial commitment to reproductive health and family planning and call on those standing as MEPs to support that commitment and to improve on it if elected.


Reproductive health conditions - including HIV / AIDS - are the leading cause of death and illness in women of reproductive age worldwide, and the second leading cause of death and illness when both men and women are taken into account.

More than 60 per cent of couples in less-developed countries used family planning services in 2006. Only 10 per cent did in 1960.

In 2010, 215 million women wished to avoid or postpone pregnancy but were not using modern contraceptives.

An estimated 250 million years of productive life are lost every year worldwide as a result of reproductive health problems. The poor disproportionately bear the consequences of poor reproductive health -- especially impoverished women and young people. doclink

Population Growth Undermines Aid Effectiveness

A recent study sponsored by Population Matters concludes that investment in measures shown to reduce population growth is key to addressing extreme poverty.
   December 6, 2013, Population Matters

A recent London School of Economics and Political Science graduate project sponsored by Population Matters, More Aid + More People ≠ Less Poverty, showed that high fertility rates and thus rapidly increasing population size were the main reason for the number of people living in absolute poverty to increase in the 20 highest fertility countries during the past two decades, despite a sharp increase in the number of aid recipients.

Total fertility rates in these countries remained well above world average. A key factor in poverty reduction is thus reducing population growth to a reasonable level.

Three aspects of development aid were shown to contribute to fertility reduction: family planning, education and economic infrastructure. However, the percentage of development aid spent on these three aspects combined was a mere 16 per cent, with only a derisory 0.3 per cent being spent on the most important of these - family planning.

Since fertility reduction is key to reducing poverty, aid donors should have invested much more aid in these three areas - especially family planning.

Commented Population Matters chair, Roger Martin, "This is yet more evidence supporting the argument for investing far greater sums in programmes shown to reduce fertility rates and hence population growth. Aid strategies that increase longevity without at the same time reducing fertility are simply running to catch up with ever-increasing numbers of people. Indeed they appear actually to create more poor people, and thus the basis for future humanitarian crises." doclink

Development Aid Falls Short, While Other Financial Flows Show Rising Volatility

   September 12, 2013, World Watch Institute

Preliminary data indicate that official development assistance (ODA) totaled $128.4 billion (in 2011 dollars) that year, down 4 percent from 2011's $133.7 billion. The 2012 figure marks a 6 percent decline from 2010, when global ODA peaked at $136.7 billion, write Worldwatch staff in the latest Vital Signs Online trend.

Click on the link in the headline to read the report doclink

Karen Gaia says: probably due to the recession, and, alas, we may never recover due to a declining energy supply.

The Gamble on Global Women's Rights - the 2012 U.S. Elections

   October 25, 2012   By: Suzanne York

Suzanne York of comments on an editorial which claims that a Mitt Romney administration would harm women's reproductive rights both domestically and internationally. Not only will Americans lose access to free contraceptives under Obamacare's mandate to provide birth control without a co-pay. Many women and their families in developing countries will suffer.

Scroll several articles down from here and you will find an article from the Huffington Post, "Global Gag Rule's Return Would Threaten Women Worldwide".

York says: "Apparently Mr. Romney doesn't care that 222 million women in developing countries want access to family planning services but do not have that access, and doesn't understand that helping them is both critical to helping them... and helping provide a better future for all of us on the planet."

She tells us of the high-level London Summit on Family Planning in July where donors pledged to provide $2.6 billion over the next eight years to help the world's 120 million poorest women gain access to voluntary family planning information, services and supplies by 2020. More than 20 developing countries made commitments to increase spending on family planning.

The U.S. supplied $610 in 2012 toward international family planning and reproductive health programs, which, according to the Guttmacher Institute, makes it possible for: 31.6 million women and couples to receive contraceptive services and supplies; 9.4 million unintended pregnancies and 4.1 million unplanned births to be averted; 4 million induced abortions to be averted (3 million of them unsafe); 22,000 maternal deaths to be averted; and 96,000 fewer children to lose their mothers.

$35 million of the U.S. money went to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), whose mission is to"reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect."

Romney and other conservatives want to cut off U.S. funding for the UNFPA.

UNFPA's programs include health care for women refugees, where one in five women are likely to be pregnant. Female refugees are often exposed to trauma, malnutrition, disease and violence. They desperately need maternal health services and proper clinics for childbirth. Another program educates married men on reproductive health in order to improve access to maternal and newborn health services. Well-respected men in the community are brought together to discuss concerns centered on reproductive health. 137 such schools have been established in southern Niger.

Romney as president would likely cut U.S. foreign assistance, which at present comprises only about 1% of the U.S. federal budget, and more likely he will especially cut aid to international family planning and reproductive health programs. doclink

New Report: How the US Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa

   August 5, 2012, RH Reality Check

Political Research Associates have released a report, Colonizing African Values: How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa, which documents the U.S. Christian Right's attempts to push an ideology hostile to reproductive and LGBT rights on sub-Saharan African countries.

For example, in Tanzania in 2008, billboards depicted a "Faithful Condom User" as a skeleton in a blatant attempt to discourage condom use as an effective HIV prevention method. The billboard's sponsor was Human Life International (HLI), a Roman Catholic organization group based in the United States.

HLI is staunchly opposed to contraception, abortion, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, sex education, and homosexuality. Another U.S. Christian Right group peddling corrosive reproductive politics in Africa is Family Watch International, a small Arizona-based group, which condemns the United Nations' efforts to support family planning services and reproductive health options for women. One of the groups claims is that vaccine distribution is really a secret sterilization program designed to destroy the African family.

Abortion is already illegal in most African countries, bans first passed decades ago under colonial governments, and even where there are some exceptions the complications of the law often drive women to obtain illegal and dangerous procedures, such as "drinking surf (washing powder), using wires, and poisonous herbs.

Groups like Pat Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, led by Jay Sekulow (a Romney campaign favorite) and HLI are pushing for even stricter laws and constitutional bans. However, when it comes to enforcement, both police and individuals seem to shy away from invading the "personal" decisions of women who seek abortions, even when they disapprove of the procedure.

You can view the executive summary of this report at ##

The full report is also available here (PDF): ## doclink

U.S.: Congress Debates Legislation to Prevent Child Marriage

   August 4, 2010

In July the Human Rights Commission held a hearing on child marriage where Melanne Verveer, the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues urged Congress to pass the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act (H.R. 2103 S. 987).

If passed, the State Department would be required to come up with a multi-year strategy to prevent child marriage and promote the empowerment of young girls who are at risk of child marriage.

Child marriage is a recognized violation of human rights, an average of 25,000 girls a day become child brides, and unless something is done to change this trend within the next 10 years, over 100 million girls in the developing world will become child brides.

Child marriage is a concern in 64 of the 182 countries that were surveyed. It is most common in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. These girls are often prevented from continuing their education and frequently become pregnant before they are physically capable of having a safe pregnancy. Child brides also face a significantly greater risk of domestic violence and HIV infection. Because of their unequal ages and social status, child brides are frequently unable to negotiate with their husbands about sex, contraception, and birth spacing. They often encounter difficulties in finding employment outside the home because schooling is interrupted.

The children of child brides are also victims. Their mothers often die early, or suffer life- threatening illnesses, due to pregnancy-related causes. Children born to child brides also have higher rates of low birth weights, infant mortality, and premature birth than those of children born to older mothers.

The Population Institute has sent letters to both the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging them to take action on the legislation. doclink

Canada: Planned Parenthood Gets Silent Treatment From Ottawa

   May 13, 2010, The Star (Canada)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a zero tolerance policy on abortion and has blocked support for safe abortions by withholding funding of a $18 million grant to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Abortion is legal in Canada

"We submitted an application for a three-year funding renewal to CIDA . . . in June, 2009," said Paul Bell of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London. "It is unusual not to have heard anything about the proposal at this stage, 11 months after it was submitted."

Up until now, Canada has supplied a significant part of Planned Parenthood's $120 million annual budget.

Another maternal health agency, Marie Stopes International, has already fallen under the abortion ban - and received only funding on the agency avoiding any connection with abortion.

"The decision is a real missed opportunity to make an impact on the 13 per cent of maternal deaths caused by unsafe abortions globally," said the group's CEO Dana Hovig in a statement. "You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health and (that) includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband are also upset about Canada's abortion stance. The Canadian government won't fund abortion, but Harper says it will put money into programs for safe pregnancy and childbirth, as well as family planning.

However, Harper has not backed a plan to ask world leaders to endorse a more than $30 billion global fund estimated to save the lives of up to 12 million women, children and newborns, nor has Canada supported the pre-summit Women Deliver conference in Washington, which will be attended by senior officials and politicians from around the world, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. doclink

End of "Related Foreign Aid: Development, Disease Treatment and Prevention, Microcredit" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Domestic Family Planning

New Poll Shows Widespread Support for Birth Control Access in the U.S.

   November 9, 2015, PRWeb

'Thanks, Birth Control Day', occurring on November 10, celebrates the many benefits of birth control, including fewer unplanned pregnancies and more educational and economic opportunities.

In the U.S. a nationwide telephone survey of over 1,000 adults, conducted for The National Campaign by SSRS, an independent research company, found that:

•86% (91% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans) support policies that make it easier for those 18 and older to get the full range of birth control methods.

•71% ( 86% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans) support policies that make it easier for teens to get the full range of birth control methods.

•About 80% think more people would use birth control if they knew more about its many benefits, knew more about the many methods of birth control available, and were comfortable talking openly about birth control.

•87% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, 81% of white non-Hispanics, 77% of Hispanics, and 73% of black non-Hispanics agree that birth control is a basic part of women's health care.

•84% of Democrats, 72% of Republicans, 82% of black non-Hispanics, 79% of Hispanics, and 77% of white non-Hispanics believe policymakers who are opposed to abortion should be strong supporters of birth control.

•82% of black non-Hispanics, 75% of Hispanics, and 68% of white non-Hispanics support polices that make it easier for teens to get the full range of birth control methods.

•91% of black non-Hispanics, 87% of Hispanics, and 86% of white non-Hispanics support policies that make it easier for those age 18 and up to get the full range of birth control methods.

"Access to birth control has been a game changer for women and families. It has contributed greatly to reduce rates of teen and unplanned pregnancies that we know will ultimately lead to better educational and economic opportunities for women, healthier kids and families, and reduced public costs," said Ginny Ehrlich, CEO of The National Campaign. doclink

The Fallacy of the Latest Contraception Case

   November 6, 2015, New York Times   By: New York Times Editorial Board

Soon the Supreme Court will hear the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act's guarantee of insurance coverage for birth control. It is worth going over the conflict at the core of these cases to better understand it.

The plaintiffs are employers who -- even they they are not required to provide coverage for those contraceptives which they believe induce abortions -- refuse to notify the government or their insurers of their refusal to provide coverage. All they would have to do would be to submit a simple two-page form designed for the purpose. The notion that these contraceptives produce abortions are contrary to scientific consensus.

They argue that signing the form would make them complicit in the eventual provision of contraception, and thus would violate their faith. They rely on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under that 1993 law, any regulation that imposes a "substantial burden" on religious practice must be in furtherance of a "compelling governmental interest" that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means.

Seven federal appeals courts threw out the plaintiffs' argument against signing the form because there is a compelling interest in ensuring that women have easy access to health care, including contraception, and it is hard to imagine a less restrictive approach than requiring employers simply to sign a form.

However, the federal appeals court for the Eighth Circuit upheld the employers' argument on the grounds that they have a "sincere religious belief" that signing the form makes them "morally and spiritually complicit" in what they consider to be a sin.

Since there is a legal conflict among the federal courts, the Supreme Court is slated to resolve it.

After Hobby Lobby, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that thinking that "one's religious beliefs are substantially burdened - no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be - doesn't make it so."

Such lawsuits are a well orchestrated assault on the right of women to control their bodies, and thus the course of their own lives, by deciding if and when they will have a child. doclink

How a Billionaire-Backed IUD is Fighting the GOP War on Women's Bodies

Republicans should love Liletta, but instead they're fighting it every step of the way
   October 27, 2015, AlterNet   By: Kali Holloway

Liletta is a new intrauterine device which became available in April. It is affordable, safe, 99% effective, and widely accessible. Studies prove the IUD reduces rates of unplanned pregnancies, and it's been shown to decrease the number of teen abortions. Once Liletta is inserted by a healthcare professional, it can remain in place for up to three years without any patient intervention, effectively eliminating the kinds of user errors that lead to pregnancy.

In multiple studies, Liletta has been proven safe, placing it far outside the troubled history of IUDs.

Unfortunately the conservative response has been to obstruct the use and availability of Liletta and similar contraceptive methods at every opportunity. Their mission seems like one less focused on protecting the sanctity of human life than it is penalizing and stigmatizing women for having non-reproductive sex.

Most IUDs cost anywhere from $800 to $1,200 -- prohibitively priced for most family planning clinics, many of which are already severely underfunded. But with Liletta, its developer Medicines360 has capped out-of-pocket expenditures for insured women at $75, and in cases where patients qualify financially, even that cost can be subsidized. Medicines360 has made it a priority that public health care centers can purchase the IUD at just $50 a pop, allowing them to keep plenty in stock. Batches of Liletta have been recently shipped to 49 states, with more than half of the devices going to clinics that serve low-income patients.

The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, the philanthropic organization co-founded by Warren Buffett and his late wife, has recently focused on funding family planning work, spending an estimated $200 million to determine the best and most effective contraceptive methods, underwriting costs for product development, conducting clinical trials, and creating distribution channels that ensure affordability.

Judith DeSarno of the Buffett Foundation, said that Warren "thinks that unless women can control their fertility -- and that it's basically their right to control their fertility-that you are sort of wasting more than half of the brainpower in the United States."

In 2007, the Buffett Foundation gave approximately $20 million to fund the Contraceptive Choice Project, a three-year study involving more than 9,000 women of childbearing age in St. Louis, Missouri. Participants were given information about various types of birth control, with particular insights on IUDs, and offered the method of their choice for free. 56% ultimately opted for an IUD, proving women would be interested in the devices when armed with the right information.

Between 2008 and 2013, the Buffett Foundation spent over $50 million in Colorado on a project that offered free and reduced-cost IUDs to some 30,000 women through 68 family planning clinics statewide. Subsequently the teen birth rate in the state fell by 40% from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42%, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.

Colorado governor John Hickenlooper said that "Colorado moved from the 29th lowest teenage birth rate in the nation before the initiative began in 2008 to 19th lowest in 2012." The project saved the state "$42.5 million in public funds in 2010 alone."

In the 1970s and '80s, IUDs were synonymous with the Dalkon Shield, a brand that was recalled for causing septic abortions, infertility, and in rare cases, death. In 2000, the FDA-approved Mirena hit the market, followed in 2013 by pharmaceutical giant Bayer's Skyla, both of which helped revive interest in the IUD for a generation of women less familiar with its history.

To remedy the dark name of the IUD, the Buffett Foundation spent $74 million to launch Medicines360, which immediately set about creating a generic IUD. Liletta was the result.

There are nearly 3.4 million unintended pregnancies each year in America; many likely to end in abortion. Poor and low-income women, more specifically, are five times more likely than wealthier women to experience both unplanned pregnancies and unintended births, according to a Brookings Institute study.

Although conservatives often discuss the birth rate among women in underserved communities as if it points to some innate, class-based moral failing, Brookings notes that rates of premarital sex are not socioeconomically determined. "There is no 'sex gap' by income," researchers write.

A study by the Guttmacher Institute of women aged 18-34 with household incomes below $75,000 found that cost led many women to cut corners with their birth control, skipping pills, delaying prescriptions, or adopting a one-month-on, one-month-off approach to taking the pill. One in four women who struggle financially are forced to take such measures, compared to among women with financial stability, whose rate is roughly one in seventeen.

Because of the upfront cost of IUDs and hormonal implants, low-income women are less likely to access these most effective forms of birth control, which are 99% successful in preventing pregnancy.

Another Guttmacher survey finds that a "majority of respondents reported that birth control use had allowed them to take better care of themselves or their families (63%), support themselves financially (56%), complete their education (51%), or keep or get a job (50%). Young women, unmarried women, and those without children reported more reasons for using contraception than others: not being able to afford a baby, not being ready for children, feeling that having a baby would interrupt their goals, and wanting to maintain control in their lives were the most commonly reported reasons for using birth control.

Many conservatives might not be interested in the self-determination birth control provides for women. But as a measure that helps reduce abortions and unwanted births -- they should be all for it. In 2010, nearly 70% of unintended births were paid for by public insurance programs, especially Medicaid. The GOP, which supposedly values dollars and cents above all else, should appreciate any solution likely to send those numbers downward.

Early this summer, House Republicans voted to eliminate funding for Title X, the only federal program which specifically funds family planning and reproductive-health services, including birth control, for low-income women. Now they are currently trying to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides a long list of family planning services to millions of women. Abortions represent just 3% of the services Planned Parenthood offers, a figure Republicans might care about if any of this was actually about abortion.

Conservatives in Texas, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alabama are trying to defund Planned Parenthood at the local level. Louisiana Planned Parenthood clinics don't even provide abortion services, "so defunding it would only keep low-income patients...from accessing cancer screenings and other preventative health-care." Across the country, health care clinics have been rapidly disappearing, thanks to Republican efforts.

In 2014 the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision ruled in favor of a companies with closely held religious beliefs to opt out of providing women insurance that covers the cost of IUDs and some morning-after pills. (Hobby Lobby says IUDs are abortifacients; doctors and elementary school-level reproductive science say that's not true.)

Ann Friedman wrote of the decision: "The Supreme Court's decision -- and most reproductive-health restrictions passed by lawmakers across America over the past several decades -- expresses the view that women make their choice when they choose sex, and it's up to them to figure it out after that. That there is no social or moral or governmental obligation to make it easier for them to make choices that follow from a perfectly human impulse to want sex but not babies. For women, sex is an option, an inessential luxury like LASIK eye surgery."

In Colorado, after money ran out on a family planning project that resulted in a massive drop in teen pregnancies and abortions across the board, conservatives in the legislature turned down a bill to fund the program. One local anti-choice group said giving teens access to contraception "does not help them understand the risks that come with sexual activities."

These anti-choicers want no part of a program that teaches young women how to be sexually responsible, or that doesn't scare them into believing the only way sex can end is badly. These same conservatives refuse to fund anything that benefits children once they leave the uterus, who vilify single mothers, who bemoan "entitlement programs" for the most vulnerable families and children. In voting against those measures, conservatives are voting for teen pregnancy, unplanned births and abortion.

As more clinics introduce Liletta to their clients, and more health care plans offer it as a choice (mine does!), the 10% of women who rely on IUDs for birth control will only continue to grow. Republicans will keep pushing for policies that attempt to stop women from having sex, instead of plans that actually benefit women's reproductive health and offer real choice. doclink

Full Committee Hearing on Planned Parenthood's Taxpayer Funding

   September 29, 2015, youTube / Oversight Dems

In his opening statement, committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said he doesn't think Planned Parenthood needs federal subsidies; just look at Richards's salary ($520,000), he said.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking member of the committee, said in a fiery rebuttal that it was particularly hypocritical for Republicans to place Planned Parenthood under a microscope and take Richards to task over her salary when they had never taken an interest in the hefty compensations of executives at big banks, drug companies and defense contractors, who had all engaged in law-breaking.

For more, see doclink

Quick Sex Ed Lesson for Tonight's GOP Debate Candidates

   September 16, 2015, Planned Parenthood Action Fund   By: Miriam Berg

Recently Republican presidential candidates have been tripping over themselves to make extreme statements on women's health, threatening to shut down the government over providing basic reproductive health care to Planned Parenthood's millions of patients across the country.

Some have swung so far to the right, they've ventured into the medically impossible. Scott Walker refused to say he would be in favor of allowing a woman to access abortion, even if it meant saving her life -- it's not that he's in favor of letting a woman die, per se, he just doesn't believe a woman's life could ever really be at risk during pregnancy. Jeb Bush claimed that Planned Parenthood should be defunded because: "they're not actually doing women's health issues. They're involved in something way different than that." Rick Santorum said "I don't think there's any numbers out there that suggest that access to contraception actually reduces the number of abortion. After her granddaughter received an HPV vaccine, Carly Fiorina defended opting out of the vaccination, saying that it was an "esoteric" vaccine for a disease that is "not communicable." Dr. Carson said he would be okay with exceptions to an abortion ban for survivors of rape or incest, but that a medication abortion should only be prescribed in the emergency room, adding: "I would hope that they would very quickly avail themselves of the emergency room, and in the emergency room, they have the ability to administer RU-486 and other possibilities before you have a developing fetus."

More than 600 women die each year due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth, and more would die if they didn't have access to abortion.

99 percent of sexually active women in the United States have used at least one contraceptive method.

Planned Parenthood's health centers provides STD tests and treatments, contraception related services, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and prenatal services.

Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduces unplanned pregnancies and cuts abortion rates by a range of 62 to 78 percent.

HPV is not only contagious, but also one of the most common STDs - nearly all sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives.

Medication abortion (RU-486) terminates a pregnancy and is used up to 9 weeks after the first day of a woman's last period. Emergency contraception (EC or Plan B) is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy for up to five days after unprotected sex, and works to help prevent pregnancy by keeping a woman's ovary from releasing an egg for longer than usual so it cannot be fertilized by sperm.

71% of voters oppose shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood's funding, and an overwhelming majority oppose all efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Attacks on Planned Parenthood and women's health might have short-term gain for Republican candidates in their primary, but it is a recipe for defeat in a general election. doclink

The Affordable Care Act and Cost of Contraception

   September 3, 2015, Journalist's Resource   By: Kathryn M. Barker

Under the ACA, private health plans must cover birth control methods that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration without charging out-of-pocket costs. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that some businesses can claim religious objections and forgo birth-control coverage for employees. However the importance of contraceptive coverage under the ACA has been shown by several new studies: The proportion of women who paid nothing out of pocket for birth control pills rose from 15% in 2012 - before the federal requirement took effect - to 67% in 2014 - after it was implemented. Women saw large decrease in out-of-pocket spending for contraceptives after ACA mandate removed cost sharing. doclink

U.S.: My Turn: the Miracle of Family Planning

   September 3, 2015, Concord Monitor   By: John Warner

Large families were common back in last half of the 19th century, when the authorr's great grandfather had 10 children. This made sense then, since in agrarian America, farmers needed labor, and children could supply it. As America became urban and industrial, needs changed and family size changed. The current generation typically has only two children.

The change fit both American families and American society, because continuation of these earlier rates of proliferation would have resulted in an unsustainable population.

If all families after my great grandfather's generation had all had 10 children, the U.S. population could have gone from 76 million in 1900 to as much as 7 billion today, demonstrating the power of exponential growth. With such a big population our country would have experienced massive poverty, intense starvation and extensive death. And, that is what the larger world has in store if it is unable to stabilize its currently burgeoning population.

Researchers have concluded that to live at an American or European standard of living, a sustainable population for the Earth is between 1 and 2 billion people; now we are over three time that much.

In the intense religious fervor of the Third Great Awakening in 1800's brought with it the Comstock Act (1873), which declared contraception and birth control to be "obscene and illegal." Despite Comstock, many families (women primarily) opted to ignore the law, to plan their families, to obtain and use contraception (and to get abortions). If these women had actually followed the dictates of the Comstock Act, we would be an overpopulated, impoverished nation today.

The Comstock Act was fully overturned in 1965 after it was noted that lower-class birth rates far exceeded upper-class rates, especially as wealthier women became educated, wanted careers, and limited and delayed having children.

Now we are facing the threat of going back to the Comstock days. Our media is now filled with stories about the evils of Planned Parenthood and efforts to eliminate this valuable resource.

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz wants a constitutional amendment to make most forms of contraception illegal. Virtually all of the Republican candidates support the Religious Right's desire to make family planning more difficult. And here in New Hampshire, our governing body has denied funding for Planned Parenthood.

This situation was spurred on by some religious zealots who duped some Planned Parenthood workers into discussion about their work so that they could collect surreptitious video heavily edited to suggest (but not actually prove) that Planned Parenthood was doing something illegal and unethical. They are now using this video material in an attempt to destroy the best resource available to women in this country.

It is time to denounce the attempts by a narrow religious minority and its political henchmen to force its ill-conceived beliefs on the 300 million citizens of this country and to wrench us all back to my great grandfather's time.

Our planet has increasingly limited resources. Family planning and contraception are the miracles that have up to now both allowed and enhanced American prosperity and that will in the future make a critical difference as to whether the human race survives. Educating women worldwide and making women's health facilities and contraception available to all are vital to human sustainability.

Failing to do these things invites human tragedy. But failing to do them in the name of religion is the biggest folly of all. Given the inevitable misery and death that would ensue from putting barriers in the way of women's right to make their own choices and in effect forcing women to have children - this sounds a lot like some Middle Eastern countries that we read about in our newspapers every day. In America this smacks of a theocracy, not a democracy. It certainly does not represent any version of the religion of peace and love that I believe in. doclink

End of "Domestic Family Planning" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Title X

The Devastating Consequences of Chipping Away at Family Planning Programs

   December 18, 2014, Think Progress   By: Tara Culp-ressler

The federally funded family planning clinics, under the Title X program, are supposed to offer a safety net for low-income Americans are in crisis.

Title X clinics provide confidential reproductive health services on a sliding pay scale, including STD screening, Pap smears, and birth control consultations. Most patients are low-income and uninsured and would struggle to get that care elsewhere.

Clare Coleman, the president and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which represents Title X providers, said "We're now in the fifth year where the network hasn't seen any increase in service dollars - there's no new money to provide health services." ... "So now you've got a system that's dropped a significant number of patients."

206,000 fewer patients have been served in 2013 compared to 2012.

Some of them gained new coverage under the health reform law and have since been absorbed into the private insurance market. It may also be that more women are opting for long-acting forms of birth control, and that they have also been instructed to get Pap smears less frequently. But many patients are simply unable to get the health services they need because the network isn't able to accommodate them.

Around 20 million women in the U.S. need access to publicly funded contraception, reports the Guttmacher Institute. Coleman says that Title X clinics have historically only been able to meet about a third of that need. As more Americans slipped into poverty after the recent economic recession, Title X's patient load increased, but its budget didn't.

In 2011 Congress attempted to wholly defund the program. Recently abortion opponents simply took the fight to the states. New Jersey, Montana, Texas, and Maine have all slashed family planning funding.

Guttmacher's research has actually shown that the program is one of the best investments that lawmakers can make. U.S. taxpayers save $7 for every dollar the government spends on family planning, largely because the care provided at publicly funded family planning clinics can help prevent millions of unplanned pregnancies.

In Texas anti-abortion lawmakers fighting against Planned Parenthood have upended the entire family planning landscape, leaving low-income and rural women struggling to get the basic care they need. doclink

U.S.: Cutting Title X Family Planning in the Sequester Hurts Women's Reproductive Health

   February 28, 2013, Center for American Progress

Title X could be cut by $15 million in fiscal year 2013 by the Sequestration. The program has already been cut by more than $23 million over the past two fiscal years -- limiting access to family-planning services and causing clinics to cut back on staff and hours.

Title X has served primarily low-income women for over 40 years, providing a range of services, including breast and cervical cancer screenings; Pap smear tests; prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections; HIV testing, prevention, and counseling; infertility services; and health care referrals. 60% of women who visit Title X clinics consider them a primary source of health care.

25% of all poor women who obtain contraceptive services in the U.S. do so at a Title X-supported center. 91% of all Title X clients earn less than $28,000 a year.

Millions of women prevent unintended pregnancies with the help of Title X, preventing the negative health, social, and economic outcomes for women and their children associated with unplanned pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and the number is 69% for women between the ages of 20 and 29, and nearly half of unplanned pregnancies for the same age group are experienced by women living below 100% of the federal poverty line. It is estimated that overall.

Levels of unintended pregnancy would be an estimated one-third higher without the services provided through Title X-supported centers. Every $1 invested in family-planning care averts nearly $4 in Medicaid expenditures. The public cost of unintended pregnancies is estimated at $11 billion a year, which would be even higher without Title X funding, which prevents more than 900,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

Because Title X funding is flexible and can be offered to a diverse range of grantees, the program has effectively partnered with other public and private entities to create a vast network of reproductive health providers in every state, which benefits all women regardless of income by providing facilities where they can go to receive high-quality and specialized reproductive health care. As of 2011 there were more than 4,000 providers receiving Title X funds in the United States.

Cutting Title X's cost-effective and crucial health service for women is more likely to hurt the country's financial prospects than improve them. It's a perfect example of why the blunt across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect tomorrow should be avoided in favor of a thoughtful and balanced approach to deficit reduction that protects crucial investments in programs such as family-planning services. doclink

U.S.: It's No Time to Deep-Six Title X

   September 11, 2012, Population Connection

In the U.S., Title X (Ten) - The National Family Planning Program - has been saving money, lives and heartache for more than 40 years. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, detects cancer, treats deadly infections and helps babies get a good start in life.

In 2008 Title X funding prevented 973,000 unintended pregnancies, 433,000 unplanned births, and 406,000 abortions. In 2010 Title X provided 5.2 million Americans with Pap tests, breast exams, family planning advice and contraception. Without it, teen pregnancies would rise, and taxpayers would have to spend more on public services. Our health care system would suffer and so would people.

No Title X money is spent on abortion. About 69% of families served by Title X had family incomes at or below the poverty level.

When women are able to postpone pregnancy, plan their families and space their births, they are healthier, and their babies are, too, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Teens can stay in school. College dreams can become reality. The economic pressures large families face can be avoided.

Our planet benefits, too, by less use of the natural resources we all depend upon.

Every dollar invested in Title X family planning programs saves $3.74 in Medicaid costs the next year, according to Guttmacher Institute.

But for some strange reason, the House this year voted to defund Title X - and leave those 5.2 million Americans to fend for themselves.

Talk to the politicians vowing to defund family planning programs, confront them. Ask them why they want more unintended pregnancies, extra unplanned births and a spike in the abortion rate. Ask them why they want women's lives constrained in a way that men's simply are not. doclink

U.S.: No-Cost Birth Control: the Facebook Application

   June 27, 2011, Huffington Post

Although 98% of American women use birth control sometime in their life, one in three of these women is challenged to be able to use prescription birth control because it costs too much. According to Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, "young adults ages 18-24 have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States -- and nearly one-third of female teenagers become pregnant before reaching the age of 20. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended."

The Guttmacher Institute refines these statistics to "Sixty-three percent of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use nonpermanent methods, including hormonal methods (such as the pill, patch, implant, injectable and vaginal ring), the IUD and condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization." Affordable non- permanent prescription birth control, has too often been difficult for too many to obtain. But those days may end soon. There is a provision in Obama's new health care law that would allow contraception to be considered preventative care. Insurance plans would then have to cover contraception without a copay.

Keenan says "NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation has launched a campaign called BC4ME (Birth Control for Me) to make sure the government follows through on the health-care law's promise to improve women's access to vital health services. We expect the federal government to decide this summer whether to include no-cost birth control in the law's implementation."

And the best news yet!! BC4ME launched a Facebook application to let users know how much they themselves, or any other women in their lives can save by not having to spend on out-of-pocket costs of birth control. According to Keenan" The application is fun", and lets users see how much money can be saved when this provision of the Obama health care plan is passed. Already, scores of people have calculated the personal impact that no-cost birth control would have on them, and have shared testimonials describing the financial sacrifices they make to be able to continue using prescription birth control.

Unfortunately, for every testimony of financial sacrifice there is testimony from a women who sacrifices even using birth control, because it is just too expensive for her.

Of course, no-cost birth control could never come just that easily. Anti-contraception groups are fighting hard to prevent this policy change. To them birth control is a "life-style choice" not health care. That description flies in the face of recommendations made by The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, who all refer to family planning (using birth control) as recommended preventive care.

Check out the Facebook application and see for yourself! sk=app_190733170965153 doclink

US Kansas: Why Would At-Risk Teens Need to Know About Condoms?

   July 8, 2011, The Kansas City Star

Kansas is in the midst of culture wars. Recently it was the battle over 'the condom on the cucumber.'

More important, the Johnson County Commission turned down federal aid for a program aimed at preventing teen pregnancy and reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Last year Kansans for Life and others objected to a federal grant proposal because the money would have been funneled through Planned Parenthood. Some of the commissioners objected because they feared political repercussions for doing the right thing. Which would have been to do whatever it took to help teenage girls avoid getting pregnant. doclink

U.S.: Centers Stop Dispensing Birth Control; Planned Parenthood Loses Contract

   July 8, 2011, Concord Monitor

Two weeks ago, the all-Republican Executive Council of New Hampshire voted 3-2 against a new contract that would have provided Planned Parenthood of Northern New England $1.8 million in state and federal money for the two years starting this month.

The six Planned Parenthood centers in New Hampshire stopped dispensing contraception last week, their retail pharmacy license contingent on having a state contract.

Executive Councilor Dan St. Hilaire of Concord, who cast one of the three votes in opposition, said the contract should go to an organization that does not perform abortions. The councilors approved 10 other contracts for family planning services.

The contract with Planned Parenthood, which accounts for about 20% of its annual New Hampshire budget, would have paid for education, distributing contraception, and the testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.

The organization's abortion practice is paid for by private donations, president and CEO Steve Trombley, said, with audits ensuring no public money is used.

Planned Parenthood provides contraception, breast exams, screenings for cervical cancer, and tests for sexually transmitted infections, treating 52% of patients whose care is subsidized by the New Hampshire state family planning program. 70% of its patients, 150% below the federal poverty line,pay little or nothing for birth control pills, and 70% of the center's patients lack private health insurance.

One woman said she would like to have a child but cannot afford it, and she worries there will be a public cost if contraception is inaccessible to low-income women. "If they can't afford to have a baby, then we'll be paying for them in the long run," she said.

Anne Hildreth, a practitioner working for Planned Parenthood, said her goal is to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. She questioned the rationale of limiting access to contraception in an effort to prevent abortions. "It's crazy to not give women birth control if you want to stop women from having abortions," she said.

Executive councilor Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester does not believe the state should subsidize contraception. "If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" he said. doclink

An Unexpected 2012 Voting Issue: Public Strongly Supports Family Planning, New Poll Shows Americans Have Reached a Consensus on Contraceptives, So Why the Controversies?

   June 3, 2011, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)

Editor's note: A couple of press releases from NFPRHA are combined here in this synopsis

Title X, of the Public Health Service Act, the national family planning program, which funds such care for low‐income people, was recently threatened in a battle in Congress over the 2011 federal budget. Other battles on women's access to affordable family planning loom at the state and federal levels.

June 7 is the anniversary of the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision that legalized contraceptive use by married couples. For NFPRHA the anniversary marks the beginning of a series of activities to draw attention to the need for family planning services to be fully covered in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid as well as full funding for Title X (Ten), the National Family Planning Program.

Nearly all Americans have embraced family planning as an essential part of their lives and thought consensus on the issue had been reached decades earlier.

A May telephone poll conducted by Lake Research Partners found that support for family planning in America crosses all demographic and political lines and outweighs budget‐cutting arguments by a two‐to‐one margin. 84% of Americans view family planning, including contraception, as important to basic preventive health care services, the survey concluded. 67% feel that way strongly, and 40% said they would be less likely to support elected officials who vote to defund family planning. 60% agreed that everyone has a right to safe, affordable family planning services, while only 31% agree that budget concerns should require cuts in funding for family planning.

From the survey results, one could conclude that family planning is a core American value, and that voters would be willing to punish politicians who try to cut public funding for it.

Other facts:

* 98% of American women have used birth control at some point in their lives.

* 93% of voters believe all couples should have access to birth control.

* 6 in 10 women who get health care from a publicly funded family planning center consider it their regular source of health care.

* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cited family planning as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th Century.

Background on the Griswold v Connecticut case is provided at .. In summary:

In 1961, the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut opened its doors, but less than two weeks later Executive Director Estelle Griswold and Medical Director Dr. C. Lee Buxton were arrested for violating an 1879 law that made it illegal to use contraceptives or to provide contraceptives or contraceptive information. They were convicted and then appealed their conviction.

In a 7-2 decision issued on June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court, ruling that the law violated the right to marital privacy.

The Griswold decision, while only securing a right to use contraception for married couples, laid the groundwork for many decisions that upheld the right to privacy and offered protection from government intrusion on individuals' reproductive and sexual health decisions. In 1972, the Court extended the principles of Griswold to unmarried couples. The Court wrote, "f the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." The following year, in Roe v. Wade, the Court relied on the privacy right identified in Griswold to conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment is "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Title X supported more than 4,500 health centers nationwide that helped a record 5.2 million people in the recession year of 2009, but its $300 million budget met less than a third of the need, notes Clare Coleman, president and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association.

"Using contraception is not controversial in American homes. Women spend about 5 years either being pregnant or trying to get pregnant and about 30 years trying not to get pregnant." she said.

Former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D‐CO) said "If you think the $300 million that goes to family planning is going to balance the budget, I have a bridge I want to sell you."

Obstetrician Dr. Mark Hathaway of the Washington Hospital Center noted that half of all pregnancies are unintended. "That's where the Title X program has been so successful, in helping people avoid unintended pregnancies."

In the end, the Final Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 spending bill (H.R. 1473) - signed into law on April 15, 2011 - cut funding for Title X by $18.1 million.

Some Members of Congress are also trying to cut Medicaid - a critical funding source for family planning and other health care for low-income and poor individuals - and undermine the Affordable Care Act. In addition some states are moving to refuse Title X funds, prohibit certain types of providers from receiving state and/or federal funds, and cut Medicaid enrollees and benefits, all of which would make it harder for low-income women to get birth control.

The polling results, memo and an audio briefing by the above spokespeople along with background information on the anniversary of Griswold v Connecticut decision, Title X including state‐by‐state data and basic facts on family planning services are available at

Tell Congress and your state officials they are getting it wrong! Tell them to stop attacking family planning services and providers, and to start working to strengthen and protect our national family planning program - Title X - and ensure access to contraceptives under Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

To reach your Members of Congress, call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. You can access a directory of state legislative websites through the National Conference of State Legislatures. doclink

End of "Title X" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3

Equity in Prescription and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC)

Women Strongly Oppose Hobby Lobby's Birth Control Case: Poll

   March 24, 2014, Huffington Post   By: Laura Bassett

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius. Both involve for-profit companies refusing to provide their employees with coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act because the companies' owners do not believe in birth control.

In a survey of women voters between 18 and 55 released by Hart Research Associates, more than two-thirds (68%) opposed allowing corporations to refuse to cover contraception in their health plans because of religious objections. More than half indicated that they disagree "strongly." 84% of women agreed with the statement that the decision to use birth control "should be a woman's personal decision, and her boss should not be able to interfere with it." Geoff Garin, President of Hart Research Associates said, "As a matter of principle, these women don't believe corporations should be able to use religion to pick and choose which laws they will obey."

The poll shows that women also oppose other kinds of religious freedom laws affecting gays and lesbians, and 81% said pharmacies should not be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control on religious grounds. doclink

Art says: Another article said that the National Coalition of American Nuns sent a petition to the Supreme Court saying, "We want to make clear that the sin is not a person using birth control. The sin is denying women the right and the means to plan their families." . . . "We know that religious freedom means that each person has the right to exercise their own religious beliefs." It "cannot mean that an individual or a corporation gets to impose their religious beliefs on their employees."

Papantonio: Hobby Lobby is DOA

   March 28, 2014, Daily Kos

Corporations open themselves up for lawsuits if Hobby Lobby succeeds. That's they there are no amicus briefs filed in favor of Hobby Lobby.


If Hobby Lobby Wins, it Will Be Even Worse for Birth Control Access Than You Think

   March 19, 2014, Think Progress   By: Tara Culp-ressler

On March 25, the Supreme Court will take up the issue of contraceptive coverage in a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. Craft chain Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties -- both for-profit companies -- claim that they can withhold insurance coverage for certain types of contraceptive methods based on their religious beliefs.

Not only do they not want to cover specific types of birth control, but they also object to providing counseling about that birth control. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are successful, they'll win the right to refuse to extend coverage for doctor's visits that include discussion about certain forms of contraception, like IUDs or the morning after pill.

Adam Sonfield, a senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, explained: "Counseling and education about contraception has been a basic part of a medical visit forever, even before the methods themselves were covered. Before we had prescription drug coverage, we certainly had coverage for the visit to your doctor, and there were never any limitations about what you could talk to your doctor about." And doctors can't just skip over certain methods: in order to obtain informed consent from their patients, doctors are obligated to explain the full range of options available.

Informed consent is the 'bedrock' of medical ethics. The conversation between doctor and patient needs to be careful and detailed before the patient agrees to any medical intervention.

So patients are left with a choice: don't talk about contraception with their doctor or if they do want to discuss contraception, they'll have to pay for the visit out of their own pocket. They'll essentially have to choose between a potential financial burden or a potential health burden.

Worse yet, employees might not realize that restrictions set by the employer exist when they visit their doctor. Companies that withhold coverage for some types of services may not explain to their workers exactly what their plan excludes, or provide them with a referral to access those services elsewhere.

Sonfield said: "This is telling you that you can't use your compensation" your own benefits that you have earned -- in a way that your boss objects to." Insurance coverage for preventative care is a benefit that employees earn through the hours that they put in to their jobs.

Some employers might object to modern health services like vaccinations, blood transfusions, or mental health care. If Hobby Lobby wins, that could open the door for employers to restrict coverage for doctors' visits that include discussion of those topics, too. doclink

Karen Gaia says:

As Supreme Court Takes Up Contraceptive Coverage Cases, New Guttmacher Analysis Puts the Facts Front and Center

Counters Misinformation and Documents the Wealth of Evidence Strongly Supporting the Current Federal Policy on Contraceptive Coverage
   March 11, 2014

On March 25 the Supreme Court will take up cases on the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage guarantee.

In January Guttmacher filed a Supreme Court amicus brief. A new Guttmacher analysis by Adam Sonfield sets the record straight on several important questions of fact misinterpreted and obfuscated by the anti-contraception opponents and clarifies key points of the brief.

The analysis explains why the ACA's requirement that most private health plans cover contraceptive counseling, services and supplies without out-of-pocket costs for patients is necessary and appropriate. The areas covered in the analysis are:

1. Contraception is not abortion: Science clearly shows that contraception is distinct from abortion. Further, by preventing unintended pregnancies, effective contraceptive use dramatically reduces the need for abortion.

2. Contraceptive use benefits women and families: Millions of women who have used contraception were able to plan and space wanted pregnancies which resulted in myriad health benefits for mothers and babies and, in turn, promoted women's educational, economic and social advancement.

3. Comprehensive contraceptive coverage improves use: Methods of contraception differ dramatically in their effectiveness in preventing unintended pregnancy. Removing cost barriers -- as the federal policy currently requires -- has given women the ability to choose and use the best and most effective method for them.

4. Contraceptive coverage is not a financial burden for employers: Strong evidence shows that contraceptive coverage will be either cost-neutral or even generate savings for employers. Also funding for contraceptive services under programs like Title X and Medicaid in 2010 resulted in net public savings of $10.5 billion, or $5.68 for every dollar spent.

5. Shifting responsibility to the government is not workable: Having the government pay for contraceptive services and supplies for privately insured women is not viable politically and wouldn't work, and would end up creating new hurdles for women.

"If the Court sides with the plaintiffs, it could truly open a Pandora's box of discrimination. Employers might claim religious objections to coverage -- for everyone or, for instance, for those who are young, unmarried or gay -- of HPV vaccination, STI testing, breast-feeding equipment, maternity care, blood transfusions, HIV medication and mental health care," said Sonfield doclink

U.S.: Why Free Birth Control is Not Free

   August 8, 2012, Huffington Post

Beginning the 1st of August the Affordable Care Act (ACA) health care plan began, which would give millions of women access to a full range of preventive health care services without a co-pay. These services include breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence; screening for gestational diabetes; DNA testing for high-risk strains of HPV; counseling regarding sexually transmitted infections, including HIV; screening for HIV; contraceptive methods and counseling; and well-woman visits. Also the health care plan ensures that plans must cover an array of services, vaccinations, and interventions, including those specifically needed by women, infants, children, and adolescents at different points in their lifecycle.

However, religious and political fundamentalists at the state and federal level are trying to deny women access to reproductive health care of virtually every kind, often based on the notion that the new health care act gives women access to birth control for free.

This is not the case, and it is misleading - and politically dangerous - to say so.

You have to have an insurance policy to get birth control without a co-pay. Women cannot get the pill without a prescription, which first entails a visit to a doctor's office. No one without insurance can walk into a doctor's office and get an IUD or any kind of contraception for free, unless they are covered by insurance. Ten percent of women in the United States who work full time are currently uninsured. They and those who otherwise uninsured do not have access to "free" birth control.

If you have insurance, you pay for it, either by virtue of your labor or out of your own pocket, or, depending on the situation, both. And under the ACA it is now mandated that your insurance plan cover certain benefits without a co-pay. This does not make them "free." It means that you are paying for that service as part of your premium. You earned it, you paid for it, it is yours. If you pay for it, you deserve to get it.

Health insurance benefits, along with matching benefits for retirement, vacation time, life and disability insurance, and Social Security were either earned or paid for out of the employee's earnings.

Insurance companies know that offering certain kinds of preventive care and making that care more accessible to more people means that a small investment in the short-term will keep costs lower in the long term. An early abnormal pap smear leading to early treatment is a lot less expensive for them than is treatment for cervical cancer later on. An unwanted pregnancy averted through use of contraception is less expensive than an abortion.

What the Affordable Care Act does is help to begin addressing the disparities in our insurance policies and premiums to make them more equitable. Fewer working women than working men in this country have employer-based insurance; insurers have historically charged women more than men in a practice known as gender-rating; and for a very long time, women have paid more out-of-pocket for basic preventive health care services like pap smears and birth control.

The reason that lawmakers and insurance companies did this has to do largely with the cost-savings that will be realized: healthier women mean a healthier society and reduced economic and social costs.

We should support expanding government-funded programs to ensure that all women have access to birth control and other preventive health services, because it makes sense in terms of public health and the economy, and because such access is a basic human right. But people who earn their insurance coverage pay for it, and they deserve the benefit for which they are paying.

Let's call the birth control benefit what it is: Women's hard-earned insurance coverage. It's ours. We earned it. We pay for it. We deserve it. doclink

State Court Rules Against Catholic Church on Insurance

   October 20, 2006, New York Times*

New York State's highest court ruled that religious organizations must require most employee health insurance policies to cover contraception.

The decision left intact the Women's Health and Wellness Act of 2002, which requires company health insurance policies that provide coverage for prescription drugs to include "coverage for the cost of contraceptive drugs or devices."

It had been challenged by a group including eight Catholic and two Baptist organizations.

The New York State Catholic Conference, said it would consider appealing the ruling to the US Supreme Court saying that it is about religious liberty. In New York, the Insurance Department was joined by the other groups in defending the insurance regulation's terms.

The court's decision said that legislators had intended the 2002 law to "advance both women's health and the equal treatment of men and women." In addition, the New York law requires employee insurance to cover osteoporosis exams and screenings for breast and cervical cancer.

Tthe issues centered on an exemption for "religious employers," who are not required to provide coverage for contraception. But the exemption does not apply to church schools, hospitals or organizations that employ and serve people from diverse religious backgrounds. doclink

U.S.: Sen. Clinton Charges GOP War on Contraception

   May 17, 2006, Associated Press

Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has sought a political middle ground on abortion, told supporters the GOP is trying to cut back women's access to birth control.

Clinton, D-N.Y., charged that the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress are whittling away at contraception options, particularly for women who rely on government-funded programs.

The senator cited statistics that half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions.

Republicans accused Clinton of seeking to enlarge federal programs.

Clinton's campaign letter asks supporters to sign a petition protesting curbs on family planning services. Clinton joined Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate Democrats, to protest a Republican health insurance bill on similar grounds.

Clinton and Reid said the bill allowing small businesses to pool together across state lines would indirectly reduce access to contraception and increase the number of abortions.

The bill would waive individual state coverage requirements for such health care plans. Democrats fear companies will drop contraception coverage if the bill becomes law. doclink

End of "Equity in Prescription and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC)" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4

US Sex Education

It's Not Enough to Just Mention Condoms -- Sex Education Should Be Sex-Positive

   April 22, 2015, RH Reality Check   By: Amanda Marcotte

Early in his administration, Obama stopped the requirement that sex education programs teach that abstinence is the only legitimate way to prevent pregnancy and STI transmission. Some states have resisted, but at least the Federal government no longer requires abstinence only. Still, although "abstinence-only" is fading, most sex education programs still imply that sex is evil and could even kill you.

After reviewing some of the content in her son's sex education class at East Lansing High School, Medical historian Alice Dreger joined friends who wanted her to get involved in school board debates over what exactly would be taught in sex ed classes. Administrators emphasized that they do not teach abstinence-only and that "the curriculum (which was developed by a crisis pregnancy center) also reviews contraception choices." Most parents would settle for that. But Dreger concluded that the sex education she observed was more terror-based than abstinence-based." Abstinence-only educators basically hold to the "don't even think about it" line where contraception is concerned. The victory over that approach had not been as big as she and others had hoped. Based on her account, the current class teaches that sex is a shameful activity, premarital sex is evil, people who do it are dirty, and men and women should adhere to traditional gender roles. The new program was not "abstinence-only," but conservatives were still using "sex ed" to brand kids as failures if they chose to have sex without marriage.

The rebranding effort is not all locally based. Congress is allocating $25 million annually to "risk-avoidance education" based on many real and imagined consequences that are likely to follow premarital sex. This amounts to new packaging for abstinence-only. Amanda Marcotte compares this to schools trying to convince kids that owning a pet is evil by displaying pictures of ugly dog bites, telling sob stories about cat allergies, and playing games where everyone who gets a pet ends up with a serious problem. Even those who survive pet ownership end up sad because their pets will eventually die. Teaching responsible pet ownership should not make kids see pets as evil. The same applies to non-marital or pre-marital sex. Only 62% of Americans own pets, but 95% have premarital sex, and most of them find in it a positive experience. Some people may view that as bad, but most of us do not. Kids need education in responsible sexuality, but overall they should not be given negative attitudes about sex. Sex education should offer a non-slanted fact-based education that allows parents and/or religious leaders to express opinions outside the classroom if they wish.

Most of us don't buy the implication that kids should wait a decade or more until marriage before having sex. We want our young people to grow up looking forward to a future of fun, fulfilling sex, not to teach them that it's a thing that they will probably do but should feel bad about. doclink

Mississippi Wouldn't Allow This Teacher to Show Kids How to Use a Condom. His Simple Solution is Brilliant

   January 22, 2015   By: Julia Lurie

In Mississippi, where education laws require "stressing" abstinence, teachers are prohibited from "any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied." Nonetheless, 76% of Mississippi teenagers report having sex before the end of high school, and a third of babies in the state are born to teenage mothers. One teacher came up with a creative solution for imparting some wisdom to students about condoms -- watch it below. doclink

Listen Up, Legislators: People Want Better Sex Education Than What Many States Require

   January 9, 2015, Huffington Post   By: Rebecca Klein

A majority of U.S. states don't mandate sex education, even though two-thirds of Americans think students should get comprehensive birth control information at school.

Twenty-two% of poll participants who identify as Republican said they think teenagers should only be taught about abstinence, compared with 9% of participants who identify as Democrats. At the same time, 59% of Republicans said they think teenagers should be taught about various methods of birth control. Whites were somewhat more likely than minorities to support comprehensive sex ed. Those who currently have children under the age of 18 were almost twice as likely to say that teenagers should only be taught abstinence.

The poll found that 66% of respondents said they think sex education with information about various forms of contraception is more effective at reducing teen pregnancies than courses providing information on abstinence. This was especially true for respondents who identified as atheists or agnostics. Zero percent of this group reported thinking that courses stressing abstinence would reduce teen pregnancies, compared with 24%of Protestants and 19% of Catholics.
. . . more doclink

U.S.: Sex-Ed Initiative at Heart of House Bill Battle; Focus on Funding for Teen Program

   October 20, 2011, Washington Times

The House bill that would fund the Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal 2012 has a clause that would slash Obama administration's TPP (Teen Pregnancy Prevention) program, now funded at $105 million, and divert half the money to abstinence education.

The Senate version of the bill maintains the new TPP Initiative program, which was created by the Obama administration and a Democrat-led Congress to give grants to organizations to replicate certain "comprehensive" sex-education programs that have been proven to impact teen pregnancy and to replace Bush-era abstinence-education grant programs.

TPP grantees must also conduct research on their programs.

Monica Rodriguez, president and chief executive of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) said the House bill is "problematic and hypocritical." Everyone in Congress is talking about deficit reduction and cost-saving measures, but then they "decimate" the TPP program, which supports programs that work, she said, and divert money to "failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs."

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) said abstinence programs are effective, citing a NAEA report published this year that lists 22 studies - half published since 2008 - that show that abstinence programs can reduce teen sex or affect teen behaviors. Also, federal data show "a dramatic drop" in teen sexual-activity rates since 1996 - the year abstinence-education funding was first expanded, she said.

It is unknown what will happen to the TPP program when the House and Senate bills are merged.

The Senate version - unlike the House draft - also maintains funding for family planning and other public health programs.

The deadline for a decision is Nov. 18, when Congress' temporary spending law expires. doclink

U.S.: Teenage Pregnancies: Growing Pains

   October 8, 2009, Economist

There had been a long, steady fall in U.S. teenage pregnancies, but now a troubling rise has occurred.

From 1991 to 2005 the teen births declined by 34%, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics. But from 2005 to 2007, it crept up 5%. Statistics are not yet available for 2008 and 2009.

Before the Pill, pre 1960, the rate was more than double what it is today. It is below its early-1990s bubble, but the new trend is worrisome.

There are several reasons given by various parties, but abstinence-only and lack of access are two of them.

In Texas, for example, public schools must emphasize abstinence, but although they can use other approaches, few choose to be more comprehensive - 94% of the districts took the abstinence-only approach. Those pamphlets and brochures that bothered to discuss contraceptives were often full of errors, or deliberately misleading. Teens were warned that premarital sex could lead to divorce, suicide, poverty and a disappointed God.

Texas has the third-highest rate of teenage births, after Mississippi and New Mexico. Dallas has the highest rate of repeat teenage births in the country, 28%, and several other Texas cities are in the top ten. Girls in the state under 18 must get parental consent for contraceptives, even if they already have a child.

Federal funding for one abstinence-only programme ended in June so many states and school districts have already abandoned it in favor of a more comprehensive approach. On the other hand, last month the Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment to its health-care bill restoring abstinence-only funds.

While Latina teenagers rates of sexual activity similar to other groups, they have a considerably higher birth rate. The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health says Latina teenagers are less likely to have health-care coverage for contraceptives, and are more likely to lack transport to the free clinics in their cities. doclink

U.S.: Teenagers and Pregnancy

   June 17, 2009

Contraceptive use by sexually active teens has declined by 10% since 2003, while their sexual activity has remained unchanged. This follows increased contraceptive use between 1991 and 2003, according to a new report from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

The authors suggest a link between the shift in use of contraception and abstinence-only sex education programs that deny young people information about sexually transmitted diseases, contraceptives and pregnancy. To the extent these programs even mention condoms, typically it is to disparage their effectiveness.

President Obama's budget plan would direct current funds now devoted to the abstinence-only programs, along with some additional money, to a new teenage pregnancy prevention initiative, with an emphasis on comprehensive sex education.

Hopefully this science-based effort to protect the health of young people and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies should win support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle - and both sides of the abortion divide. doclink

U.S.: Tell Congress to Support President Obama and Help Prevent Teen Pregnancy

   May 12, 2009, Population Connection

Last week, President Obama took a courageous stand on behalf of America 's young people by publicly calling for the elimination of Bush-era abstinence-only programs. These programs were infamous for their use of scare-tactics, offensive stereotypes, and outright lies - and for the fact that over the last 10 years they wasted more than a $1 billion in taxpayer money.

Instead, the president is proposing funding for new, evidence-based interventions to combat teen pregnancy and teach young people healthy decision-making skills.

But the enemies of science have not conceded defeat. Right-wing extremists are flooding the offices of members of Congress with messages demanding that abstinence-only funding be restored. We need you to help make sure that does not happen.

Please take a moment and click above to send a message to your Senators and Representative urging them to support the President's effort to empower young people. Tell them not to give in to the extremists -no money for abstinence-only! doclink

End of "US Sex Education" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


U.S.: The Facts Vs. Fiction on Planned Parenthood

   September 29, 2015, OversightDems

Claim: Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit.

FACTS: The first video released by Daleiden omitted ten instances in which Planned Parenthood's Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, unequivocally stated that Planned Parenthood does not profit from tissue donations

At one point, Dr. Nucatola stated: "obody should be 'selling' tissue. That's just not the goal here." That statement was edited out of the video

A forensic analysis of the so-called "full footage" videos found that they still contain "cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle," and "numerous intentional post-production edits." The analysis found that one of the purported full-footage videos contains "more than 30 minutes of missing video."

The analysis concluded that the videos "cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries" and that even the underlying transcripts are "useless as 'evidence'" because they contain "numerous errors, discrepancies, and omissions."

Get the facts: doclink

U.S.: Hobby Lobby, IUDs, and the Facts

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide later this year whether a corporation can have religious beliefs. Maggie Koerth-Baker looks at the science of birth control, and how it might inform the debate
   April 19, 2014, BoingBoing

Later this year, the US Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the case of Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. - answering whether a corporation can have religious beliefs that enable it to opt out of the mandate requiring company-purchased insurance to cover all forms of birth control.

People like the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that IUDs mostly work by preventing implantation, which is, to them, an abortion. Birth control activists believe that IUDs prevent pregnancy.

An IUDs is a "T' shaped piece of plastic that is inserted by a doctor through a woman's cervix and into her uterus. It can be left there for years. There's nothing to remember, as with the pill or a condom. And fewer than 1 in 100 women will get pregnant in a year while using an IUD, compared to the Pill -- 9 out of 100 -- or a condom -- 18 out of 100.

Dr Horacio Croxatto studied IUDs in rats in 1964 and found that the IUD prevented implantation of the fertilized egg in a rat's uterus. Humans, however, have a different reproductive system. In humans the IUD prevents the egg from fertilizing. When an IUD in a human uterus, the immune system registers it as an intruder and starts to attack and end up killing the majority of sperm that reach the uterus. The effect is even stronger in IUDs made with copper, like ParaGard, because copper ions are also toxic to sperm.

However, IUDs can also prevent implantation, especially if they are used as an emergency contraception - after having sex. But the primary mechanism is to prevent fertilization, not to prevent implantation. doclink

Karen Gaia says: most use an IUD on a long-term basis - killing the sperm before they fertilize the egg. Hobby Lobby supports contraception that acts by preventing fertilization. Thererfore, their case in the Supreme Court should be restricted to only those times that an IUD is used as emergency contraception. Why throw out a methods that works so well in preventing abortions?

U.S.: Religious Groups Challenge Birth Control Coverage Under Obamacare

A federal court in Denver will hear objections to a birth-control rule has been among the most divisive aspects of the Obama administration's health care overhaul. Some advocates for women praise the mandate, but some religious groups have decried it as an attack on religious freedom.
   December 8, 2014, Christian Science Monitor   By: Kristen Wyatt

A group of Colorado nuns called Little Sisters of the Poor, and also four Christian colleges in Oklahoma are already exempt from covering contraceptives under the federal health care law. But they say the exemption doesn't go far enough because they must sign away the coverage to another party, making them feel complicit in providing the contraceptives.

The government will argue that its 2013 rule on religious groups and contraceptives, which requires only that a religious group sign "a self-certification form stating that it is an eligible organization," does not make that religious group complicit in providing contraceptives.

The rule "does not require nonprofit religious organizations with religious objections to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for that coverage," lawyers for the federal government wrote in a 2013 filing.

The nuns' lawyer, Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said the government is free to provide contraception coverage on its own without needing any action at all by the religious institutions. The government wants such coverage to come through the institutions' own plans, he said. doclink

The Catholic Church and Contraception: Revolution...or Evolution?

   October 14, 2014, Huffington Post   By: Robert Walker

A statement recently issued by the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome is being described as an "earthquake" by Church liberals and a "betrayal" by Church conservatives. The statement does not appear very radical with respect to the treatment of gays or divorcees, and the same applies to the nuanced position taken by the Bishops on contraception. It all seems highly tentative, but after decades of rigid orthodoxy, equivocation can sometimes presage a revolution. So is the Catholic Church about to change its position on birth control... or not?

The report emphasized "the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control."

While some members of the Catholic faith may believe that husbands and wives should make no effort to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, that view is not typical. The Church itself has long approved "natural" family planning, otherwise known as the rhythm method. In doing so, the Church appears to endorse the idea that a woman should be able to space or limit her pregnancies. If so, why shouldn't a woman be able to use a more reliable method to achieve the same result?

Polls suggest that the vast majority of Catholic women in the U.S. rely upon a modern method of birth control at some point in their reproductive years.

Yet, despite these poll findings, large numbers of politicians in this country -- whether reliant on Church teachings or not -- are expending an awful lot of moral and political energy on making it harder for women to access a modern method of contraception.

Some of this may be driven by a misdirected anti-abortion zeal, rather than strict opposition to modern methods of birth control, but the practical result is to boost the number of unplanned pregnancies and, by implication, the number of abortions.

If the Vatican does reverse its position on birth control, it may have very little impact on the percentage women in this country who elect to use a modern method of contraception. And the same is true in Europe and in many parts of Latin America. But in a few places, like the Philippines, the Church's opposition to birth control has proven to be a real deterrent, and a reversal could ultimately lead to a substantial increase in contraceptive usage.

If the Church shifts its position on birth control, it will be interesting to see how it would affect the ongoing legal challenges to federally mandated coverage of contraception by employers. In the heavily nuanced words of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, would the employer "need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control"? doclink

Decades After Birth Control Became Legal, It's Still Controversial

Five places in America where contraception is still a scary subject
   June 6, 2014, Rolling Stone   By: Robin Marty

Nearly a half-century after the Supreme Court legalized birth control, conservatives are still fighting to restrict access to contraception.

Over 49 years ago the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut legalized the use of birth control devices for married couples, and within six years, singles gained the same right. Now that people have been using pills, IUDs, patches and injections legally for almost half a century, we might assume the right of people to buy these products. But in several U.S. places, that assumption is wrong. A number of high-profile Americans still think that you and I should have no right to prevent pregnancy by artificial means. What's more, some who think that way have influence over some of our laws and lives. For example, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia openly challenges Griswold. To him the decision implies that married couples have a right to privacy in the bedroom. Our constitution grants "no generalized right to privacy," Scalia told Fox News when asked about Griswold in a 2012 interview.

Getting birth control in a clinical setting has become more challenging due to a growing crusade to defund and close Planned Parenthood and other providers. Last April an entire Oklahoma town nearly lost all legal access to hormonal contraception (birth control) after the city medical center required physicians to stop offering it. Although that decision was overturned; based on personal religious or moral values, anyone having power in a hospital or clinic may use a "conscience clause" to challenge your access to birth control. These new bills say that neither doctors nor clinic managers have any obligation to provide birth control or help you find it.

Salinas (CA) County Commissioners rejected grant money for an IUD program, calling the use of IUDs "murder." Although IUDs have nothing to do with abortion, during the funding debate, Commissioner John Price said that using IUDs would be the same in God's eyes as aborting the kids. "The commission stated it may reconsider, but has yet to accept the grant - although preventing unwanted accidental pregnancies saves money by reducing abortion requests and birth-related health care costs and services.

Two influential groups, the American Life League (ALL) and Personhood USA (P-USA), are dedicated to fighting legal contraception. Calling sex without a desire to create life the "contraceptive mentality," ALL says that it threatens marriage, parenting, proper gender dynamics and our entire civilization's moral fiber. To portray it as a medical issue, they sponsored "The Pill Kills," a decade-old anti-Griswold campaign online and in front of reproductive health clinics across the country. ALL claims hormonal contraception instigates such physical complications as strokes, breast cancer, heart attacks and death, as if being pregnant and giving birth every year or two has no harmful effects.

P-USA sponsors changes to our laws. When a "personhood" amendment goes on a state ballot, its backers claim granting legal rights at the moment of fertilization has no impact on hormonal birth control. However, some Mississippi P-USA advocates admit to reporters that it will. They told Irin Carmon in 2011 that passing the amendment would ban hormonal contraption and IUDs. Although some P-USA supporters have said this goes too far, the movement none-the-less backs a referendum that will extend its war on contraception to North Dakota. doclink

Art says: I wonder if Judge Scalia has been troubled by the fact that the Constitution never specifically granted him (or us either for that matter) the right to go to the bathroom.

Is This Catholic Hospital in Oklahoma Trying to Prevent Women From Getting Birth Control?

   April 1, 2014, Slate   By: Amanda Marcotte

Off-the-record sources recently reported that management at the Jane Phillips Medical Center told doctors affiliated with the hospital that they could no longer prescribe birth control. There is only one OB-GYN in town who does not work with the hospital.

The broad medical consensus based on actual science and evidence is that contraception is a necessary part of women's health care. The American Medical Association affirms, in its ethical guidelines, "policies supporting responsibility to the patient as paramount in all situations and the principle of access to medical care for all people."

Catholic organizations like St. John want to replace sound medical judgment with a bunch of rules concocted by theologians. It's all good and well to have private beliefs about the sinfulness of contraception, but for the sake of clarity and patient protection, those in the business of providing health care should abide by standard medical ethics. And those ethics include making contraception simple for patients to get, not putting a bunch of confusing obstacles out there for patients and doctors to navigate. doclink

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans Say Health Plans Should Cover Birth Control

   April 22, 2014, Los Angeles Times   By: Karen Kaplan

One of the most controversial provisions of the Affordable Care Act is the one requiring health insurance providers to include coverage for contraception. The results of a new survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA) demonstrated that 69% of Americans agreed that "health plans in the United States should be required to include coverage" for "birth control medications."

Women, African Americans, Latinos and parents living with children under the age of 18 had higher levels of support for mandatory contraception coverage than people in other demographic groups.

However, all of the other services asked about in the JAMA report were more popular than birth control. For example, 85% of those surveyed supported mandatory coverage for mammograms and colonoscopies, 77% backed the provision on mandatory coverage for mental health care, and 75% supported mandatory coverage of dental care, including routine cleanings.

Also 7.8% of those surveyed said they thought employers who offered health insurance should be required to cover every item on the list except for birth control. Those having this opinion were more likely to be male, over the age of 60 and not be living with kids under the age of 18.

Hospitals, universities and other organizations run by religious nonprofits are not required to offer coverage for birth control and can opt out and allow their employees to obtain contraceptives directly from health insurance carriers.

In addition, lawyers for for-profit Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. recently argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that the chain should not be forced to pay for birth control that violate the religious beliefs of the evangelical Christian family that controls the company. A decision in the case is expected by the end of June. doclink

End of "Contraception" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Other Federal Funding, Programs and Policies

Ensure Access to Birth Control--tell Congress to Pass the Abc Act

   September 27, 2010

Recently the FDA approved a new, more effective emergency contraceptive called Ensure. Quick to react, the Family Research Council started a new campaign to "encourage" pharmacists to refuse to dispense the new drug. Not surprising since they are doing the same thing with all birth control. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-14th/NY) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) have introduced the Access to Birth Control Act (ABC Act--H.R. 5309/S. 3357) in the U.S. House and Senate.

This Act simply requires pharmacists to fill valid prescriptions for contraception and to dispense over-the-counter emergency contraception when asked, or to provide a referral to another store. Pharmacists do not have a right to interfere with a woman's private medical decisions, or to substitute their moral judgment for hers.

Click on the headline above to send a message to your Members of Congress: co-sponsor and support the passage of the Access to Birth Control Act. doclink

Why Sustainability Activists Should Consider Florida's Population Stabilization the Greatest Opportunity of Their Lifetimes

   September 2009, Joe Bush - New England Coalition for Sustainable Population

When Florida reported that the Sunshine State had experienced population stabilization during the last year, it did not take long for a chorus of sustainability ignoramuses to bray that the sky was falling.

But to those concerned with how the United States and the international community are going to adopt sustainable economic models, Florida's situation offers the rarest of opportunities. If sustainability activists do not bravely and boisterously explain why Florida's population stabilization is the most wonderful moment in history, they can expect to see their cause suffer badly.

A New York Times report on the situation was peppered with so much pro-growth propaganda you get the sense the author is a shareholder in many Floridian development firms.

"Florida, in particular, was not built for emptying, ..."The end of double digit growth ", by all accounts, a life lived under capacity." Stanley Smith, a professor at the University of Florida blurts in the article that "You have a state that has been a leader in population growth for the last 100 years that suddenly has seen a substantial shift."

To Smith, a 0.3% decline of residents (after gaining 88% since 1980 and 3456% since 1900) is "sudden", "dramatic" and "substantial".

Florida's population stabilization represents an unforeseen opportunity for environmentalists, ecological economists, steady-state economists, small government advocates, land preservationists, wildlife protectors, and entrepreneurs of all sorts the chance to explain to Floridians and the rest of the world why population stabilization is the best thing that could happen to a state. It is important to understand the limits of the regenerative capacity of the state's renewable resources, and the implementation of a sustainable economic policy that efficiently keeps overall consumption within the state's natural carrying capacity without degrading Florida's environment any further. Hopefully as time moves on, the economy can be geared towards rehabilitating the damage already done to Florida's environment. doclink

U.S.: New Rules Would Threaten Right to Contraceptives

   July 17, 2008, Planet Wire

Reproductive health advocates were outraged by reports that the administration plans to require recipients of federal health programs to hire people who object to abortion and many kinds of birth control.

The report said the draft change in rules would require hospitals, clinics, researchers, medical schools and state and local governments to sign "written certifications" of non-discrimination against such applicants. The proposal would define "abortion" as "any of the various procedures that results in the termination of the life of a human being between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." doclink

Karen Gaia says: we saw this coming. Religious conservatives will not be happy until women can no longer prevent pregnancies except by abstinence. Barrier methods will come under attack after contraceptives are banned.

Anti-Birth Control Advocate Keroack is Gone!

   Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Anti-birth control advocate Eric Keroack will no longer oversee the nation's family planning program! The day he took office, Planned Parenthood rallyed a groundswell of opposition to his appointment.

PPFA President Cecile Richards issued a statement: Keroack was unqualified to run the nation's family planning program. The Bush administration must replace Keroack with a legitimate, mainstream public health expert who supports family planning and access to birth control. doclink

Church Bars Raped Women From Pill

   January 11, 2007, The Australian

Under church policy, sexually assaulted women who seek help at Catholic hospitals cannot be referred to centres that supply morning-after pills.

Another fertility centre has been told to move out by the Catholic buyers of the hospital where it is based. Catholic Health Australia, says direct referral of raped women to centres that offer the morning-after pill "should only occur if steps have been taken to exclude pregnancy".

Catholic spokesmen defended the policy as a logical and ethical extension of the church's opposition to the morning-after pill,. But Melbourne GP and medical broadcaster Sally Cockburn said she was "blown out of the water" when she read the policy. "They have no right to make us follow their point of view. The NSW Rape Crisis Centre, said it was standard practice for a raped woman to be offered the morning-after pill.

Catholic-controlled health organisations control more than 70 hospitals in Australia. Canberra's John James Hospital bought by a Catholic-controlled organisation had begun withdrawing services to the Canberra Fertility Centre, which was based on its premises.

Catholic organisations ran 21 public hospitals around the nation they would have to follow the ethics policy.

Health workers in Catholic hospitals "are not prevented from giving information" about abortion, the morning-after pill or any other treatment. Staff are not permitted to directly refer women to abortion services.

Bishop Anthony Fisher said the ban was a logical extension of the church's position on use of the morning-after pill. doclink

US Missouri: Senator Proposes Banning Most Abortions

   March 2, 2006, Associated Press

Sen. Crowell filed a bill Wednesday that would generally ban abortions in Missouri except to prevent a woman's death. Violation of the law would face a sentence of five to 15 years in prison. Last week, South Dakota voted to allow the procedure only to save a woman's life and the Gov. is inclined to sign the bill. Crowell hopes his measure reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. Crowell also filed to change the state constitution to prohibit abortion and said the Roe v. Wade decision was wrong, and urged lawmakers to join him to protect the sanctity of unborn life. Abortion supporters vowed to fight the bill. The Missouri Legislature has an anti-abortion majority and has enacted restrictions to the procedure over the years. Last year they passed a measure allowing parents to sue people who help their minor daughters get an abortion without their consent. It also requires doctors who perform abortions to have clinical privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion takes place. doclink

New Hope, New Dread; FDA, Safety and Politics Enmeshed

   January 22, 2006, USA Today

In an e-mail to FDA staff, Commissioner Lester Crawford said that, at 67, it was time to resign. Crawford's tenure was marked by controversy: The withdrawal of Vioxx and Bextra. The FDA told makers of two silicone-gel breast implants that they can market their products as soon as they answer remaining questions. Opponents said the companies haven't studied patients long enough to prove the devices are safe. Some members of Congress held up Crawford's confirmation because the FDA had not yet allowed Plan B emergency contraception to be sold over-the-counter. Opponents charged that politics trumped science. The head of the FDA's women's health office quit in protest. The Accountability Office called the FDA's Plan B decision-making process "unusual." After Crawford resigned, the Bush administration named Andrew von Eschenbach of the National Cancer Institute to be acting FDA commissioner. Skeptics questioned the potential conflicts of interest in von Eschenbach holding two jobs, so he went on a leave of absence from the cancer institute. doclink

End of "Other Federal Funding, Programs and Policies" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4

States, Provinces and Regions

Ohio Republicans Want To Ban Sex Ed Classes From Talking About 'Gateway Sexual Activity'

   April 17, 2013, Think Progress

Under an amendment proposed by Republicans in Ohio's legislative House, sex ed classes wouldn't be permitted to provide students with any information that might "condone" gateway activity. That includes dispensing contraception. Gateway activity is described as "sexual contact" ; that is, "any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast." The legislation would also empower parents to sue if their children end up receiving this type of sexual instruction, and sex ed teachers could be subject to thousands of dollars in fines:

The legislation would also empower parents to sue if their children end up receiving this type of sexual instruction, and sex ed teachers could be subject to thousands of dollars in fines:

It goes on to prohibit distributing certain materials, conducting demonstrations with "sexual stimulation" devices, or distributing contraception.

If a student receives such instruction, a parent or guardian can sue for damages, and a court may impose a civil fine of up to $5,000.

Last year, Tennessee Republicans pushed to strengthen their state's abstinence-only law by defining kissing and hand-holding as gateway activities that could lead teens to engage in sexual intercourse. Whether or not U.S. teenagers are taught abstinence in their health classes, most of them still become sexually active. By their 19th birthday, 70% of American teens will have had sex.

Abortion opponents in Ohio also successfully pushed for an amendment to the legislation that would defund the state's Planned Parenthood clinics, and reallocate those family planning dollars to right-wing "crisis pregnancy centers" that don't actually provide the same kind of health services.

The provisions will head to a full House vote later this week. doclink

U.S.: State Policy Trends 2013: Abortion Bans Move to the Fore

   April 11, 2013, Guttmacher Institute

In the first three months of this year state legislatures introduced 694 provisions related to reproductive health and rights. 93 have been approved by at least one legislative body.

About half of these seek to restrict access to abortion, most of them seeking to ban abortion outright. 14 states introduced provisions seeking to ban abortion prior to viability. All of these proposals are in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions which allow abortions up until viability.

Legislators in 10 states have introduced proposals that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions. In eight of those states (AL, IA, MS, ND, OK, SC, VA and WA), legislators have proposed defining "personhood" as beginning at conception; if adopted, these measures would ban most, if not all, abortions. In CO, FL, IA and ND, legislators introduced measures that would ban abortion except in very limited circumstances, such as when the woman's life is endangered or in cases of rape or incest; none have passed a legislative chamber.

Arkansas and North Dakota have already enacted legislation this year banning nearly all abortions beginning at some point in the first trimester of pregnancy; similar measures have been introduced in KS, KY, MS and WY.

Legislation to ban abortions at 20 weeks postfertilization was enacted in Arkansas and is pending in nine other states (IA, IL, KY, MD, ND, OR, TX, VA and WV). These bans are patterned after a 2010 Nebraska law that has already served as the model for such laws in eight other states, two of which are enjoined pending legal challenges because they prohibit abortion prior to viability.

Eight states (AL, AR, IA, IN, MO, MS, NC and TX) have introduced provisions to restrict medication abortion. If adopted, these restrictions threaten U.S. trend toward very early abortion.

Seven states already ban telemedicine for prescribing medication abortion.

On the other hand, two states, Colorado and Hawaii, were poised at the end of March to enact legislation expanding access to comprehensive sex education; if enacted, it would be the first time since 2010 that any state has done so. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Person-hood restrictions leave the door open to ban contraception.

Possible Fed Cuts Could Shut Down Women Reproductive Health Services in Alaska

   February 21, 2011, KTVA-11 (Alaska)

Cuts are proposed for the federal budget that will remove funds used for reproductive health care, and additional programs for low-income women.

With the U.S. House already voting to remove funding for things like cancer screenings and birth control from family planning programs like Planned Parenthood and others, the push is on for the Senate to follow course.

Some say this decision is a plain and simple a direct attack on low-income women's only chance for health care.

Upcoming votes on Capitol Hill could determine if family planning services will be eliminated in Alaska.

Clover Simon, the vice president of Planned Parenthood of Alaska said: "Primarily it's cancer screening, it's pelvic exams, breast screenings, birth control services." ... "Without that funding we would no longer be able to provide those services to women." doclink

U.S.: New Jersey Gov. Eliminates Family Planning Funding From State Budget

   June 23, 2010, Parsippany Daily Record

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and the Democrat-controlled Legislature reached an agreement on a fiscal 2011 budget that includes a $7.5 million cut to family planning centers. If the budget is approved, 58 family planning centers will no longer receive state funding, which accounts for about 25% of their budgets.

State Senate President Stephen Sweeny (D) criticized the elimination of the family planning funding, noting that it would decrease the amount of federal money the state receives. New Jersey receives $9 for every $1 spent on family planning, according to Sweeny.

The issue "is not about abortion but about women's health," Sweeny said, "And the governor is going to sacrifice women's health and throw away $9 for every dollar. Sweeny said Democrats would try to pass a supplemental spending bill with the family planning funding. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Preventing unplanned pregnancies will save the state of N.J. much more than it would spend on family planning.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the California Special Session Budget

   March 29, 2010, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (Northern Calif)

The California State Legislature started in January 2010 with an estimated $20 billion deficit. The governor's budget proposed elimination of California's - Family Planning Access Care and Treatment - if the federal government did not give $6.9 billion in relief. This "triggering" to eliminate Family PACT was a new threat to our ongoing efforts to protect access to family planning for California women.

PACT is the state's family planning program that provides breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception, pregnancy and STD testing and treatment for nearly 1.7 million Californians every year. Planned Parenthood's advocacy mantra is "9 to 1" - for every $1 the state spends, the federal government adds $9 more.

Family PACT has saved California over $2 billion since its inception and has enabled us to meet the increased demand during these challenging economic times.

Fortunately California's revenues began a modest increase - primarily due to growth in the stock market that generated capital gain taxes. Buoyed by the modest increase in revenues, the Legislature decided to wait until the "May revise" when the governor presents his next budget that will include the April tax revenues.

Funding for access to our preventive services survived the budget cuts once again. But, uncertainties in our economy remain. Unemployment rates continue to depress the budget outlook.

Because we know how vital it is for women to have access to contraception, we must watch the budget process closely and be prepared to call upon our supporters to advocate for continued access to family planning services for all low-income Californians. doclink

California Congresswoman Lois Capps on Birth Control

   December 2008, Bill Denneen / Lois Capps

Letter to constituant from Congresswoman Lois Capps:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concern for the high cost of birth control. I appreciate hearing from you regarding this important issue.

You will be pleased to know we are in complete agreement. I am a proud co-sponsor of the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act (H.R. 4054) which would allow drug companies to again offer college clinics and safety net healthcare providers a significantly discounted rate on birth control purchases. As you know, this reduced price allowed providers to offer low cost birth control to their patients who often cannot afford to pay full price for contraceptives.

H.R. 4054 corrects a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that went into effect this year that mistakenly prevented drug companies from continuing to offer discounted birth control.

As a result, many college clinics can no longer afford to provide birth control to their students. For student health centers and other clinics that still offer birth control, the prices have increased astronomically from an average of $5 to nearly $50 per month. I am very concerned the increased costs have made it more difficult for many women to obtain safe and effective birth control.

I firmly believe that students should NOT (edited) have to pay such a steep price for a bureaucratic oversight. Women who can't afford birth control should not be made to suffer the consequences of an unintended pregnancy. I hope this bill moves quickly through the legislative process so we restore access to safe, effective and affordable birth control for women across the country. doclink

State of Washington - Legislative Funds for Reproductive Care Services

   January 2008, Planned Parenthood Washington

The final supplemental Washington State budget included $5 million for reproductive health care services!

Family planning advocates originally requested $8 million to ensure family planning services for the low-income Washingtonians and consider $5 million in a victory.

Securing new funding at all in a supplemental budget year is a challenge. Legislators also faced decreasing revenue forecasts. Including $5 million for family planning is a tribute to family planning advocates who spoke up on the importance of reproductive health care. doclink

End of "States, Provinces and Regions" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Policy Makers

If Pope Francis Really Wanted to Fight Climate Change, He'd Be a Feminist

The world will never be healed of its ecological ills as long as women cannot control their fertility.
   September 9, 2015, Nation (US)   By: Katha Pollitt

Although he is against inequality, racism, poverty, bigotry, rampant capitalism and "self-centred culture of instant gratification" -- including excessive meat eating -- that fuel climate change and may well destroy the planet -- and, even though he has just announced a special year in which any priest may absolve a woman for having an abortion, as long as she is "contrite" -- Pope Francis still has nothing to say about the gender inequality that shores up and promotes our onrushing disaster.

The world, unlike Vatican City, is half women. It will never be healed of its economic, social, and ecological ills as long as women cannot control their fertility or the timing of their children; are married off in childhood or early adolescence; are barred from education and decent jobs; have very little socioeconomic or political power or human rights; and are basically under the control -- often the violent control­­ -- of men.

Because of the association of population growth with coercion, racism, and doomsday predictions that failed to materialize, it's hard for progressives to talk about overpopulation. But since 2000 we've added around 1.2 billion, roughly equivalent to the entire population of North America and Europe, which is expected to bring us to around 9.6 billion people by around 2050.

How can we take the pope seriously if he refuses to see overpopulation and how it affects everything: climate change, species loss, pollution, deforestation, the struggle for clean water, housing, work, and sufficient food. How can we take the pope seriously if he refuses to face these facts?

He blames only excess consumption by the privileged and says that international campaigns for reproductive health are really all about population control and the imposition of foreign values on the developing world -- as if the church itself was not a foreign power using its might to restrict reproductive rights in those same places. There are billions of people who want to rise above the backbreaking farm labor in a poor village with no electricity or running water -- and those desires can only be satisfied if people have fewer children, which happens to be what they want anyway.

True, Pope Francis did say that Catholics needn't breed "like rabbits," but only if they used natural family planning. The Philippines -- where he made that comment, and where the powerful church hierarchy has fought against realistic sex education and government funding of contraception -- has the highest fertility rate among the 10 countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Pope Francis is all for fighting climate change, but a recent report from the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health says that providing family planning to the 225 million women around the world who want it but can't get it could meet 16 to 29% of the necessary decrease in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Wouldn't meeting a desire that women already have be more likely to succeed than turning the world vegetarian or keeping the new middle classes in China and India from buying cars and taking vacations?

Educating girls, keeping women in the workforce, and providing good healthcare for women and children are also important human-rights goals that would reduce the number of children a woman has.

As climate change heats up, it's women who will bear the brunt of it, because they are the majority of the world's poor. In the developing world, they'll be contending with drought, food shortages, flooding, and forced migration, along with increases in the usual brutalities like rape, violence, trafficking, and war. To deny them the ability to control how many kids they bring into the world under such circumstances, is to condemn millions of women to the desperation that the pope says he wants to prevent. doclink

Speaker at Vatican Climate Change Rollout Said Earth Was Overpopulated at 6 Billion

   June 14, 2015, Newsmax

Hans Schellnhuber, a climate scientist who spoke when Pope Francis unveiled his climate change encyclical on June 18, once said the world is overpopulated by 6 billion people.

Schellnhuber is the Founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Chairman of the German Advisory Council on Global Change. He once called for an Earth Constitution that would transcend the U.N. Charter and a "Global Council ... elected by all the people on Earth" and a "Planetary Court ... with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution."

At the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, Schellnhuber said: "In a very cynical way, it's a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something - namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people." He also said that if greenhouse gas buildup caused a rise of 9° F of global temperatures, six billion people would die and much life on earth would be threatened.

Skeptics of man-made climate change have critical concern about the encyclical, in part due to Schellnhuber's role. But many on the left hoped Pope Francis' encyclical would link the global warming fight to religious obligation, notes. With Schellnhuber, one of the world's most aggressive climate change scientists, the left may be getting what it hopes for. doclink

Art says: Other population writers (e.g., Ehrlich and Weisman) have estimated the Earth's sustainable carrying capacity in the range of 2-3 billion people.

The Party of Rape Culture: 40 Republican Rape Quotes We All Should Remember in November

   July 6, 2013, Addicting Info   By: Stephen D. Foster Jr

Texas Gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams, in March, 1990, said, "Rape is kinda like the weather. It's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."

Pennsylvanian Stephen Frieind said, "When the traumatic experience is undergone, a woman secretes a certain secretion, which has the tendency to kill sperm."

Phyllis Schafly argues that once having gotten married, the female has essentially "consented to sex."

Talk show host Bill O'Reilly argues that women who dress scantily have it coming to them.

In all, forty very shocking revelations from a congress that the American people elected.

. . . more doclink

Women's Rights Activist Sandra Fluke Heads to Calif. General Election

   June 4, 2014, OnPolitics   By: Catalina Camia

Women's rights activist Sandra Fluke took second place behind fellow Democrat Ben Allen in her primary race for the state Senate seat currently held by of Ted Lieu in Southern California. California's primary rules allow the top two vote-getters to move on to the Nov. 4 general election, even though both, in this case, are Democrats.

Fluke gained national fame in 2012 as a Georgetown University law student when Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and a "prostitute" on his radio show for her support of President Obama's health care law (Limbaugh later apologized). Republicans had blocked Fluke from testifying at a congressional hearing in support of contraceptive coverage by insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act. Fluke went on to become a featured speaker at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte and campaigned for Obama. doclink

U.S.: Paul Ryan:The Threat to Women Doubled

   August 14, 2012, NARAL Pro-Choice America

Recently, Mitt Romney announced his choice for his vice presidential running mate: outspoken anti- choice Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin.

Ryan cast 59 anti-choice votes on abortion and other reproductive rights issues in the U.S. House of Representatives. He repeatedly voted for and cosponsored the Federal Abortion Ban, a law that criminalizes some abortion services, endangers women's health, and carries a two-year prison sentence for doctors.

"I'm as pro-life as a person gets. You're not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they're unavoidable, and I'm never going to not vote pro-life," he said

If elected on November 6, there is no doubt that Ryan will work with Mitt Romney the day after the inauguration to:

* Defund Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation

* Eliminate the Title X family-planning program, which provides mammograms and cancer screenings to low-income individuals

* Deny women in the military -- who defend our freedom overseas -- the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals

* Pass legislation to effectively ban abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges

*Allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care, even when a woman's life is in danger

With nothing to stand in the way of the extreme Romney-Ryan agenda, we could lose the protection of Roe v. Wade, women's health and lives will be at risk -- and anti-choice zealots could wipe out decades' worth of reproductive rights we've fought so hard to win.

We need to knock on every door, make every call, and sound the warning bell to every pro-choice voter we can find. If we can get them to the polls, we can defeat anti-choice politicians running across the country and continue with all our important grassroots and advocacy work to ensure the right to privacy. doclink

U.S.: Candidates on Contraception

   February 17, 2012, WOA!! website - Karen Gaia Pitts


One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's okay. Contraception's okay."

It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also , but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it-and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong-but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most Presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.

Ron Paul:

Last year, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress that would allow states to ban contraception if they choose.

Paul's "We the People Act," which he introduced in 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2011, explicitly forbids federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States from ruling on the constitutionality of a variety of state and local laws. That includes, among other things, "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction." The bill would let states write laws forbidding abortion, the use of contraceptives, or consensual gay sex, for example.

Ron Paul is not a true Libertarian. He is anti-abortion and anti-contraception.

As Ayn Rand said: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Too bad, I like his other ideals. But if he is going to twist this one ideal, who knows what he will do with the others. It is not so simple after all.

There is no way he is going to win this one. 98% of American women have used or are using contraception, and that includes 97% of Catholic women. How would you like it if you were forced, by law, to preserve all of your sperm? That's where the Mississippi Personhood law is headed.


Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich acknowledged on Thursday that his support for a "fetal personhood" constitutional amendment would make some forms of birth control illegal.

Earlier in the week, the candidate had signed a pledge (PDF) from the group Personhood USA that declared he would "support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children."

At a campaign event in Fort Dodge, Iowa Thursday, a young woman asked Gingrich what this meant for birth control.


Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Fox News host Mike Huckabee this weekend that he would support an amendment to his state's constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would outlaw abortion and potentially many forms of contraception as well. Noting that the state supreme court forced the inclusion of abortion coverage in Romney's universal health care law, the GOP presidential front-runner said the only way to undo the decision would be a constitutional amendment. Asked if he would support such a move, Romney replied, "absolutely":

HUCKABEE: Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established definition of life beginning of life at conception?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

Texas Governor Perry

Perry has taken large amounts of funding away from Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides most of the birth control to low-income individuals. Whether or not you think the poor deserve free birth control, it is very poor use of public funds to limit access to pregnancy prevention while spending much larger amounts to pay for Medicaid births. doclink

U.S.: Medical Panel Recommends No-Cost Birth Control

   July 19, 2011, NPR

if Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius accepts the recommendations released today the Institute of Medicine (IoM), health insurance plans may soon have to offer prescription contraception at no upfront cost to women.

In addition to contraception, the study calls for eight additional services for women to be added to the list of preventive care patients should be offered with no cost-sharing. The new services include annual "well-woman" visits; screening of pregnant women for gestational diabetes; screening for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV; more support for breast-feeding mothers; and counseling and screening for possible domestic violence.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that 98%of sexually active women will use contraception at some point during their reproductive years, and that cost concerns are frequently cited as a reason for inconsistent use or use of a less then optimal method. Guttmacher said in testimony submitted to the IoM: "Women citing cost concerns were twice as likely as other women to rely on condoms or less effective methods like withdrawal or periodic abstinence."

The IoM panel was firm in rejecting claims by opponents, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that "to prevent pregnancy is not to prevent a disease."

"Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy, the panel wrote. "Unintended pregnancy also increases the risk of babies being born preterm or at a low birth weight, both of which raise their chances of health and developmental problems," it noted.

A PBS article, "Women Should Get Free Birth Control" said: "the highly influential IOM report recommends that all U.S.-approved birth control methods be covered by insurers. That includes the controversial 'morning-after' or 'Plan B' pill that is considered by some to be a form of abortion because the woman takes it in the hours after sexual intercourse. "

"The IOM's recommendation to include all FDA contraceptive methods as a critical preventative service-without cost sharing-and to cover the patient education and counseling necessary to ensure each woman can choose the method best for her, is a critical step in empowering all women to plan their pregnancies," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.

But from the opponent's side: "Several drugs have been approved by the FDA to be legally categorized as 'emergency contraceptives,' despite functioning in ways that can destroy a preborn baby before or after implanting in the mother's womb," said Jeanne Monahan of the conservative Family Research Council. "A federal mandate to all insurance plans to include drugs such as ella essentially would mandate coverage for abortion. Inclusion of contraceptives also undermines conscience protections that President Obama promised would be maintained." doclink

Karen Gaia Says: Encourage Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius to accept these recommendations. See below

End of "Policy Makers" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6

Policy Makers

When Environmental Writers Are Part of the Problem

   July 11, 2007, Op Ed News

Something's missing in today's environmental discussion. Environmental writers are telling us half the story. It's the universal tendency to focus on cutting fossil fuel use while staying mum on the topic of population growth.

The energy consumption for the world is the product of population size multiplied by the average per capita energy use and reflects both the level of consumption and the efficiency with which resources are used.

The growth of the global population is a root cause of ecological degradation, including climate change. Yet statements to that effect get little traction in the mainstream media. We hear about the need to switch to florescent light bulbs. We read about the ethanol debate and carbon trading schemes. But in all the talk of ways of reducing consumption, how often does anyone mention the need to address the other factor? In today's environmental writing, population growth is the elephant in the room.

Why the silence? Population growth received a good deal of attention in the 1960s and 1970s. But then came China's one child policy, right wing groups pushing capitalism by growth and dismissing the need to limit our numbers, and political wrangling among groups, all seeking the spotlight for their own issues. The result was the demotion of population from its status as social and environmental issue number one.

A staff writer at Grist made it clear he recognizes that to reduce humanity's ecological footprint to a sustainable level we'll need to deal with the population problem. Yet he acknowledged he never writes on the subject because, "Talking about population alienates a large swathe of the general public. It is political poison."

What's better, truth or avoidance?

Though they do so too infrequently and too quietly, a variety of groups and occasional writers in periodicals grapple with it. And there's no evidence their work has set back the environmental cause. They identify population growth as a problem because it's the truth, and they know bringing people the truth is productive while avoiding it is ultimately damaging.

Addressing population growth means taking humane measures to assist with the social and economic issues which drive it. Improving education for girls and economic opportunities for women in developing countries. Increasing access to family planning and encouraging positive attitudes toward smaller families.

There is almost universal recognition that population is a problem needing more attention. Environmentalists who avoid the subject of population are fretting over arguments found only among other writers.

A major report from the input of scores of scientists, asserted that the last decade of neglect of the population issue had seriously hindered environmental and social causes. We need to correct this. Environmental writers who have avoided the subject of population should rethink their stance. Let's embrace truth, not avoidance. doclink

End of "Policy Makers" section pg ... Go to page 1 2


U.K.: London Summit: a Compilation of Commitments

   September 17, 2012, International Planned Parenthood Federation

The London Summit on Family Planning held in July harvested commitments from organisations and nations which enabled it to easily overshoot that $2.3 billion target. The Summary of Commitments from the UK Department of International Development reported that commitments came from 10 donor countries, 6 foundations, 19 developing countries, 21 civil society groups, 3 multi-lateral partnerships, and 1 private sector company.

The goal of the summit was to raise sufficient donor funds to meet the unmet need for contraception of 120 million women worldwide by 2020. This would require an extra $4.3 billion injected into family planning programs over the next 8 years. Of that $4.3 billion, $2.3 billion would be provided by donors.

In summary, the world is putting its money where its mouth is, taking Sexual and Reproductive Health seriously, and placing it at the center of the development agenda.

The Summary of Commitments incorporates International Planned Parenthood Federation's (IPPF) own commitment to treble the number of women's and girls' lives saved each year by 2020.

With increased capacity, increased funding, and strengthened service delivery systems, IPPF aims to save the lives of 54,000 women and girls, avert 46 million unintended pregnancies, and prevent 12.4 million unsafe abortions by 2020. The federation will also triple its services to young people by 2020, and make commodities more affordable. doclink

U.S.: Book Review: "Margaret Sanger: a Life of Passion"

   August 3, 2012, Population Connection

Jean H. Baker's biography "Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion" rejects the narrow-mindedness that has characterized many previous Sanger biographies and instead focuses on Margaret Sanger's life as a whole - her flaws and missteps yes, but also her determination, intelligence, and steadfast commitment to improving the lives of millions of women and their families.

Sanger's view on reproductive rights and fight for universal access to birth control (as well as her controversial teachings on safe sex, child bearing and maternal health) made her a frequent target of those on the religious right. But words like "eugenicist" and "egotistical" have been allowed to mar her story and deter from her accomplishments.

Margaret Sanger was the 6th daugher of poor parents in Corning, N.Y., who watched her mother endure five more pregnancies before succumbing to tuberculosis at a young age. She trained as a nurse in what became New York's Lower East Side, helping young women deliver child after child, many of whom could not afford to feed their growing families and begged for the "secret" of pregnancy prevention.

Sanger, in a campaign to fight the injustice of inavailability of pregnancy prevention, wrote books, gave speeches, opened the first women's health clinics in the U.S., and ultimately spawned a birth control movement that would expand around the world.

She was bold and ruthless, difficult to befriend and often turned away potential collaboration. She ignored the contributions of her co-workers, and left her children for long stretches of time, preferring a life of travel and activism to the comforts and responsibilities of home. But she was effective.

Born into a world where sex and pregnancy were rarely discussed (much less sex for pleasure and pregnancy by choice) Sanger lived to see the historic creation of the birth control pill and the declaration of birth control as a constitutional right.

Margaret Sanger, then, was not the perfectly packaged hero we read about in historical textbooks, nor the demon described by the right. In "Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion," we have the unique opportunity to see the activist as she really was: bold, ruthless, compassionate, flawed. And that, I think, is pretty cool. doclink

The People Problem: Are There Too Many of Us?

   March 1, 2012

Jane Turville is making a documentary film series called 'The People Problem' to educate the people in the environmental and sustainability communities who view population growth through a very narrow, specific lens that doesn't allow for an inclusive discussion. 'Stop having kids' seems to be their only solution. The other reason for making the series is that those of us who are interested in exploring population growth, don't know or can't relate to the many issues involved, so we have problems even starting a broader discussion.

Why don't people well-versed in sustainability issues feel as comfortable talking about the number of people on the planet as they do about ending oil dependence or shopping locally? We think over-population is an issue, but to talk about it feels like we somehow support forcing people to give up basic human rights. And, face it, telling someone they can't have kids IS impinging on the basic human right to choose the size of one's family.

The majority of the information on population out there is very good and very compelling, but despite all of the data, stories and programs, Jane couldn't figure out very easily exactly how all of this related to her - a white gal, living in a small city in America, trying to live more sustainably. The hole in the information is "how does it apply to me."

Last year, she decided to make a film. It is a four-part series that will be marketed to public broadcasting stations in North America as well as international venues. Material from the four-hour series will also be used to create a 90-minute documentary suitable for public screenings and film festivals. The goal is to broadcast the film in Spring 2015.

Many ideas float around regarding over-population. Everything from remaining childless for the sake of the planet, placing limits on health access for seniors, and building walls to eliminate immigration. All of these ideas have one thing in common. They all diminish personal choice. Most of us (including myself) value the freedom to choose your own destiny as a basic human right. Yet, people fear that talking about population growth is, in fact, a discussion on the removal of this basic human right.

Most population information is presented through numbers, charts and graphs. While the information is compelling, it's really hard to take data presented in this form and apply it to yourself. So, it's easy to conclude that it's someone else's issue and that responsibility lies elsewhere.

The film will present population issues in a way that (a) alleviates fear about discussing population and (b) translates compelling data into stories that resonate with mainstream citizens.

Using the nesting basket sustainability model as a framework, the film will weave interviews with professionals into the stories of three families located in America, Brazil and China. The data explained by professionals is immediately illustrated through each family's story. By showing the data's real-world applications for real families, the film will help viewers relate with statistical information and at the same time, bring to light the role of affluence and consumerism in population issues, dispelling the myth that it is a third world problem. We'll also take a look at population throughout history.

In the 'nesting basket' model, the first basket represents earth's natural systems, which should be healthy and abundant. The second basket rests inside the first and represents society, which thrives only when nested in a healthy environment. The third basket nests in the social basket and represents the economy, which remains stable when the baskets it rests in are strong. This structure achieves the balance required for a sustainable society.

If humans are going to make educated decisions about the environment, social issues and economies, population has to be part of the conversation. We shouldn't be afraid to talk about it. We shouldn't shrug it off as someone else's problem. If you want to be the catalyst that brings a balanced discussion into homes, churches, classrooms, and boardrooms, you should support this project.

.. http to make a donation to the making of this film. doclink

Karen Gaia: Calling it the 'People Problem' can be another problem. Too many bad connotations.

Right-Wingers Bash Gore for Wanting Women to Have Access to Birth Control: Gore's Radical Agenda: Save Babies, Educate Girls, Empower Women

   June 22, 2011, Grist Magazine

by Lisa Hymas, Grist's senior editor

Al Gore criticizing Obama for inaction on climate drew a lot of attention from the mainstream media, but when Al Gore said we should educate girls, keep kids from dying, and make birth control available to women, the right-wing media cranked up.

Gore gave one of most mild and noncontroversial statements anyone could make about population: "One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children. You have to lift child-survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families. And most important, you have to educate girls and empower women. And that's the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices."

He didn't say governments should make people have fewer children. He didn't say people ought to decide on their own to have fewer children.

But climate denier Anthony Watts says "Al Gore branches out into population control theory."

Joe Newby at "Al Gore promotes having fewer children to curb pollution," a good idea, but not what Gore said.

Billy Hallowell at The Blaze said "Gore said that couples need to learn to 'feel comfortable having small families' so that pollution can be curbed," while Gore actually said that parents might "feel comfortable having small families" if they were confident their kids wouldn't die young.

Conservatives seem to need to maintain their favorite stereotype of greens as fascist quasi-eugenicists who want to control population via tyranny. Some of them need to find plausible-sounding excuses to go after contraception.

It's almost hard to believe that there are still Americans who object to birth control -- more than 99% of American women who've had intercourse have used contraception, including 98% of Catholic women.86% of Americans say the availability of the Pill has been a good thing for society.

Hard-core right-wingers want to stop women from using birth control. Texas state Rep. Wayne Christian (R), said: "Well of course it's a war on birth control."

Who's got the radical agenda? doclink

Karen Gaia: I have no problem with radical conservatives having such an opinion, but their attempts to legislate their version of morality threaten the rest of us. Unfortunately, many of their gurus rely on ranting instead of science, and those that talk the loudest and use the most hyperbole get the most attention. The Population Research Institute (a misleading name) perpetuate many of the lies that radical conservatives believe.

Indian Ideas, Models

   March 24, 2011, The Economic Times (India)

Bill and Melinda Gates, cochairs of the world's largest private foundation, are in India to talk about healthcare.

"India is a hotbed of innovation. The ideas and healthcare interventions we work on here can help solve world's problems, be it in Guatemala , Zambia or elsewhere," said Melinda Gates in Delhi.

"While India's economy is growing at a fast pace, the country is also home to half of the world's malnourished children" .. "notably in Bihar which has a population of 98 million and one of the worst affected by the burden of disease".

Since 2003, the foundation has invested more than $1.2 billion in projects aimed at improving public health and development outcomes in the country. In India, the foundation focuses mainly on women and child care, eradication of polio, malaria and HIV.

Mr Gates said the foundation is open to working with the government on its family planning services.

"Bihar has an immense capacity to innovate. If it were a country , it would be the 12th largest in the world. Some of the things we have done here can be taken to other regions as well,' Gates said. Even things like getting men to deliver vaccines on cycles and training women to deliver them to target populations have made immense impact on improving healthcare. doclink

Gates Warns of Pressure on Health Aid

   January 24, 2010, Financial Times

Funding for health is being squeezed out by donor support for climate change, says Bill Gates, one of the world's leading philanthropists.

Mr Gates himself is stepping up investment in carbon-free energy and green technology.

"If just 1 per cent of the $100 billion goal [for carbon reduction] came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases. In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment."

Gates, in an interview with the Financial Times, said that, by tackling child mortality, his existing programmes were helping reduce the birth rate and cut demographic pressure, while work on improved agricultural crops that were drought resistant was helping to deal with the consequences of global warming.

Gates felt that energy consumption would not be sufficient to tackle climate change; the best solution for global warming was for-profit investment in new carbon-free energy technologies. doclink

Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb Overpopulation; America's Richest People Meet to Discuss Ways of Tackling a 'disastrous' Environmental, Social and Industrial Threat

   May 24, 2009, Times Online

David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey met to consider spending some of their wealth on slowing the growth of the world's population and speed up improvements in health and education.

They met in secret to discuss joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change, and they didn't want to be seen as a global cabal. These members of the "Good Club", one member dubbed it, have given away more than 45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

Gates, who is giving away most of his fortune, said last February, "Official projections say the world's population will peak at 9.3 billion [today the population is 6.86 billion, growing at about 1 billion every 12 years] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion." doclink

End of "Philanthropists" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5

Funding, Politics News

Counting the Cost of Family Planning

   June 20, 2012, Mail and Guardian

The number of women who would like to avoid having another baby but who are not using modern contraception is now around 222 million, says Guttmacher Institute.

July 11 there will be a family planning summit in London where how much money is needed, what it should pay for and whether the fundamentally important issues of women's reproductive rights will be addressed will be discussed, and where the Gates Foundation, DfID and others will be soliciting money pledges.

Currently, $4 billion is spent on family planning in the developing world every year. That saves $5.6 billion which would otherwise have been spent on women and children through unwanted pregnancies and births. $8.1 billion is needed to meet the total need for contraception - double current spending. But that would also more than double the savings from unwanted pregnancies to a total of $11.3 billion. That is $1.40 for every dollar spent.

Dr Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, told us that there are programmatic issues beyond contraceptive supplies that need attention if we are going to be successful in meeting the goals of the summit. One of the reasons women tell us they are not using a method of contraception is that they are very worried about side-effects and long-term health risks. Many of the things they think they understand about long-term contraception are not true. Many women even in the US underestimate the effectiveness of modern contraceptives and by far overestimate the side-effects.

It is also necessary to raise the overall knowledge of women and their partners about contraception. That probably needs to start in schools. There needs to be a bigger effort in public health education. A lot of developing countries have very good policies around sex education but nothing is happening on the ground.

There also needs to be new forms for contraception, pointing out that women who do not want any more children may be using them for 25 years - a long time not to slip up.

Meanwhile Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others want to ensure the clock is not turned back to a time when the talk was of population control, not women's choices. Sexual and reproductive health and rights should be at the centre of the London discussions, they say in a declaration:

"Our experience, built over decades of work around the world, has taught us that the failure to take actions guided by women's human rights - to health, to life, to live free from discrimination among others - can have devastating consequences. Policies that accept or tacitly condone forced sterilization, the coercive provision of contraceptives, and the denial of essential services to the young, poor and marginalized women that need them every day have violated, and continue to violate, women's human rights."

The summit is taking place on World Population Day, which some think ominous. This must be about enabling women to choose, overcoming all sorts of barriers to having as large or small a family as they want, from ensuring there is a well-stocked family planning clinic nearby to being free of social, cultural and religious pressures either for or against more babies. doclink

Clinton: Family Planning Key to Sustainability

   June 22, 2012, New York Times

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at the last day of the Rio+20 United Nations conference that "women must be empowered to make decisions on whether and when to have children" if the world is to attain agreed-upon sustainable development goals.

She applauded the final document's endorsement of women's sexual and reproductive health which, in its initial draft said "We are committed to ensure the equal access of women and girls to education, basic services, economic opportunities, and health care services, including addressing women's sexual and reproductive health and their reproductive rights," but in the final draft, the stronger wording "We are committed to ensure the equal access" was switched to the weaker "We are committed to promote equal access," and the reference to reproductive rights was deleted altogether, after opposition from the G-77, a negotiating bloc of developing countries at the United Nations, and the Holy See.

An envoy of Pope Benedict XVI, reiterated the Vatican's position that "all human life, from conception until natural death, has the same worth and deserves the same dignity."

Leaders from other countries, including Norway, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Bolivia, Uruguay, Mexico, Iceland, Switzerland and Israel fought to keep the reference to reproductive rights, as did nongovernmental organizations promoting human rights and women's rights.

Peggy Clark, from the Aspen Institute said "The ability to choose the number, spacing and timing of children is not a luxury. It is a basic human right, one that has already been affirmed by the world community at the Cairo and Beijing conferences."

"The key word is access, above all for women," Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said. "In Brazil, we are investing to overcome difficulties and poor access to public health services that would allow the full exercise of sexual and reproductive rights, including family planning." doclink

Rio+20 Outcome Document, "The Future We Want," Silent on Sexual and Reproductive Rights

   June 22, 2012, Population Action International

"The outcomes from Rio +20 will set the agenda for a new development paradigm reaching beyond 2015!" was one of the many expectations for the Rio+20 conference. But people from every sector - oceans, food security, education, energy - all will express disappointment.

For those of us advancing the sexual and reproductive rights of women, Rio+20 has been particularly disappointing. The Rio +20 outcome document, "The Future We Want," is silent on sexual and reproductive rights, and, during the negotiations, many of the EU and G77 countries who have been progressive on these issues in the past were completely silent.

Despite encouragement from the U.S. and a handful of other countries to protect and support women's rights, these "allies" said nothing and did nothing as the Holy See, Malta, Poland, Algeria, and other conservative countries rolled back the clock on women's rights.

At the same time, the Guttmacher Institute and UNFPA released a study showing that in the 69 poorest countries, the need actually increased from 153 to 162 million women between 2008 and 2012. doclink

There is No Sustainable Development Without a Sustainable Population - Suzanne York

   February 14, 2012, Bay Citizen

Rio+20 (the UN Conference on Sustainable Development conference) seems to be skirting the population issue. Of the seven critical issues for Rio, listed on the UNCSD website, population isn't one of them. The one paragraph which does talk about it accurately states the situation the world is facing:

"We are deeply concerned that around 1.4 billion people still live in extreme poverty and one sixth of the world's population is undernourished, pandemics and epidemics are omnipresent threats. Unsustainable development has increased the stress on the earth's limited natural resources and on the carrying capacity of ecosystems. Our planet supports seven billion people expected to reach nine billion by 2050."

The draft document addresses sustainable development goals, including sustainable consumption and production patterns as well as priority areas such as oceans; food security and sustainable agriculture; sustainable energy for all; water access and efficiency; sustainable cities; green jobs, decent work and social inclusion; and disaster risk reduction and resilience. All of these are important, but since population growth affects all of them, it should be directly addressed by the Rio agenda.

Kim Lovell, with the Sierra Club's Global Population and Environment Program, said that "Rio provides a rare opportunity to have a global conversation about sustainable development solutions that protect human rights, improve community and environmental health, and preserve resources for future generations. Slowing population growth by ensuring access to voluntary family planning and education for women and girls is essential in this pursuit. "... "When women are educated and have the ability to plan their family size, they tend to have smaller, healthier families - and with solutions like these that improve lives and lessen pressure on scarce resources, what better venue than Rio to engage stakeholders at all levels to take local, national, and global action?"

In September 2011, the UNFPA called the failure to address population in Rio+20 a step backwards and said that failure to cover it would undermine efforts to promote sustainable development. Viable solutions would address voluntary family planning, women's rights, and conservation, as well as poverty alleviation, reduction of inequality and unsustainable levels of consumption. The world cannot afford another global conference with modest or weak results.

What you can do to get population on the agenda: Go to Rio de Janeiro and join in civil society activities, such as The People's Summit, a parallel event to Rio+20 being held Jun. 15- 23, 2012. doclink

Canada: Pregnancy, Haunted by Death

   December 8, 2011, Ottawa Citizen

Ghana's former high commissioner to Canada, the late Richard Turkson, spoke at the screening in Ottawa of the documentary Empty-handed, about the lack of access to contraceptives in Uganda. Citing a passage from the Book of Genesis in the Bible: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth children ...", Turkson said "Men have long misinterpreted this passage as a mandate to lord it over women and show very little concern, if any, for women's fertility-related problems,"

"Over time, God's anger seems to have abated in many parts of the world; it appears, however, that in sub-saharan Africa, it continues unabated. Women's lives (there) are largely governed by unnecessarily hazardous pregnancies and child bearing; similarly, their death is often dictated by pregnancy and child birth. Worse still, everywhere in Africa, it is the women, not the men, who suffer from mutilation, disease and death in pursuit of the high premium we traditionally place on fertility, particularly on male children."

The fight to get contraceptives into the hands of African women is far from over.

The Canadian government - although it has led a G8 push for improved maternal health in the developing world - needs to hear this message, since it appears to remain lukewarm to family planning as a key to reducing maternal deaths, and as a development tool. That makes it unusual among western nations, according to some. Canada is not represented at the Senegal conference.

Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute said Canada was an outlier and "Canadians were dragging their feet on the investment in family planning."

Canada's $1-billionplus commitment to reducing maternal mortality did include family planning, but not abortion. However Canada's maternal health funding is only about $13 million of about $800 million so far - something critics say isn't nearly enough.

Cohen said "It is impossible to achieve the millennium development goal (of reducing maternal mortality by three-quarters) without investing in maternal and newborn health as well as family planning." The number of women in the world who want contraception and can't get them - is estimated at 215 million. Better access to contraceptives would not only reduce maternal deaths, reduce unsafe abortions and improve the health of newborns, because their births would not be spaced so closely together, it would increase education rates among women.

Canadian women have long taken for granted what many women in the developing world don't have- control over when they have children.

Britain, on the other hand, has made family planning a "major priority" according to Stephen O'Brien, parliamentary undersecretary of state for Britain's department of International Development, who attended the Senegal family planning conference.

"Having children should bring joy," he said during a conference call from Senegal. "For far too many women, having children amounts to a death sentence. ... Family planning is a smart, simple and extremely cost effective investment."

One of the messages from the Senegal conference was that family planning is a key to improving not only the health of women and children, but a country's economic health as well. doclink

U.S.: Colorado Amendment 62 Classifies Eggs or Sperm as a 'Person'

   October 26, 2010

Proposed Amendment 62 says: "Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

If this bill passes, a woman with ovarian cancer could not have her ovaries removed in Colorado and a doctor who performed such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder!

Anyone knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and that girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary (even if diseased) would mean the removal of thousands of "persons".

A woman whose doctorate is in biochemistry and is loosely associated with Georgetown University wrote this wording. An ethicist against abortion, what she has framed is so poorly defined that the above scenario is possible.

This proposed amendment is unclear, unsupportable, andis misogyninistic and it would cost the state of Colorado millions of dollars to implement. Only the lawyers would profit if it is passed.

One current legal definition of "person" is "an autonomous being". This foolish proposed amendment would certainly change that, since a fetus, embryo or egg are anything but autonomous! Passing the amendment would make major changes in the legal world, and would keep Colorado's lawyers employed for years trying to figure out the ramifications.

This is clearly a case of infringement of our constitutional rights when one person's religion interferes with the ability of another person to seek medical care. The supporters of this proposed amendment don't stop with facts.

Many of the same people who are against abortion are also against any contraception. They claim, against the judgment of most reputable scientists, that IUDs, emergency contraception and even "the pill" work by causing an abortion. If this crazy amendment were passed, all of these birth control methods might become unavailable in Colorado.

This amendment has no provision for abortion in cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy endangers the mother's life. This proposed amendment would make interrupting a pregnancy illegal-including saving the life of the mother! Even the strict "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" allows interrupting an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, because the pregnancy threatens a woman's life. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Don't forget all the poor sperm that are wasted during a wet dream and never get a chance to live and then there are the eggs that are thoughtlessly flushed down the toilet during womens' monthly menses. This measure failed on Nov 2nd -, but proponents of the measure are determined to try it again.

Population: the Last Taboo

   May 2010, Mother Jones magazine - May/June 2010 Issue

Note: this very long article is well worth reading. To do it justice, follow the link in the headline for the entire article. Otherwise read the following shortened version. Please also read my comments below. Karen Gaia

Calcutta (Kolkata) is home to about 5 million people, at a population density of 70,000 per square mile - 2.5 times more crowded than New York City. Another 9 million live in the urban agglomeration, bringing the population of greater Kolkata to 14 million.

Survival in the 21st century lies in the depth of the snowpack in the Himalayas, the sustainable tonnage of fish caught in the Bay of Bengal, in the inches of topsoil remaining on the Indian plains, and in the parts per million of coal smoke in the air. The root cause of India's dwindling resources and escalating pollution is the same: the continued exponential growth of humankind.

Around 1965 the people of the Earth collectively taxed only 70% of the Earth's biocapacity each year. We first overdrew our accounts in 1983, when our population of nearly 4.7 billion began to consume natural resources faster than they could be replenished. Last year, 6.8 billion of us consumed the renewable resources of 1.4 Earths.

The United Nations projects that world population will stabilize at 9.1 billion in 2050. This prediction assumes a decline from the current average global fertility rate of 2.56 children per woman to 2.02 children per woman in the years between 2045 and 2050.

But if mothers average half a child more in 2045, the world population will peak at 10.5 billion five years later. Half a child less, and it stabilizes at 8 billion. The difference in those projections-2.5 billion-is the total number of people alive on Earth in 1950.

The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it's decelerating now and eventually reverse it - at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet's resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war.

On one front, we've already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today - an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.

But it's still not fast enough. Faced with a world that can support either a lot of us consuming a lot less or far fewer of us consuming more, we're deadlocked. On the divisive question of the ideal size of the human family, we're united in a pact of silence.

In India, where the dynamics of overpopulation and overconsumption are most acute, where the lifelines between water, food, fuel, and 1.17 billion people - 17% of humanity subsisting on less than 2.5% of the globe's land - are already stretched dangerously thin.

Fears from the past-of racism, eugenics, colonialism, forced sterilization, forced family planning, plus the fears from some of contraception, abortion, and sex are reasons we don't talk about overpopulation. We don't really talk about overconsumption because of ignorance about the economics of overpopulation and the true ecological limits of Earth.

In 1798 in an Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus, a political economist, argued that humans were destined to grow geometrically, while food production could increase only arithmetically, guaranteeing that famine would cinch the growth of humankind within the scarce purse of resources.

Malthus opposed government assistance to the poor on the grounds that it enabled more people to reproduce without the means to support themselves. He suggested a solution to the growing numbers of impoverished people he considered poor specimens, a eugenics-like answer popular in his time, based on animal husbandry and designed to "upgrade" the human race. In addition, Reverend Malthus believed families needed to limit their numbers of children, yet he opposed contraception. Only abstinence was acceptable.

Long before Malthus, humans sought to accommodate promiscuous intercourse without the entanglements of pregnancy. Even prior to the European discovery of rubber in the New World, men wore condoms: of oiled silk paper; fine leather or tortoiseshell.

India today prides itself on being the world's largest democracy. But it's also the hungriest, only recently and barely liberated from "the most dreadful famines" Malthus wrote of. One of every two underfed people on Earth lives here. 40% of Indian children under the age of five are underweight and stunted. India's underfed are increasing. In the state of Bihar, 9 of 10 rural children are anemic, a telltale marker of hunger and malnutrition.

In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich predicted that India could not possibly attain food self- sufficiency. Instead, American agronomist Norman Borlaug's "Green Revolution" brought dwarf wheat strains and chemical fertilizers to increase India's crop yields 168% within a decade, defusing defused the population 'bomb; and earning Ehrlich the dismissive title of Malthusian. Ever since, the subject has been largely taboo.

David Brower, the former executive director, of the Sierra, originally suggested Ehrlich write The Population Bomb. The Sierra Club had long supported population stabilization. But in the 1990s, anti-immigration activists spurred by John Tanton-who controls an array of English-only, zero- immigration, and nativist groups-stealthily twice attempted to take over the board. Perhaps naively, some Sierra Club stalwarts concerned with population joined their cause. The battle lasted for a decade, culminating when Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center ran for Sierra's board in an effort to expose Tanton's true agenda-and the fact that one of his groups had accepted money from white supremacists. [Karen Gaia: This is not the whole story - see note below].

Ehrlich's NGO Zero Population Growth then parted ways with Tanton (a past president), renamed itself the Population Connection, and embraced an end-poverty-to-curb-population approach. Ehrlich and his wife Anne, a conservation biologist, also left the board of Tanton's Federation for American Immigration Reform. Yet the scars between environmentalists and the development community are only beginning to heal. "When you talk about population," says Larry Fahn, Sierra Club president during some of the bitterest infighting, "the immigration people come out of the woodwork with their hate mongering. It's unfortunate that the subject brings out a racist agenda."

Abortion is an even more toxic issue. "Many conservation and nongovernmental organizations that run on member support, even the big ones, shy away from the population issue, because it puts their funding at risk. Even if you're talking about population as a sustainability issue, there's often an automatic assumption you'll be talking about abortion."

Despite the silence, the problem of overpopulation has not gone away. The miracle of the Green Revolution disguised four ominous truths about Earth's limits:

1. Chemical fertilizers of nitrogen and phosphorus are destined to run out, along with the natural resources used to produce them;

2. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that grew the food that enabled our enormous population growth in the 20th century bore expensive downstream costs in the form of polluted land, water, and air that now threaten life

3. Increasing fertilizer use has become necessary to keep crop yields stable, oversaturating the soils with nitrogen, and yields are starting to fall despite this;

4. Topsoil is being to the wind via mechanized agriculture, runoff and erosion.

Geomorphologist David Montgomery, author of Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations calculates that human activities are eroding topsoil 10 times faster than it can be replenished. "Just when we need more soil to feed the 10 billion people of the future," he says, "we'll actually have less - only a quarter of an acre of cropland per person in 2050, versus the half-acre we use today on the most efficient farms." ... "We could, with crippling environmental costs, raze the Amazonian rainforests and reap 5 to 10 years of crops before the tropical soils failed. But the fertile prairies of the Midwest, northern China, and northern Europe are already plowed to capacity and shrinking."

Nearly a quarter of India's lands, more than 314,000 square miles, are desert or in the process of becoming desert, according to a recent Indian government report. Desertification will double India's current water usage by 2030, as more water is rerouted to irrigate an increasingly drier landscape to grow rice, wheat, and sugar for an increasing population, including the growing demands of a growing middle class. Severe deficits in water - and, by default, food - are forecast in India by 2030.

With the combined factors of peak oil, peak topsoil with global warming, a 20 to 30% decline in crop yields in the next 80 years is predicted by the peer-reviewed journal Science.

The process of photosynthesis itself declines precipitously as temperatures rise above 86 degrees Fahrenheit, making it increasingly difficult to maintain - let alone increase - crop yields. (The European heat wave of 2003 that killed up to 50,000 people also slashed crop harvests by as much as 36%.) Rising temperatures will put nearly all of India's crops at risk in the near future.

India's "atmospheric brown cloud"-the smog that fouls the subcontinent between monsoons-could undermine crop yields by up to 40%. Not only is there more smog in Asia, but Asian crops appear more sensitive to smog than crops in North America or Europe, even crops of the same variety. No one knows why.

The UN calculates that 36 million die of hunger and malnutrition every year-a person every second, mostly women and children. History may yet remember Paul Ehrlich as the premature prophet, not the false one, his predictions off by decades rather than degree.

I'm struck by how some of us are literally siphoning the flesh and blood from the rest of us, segregating ourselves into beings so calorically and structurally different that paleontologists of the distant future might well classify our fossilized skeletons as separate species.

At the time agriculture was invented,Homo Sapiens had super-prolific birth rates, but short life expectancies averaging a mere 10 years, breeding and dying in boom cycles busted by famines, natural disasters, diseases, and violence. Around 500 AD, we suffered centuries of bust, ravaged by the Black Death and its piggybacking disasters sweeping west from Asia-the last check on our growth. Since then, nothing has reversed our growth.

Two hundred million women have no access whatsoever to contraception, contributing to the one in four unplanned births worldwide and the 50 million pregnancies aborted each year, half of them performed clandestinely, killing 68,000 women in the process.John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health at University College, London says it is not true that that poor rural couples actively plan to have large families because of high child mortality or to provide for their care in old age. They have large families simply because they, like most of us, have sex many, many times in their lifetimes and they do not have adequate contraception.

139 million new people are added every year: more than an entire Japan, nearly an entire Russia, minus the homelands and the resources to go along with them. Countered against the 56 million deaths annually, our world gains 83 million extra people every year, the equivalent of another Iran.

Eventually, most of these 83 million new people added every year will have kids, too.

Statistician Paul Murtaugh of Oregon State University decided to investigate the environmental price tag of a baby. "An American child born today adds an average 10,407 tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of her mother. That's almost six times more CO2 than the mother's own lifetime emissions. Furthermore, the ecological costs of that child and her children far outweigh even the combined energy-saving choices from all a mother's other good decisions, like buying a fuel- efficient car, recycling, using energy-saving appliances and lightbulbs. The carbon legacy of one American child and her offspring is 20 times greater than all those other sustainable maternal choices combined."

Due to India's drastically lower levels of consumption combined with shorter lifespans (63.8 years on average for India, versus 80.2 years for the US), an American child has 55 times the carbon legacy of a child born to a family in India. While India is conservatively predicted to grow by 400 million people by 2050, the US is projected to grow by 86 million. But take those additional Americans and factor in their 55-times-higher carbon legacy (at current national consumption rates), and they will equal the legacy of 4.7 billion Indians.

"The irony," says Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women, "is that just as some Americans are starting to learn to live more like traditional Indians-becoming vegetarian, buying locally, eating organic-aspiring middle-class Indians are trying to live more like overconsuming Americans. The question really is, which kind of people do we want less of?"

Stage Two of population growth: In the late 18th century in Britain, the onset of urbanization and industrialization brought about the first population explosion, as birth rates leveled but death rates plunged dramatically. This was spawned (ironically, despite Malthus' fears) by more and better food: the superior nutrition of corn and potatoes imported from the Americas, and an agricultural revolution brought on by scientific advances in farming. Stage two was also triggered by a revolution in our understanding of disease, which led to better handling of water, sewage, food, and ourselves. The primary driver behind this new science of hygiene was increased literacy among women, who wrote and read health-education pamphlets, and who managed the daily cleanliness of families and hospitals.

The ripple of change that comes from empowering women - what some call the 'the girl effect'- is uniting the once-divided conservation and human rights communities.

Stage three is when fertility rates drop closer to death rates. India today is navigating stage three, which includes a contraceptive revolution, different in every time and place: in Europe 200 years ago, a revolution of coitus interruptus and condoms; in India today, birth control pills and, often, sterilization after the first son is born. This pivotal phase coincides with profound cultural changes, as women end their isolation in the home to enter the workplace and network with other women. Wage-earning women claim more responsibility for childbearing and child-rearing decisions, leading to a revolution in children's lives, as the decision is made to pay for schooling-a costly choice necessitating smaller families. This choice is strongly influenced by female literacy, since women who can read even slightly are more likely to send their daughters to school.

In India today, 75% of men are literate, compared to only 54% of women-one of the most lopsided ratios among newly industrialized nations. The statistic corresponds directly to fertility. In the state of Bihar, next door to West Bengal, where literacy falls below the national average-to 60% for males and 33% for females-the total fertility rate swings up to four children per woman. Conversely, the southern Indian state of Kerala, which boasts 94% male literacy and 88% female literacy, has reached a below-replacement-rate fertility that resembles the industrialized world's, at only 1.9 children per woman.

Of the more than 1 in 10 people who can't read or write today, two-thirds are female. Locate them, and you'll find an uncannily accurate roadmap of societal strife-of civil wars, foreign wars, the wars against reason embedded in religiosity, the wars against equality ingrained in patriarchal and caste systems.

When women are educated, they tend to marry later in life, to have children later in life, and to have fewer children. In effect, you have a form of population control that's peaceful, voluntary, and efficient. Plus, educated women do better in business, raising economic growth rates, and lowering societal conflict.

In 2003, the predominantly Catholic Philippines bowed to church demands to support only "natural family planning" - otherwise known as the rhythm method, and grimly referred to as Vatican roulette. The Filipino government no longer provides contraceptives for poor Filipinas, and government clinics no longer distribute donated contraceptives, including the wealth of modern birth control once provided by the US Agency for International Development.

Today more than half of all pregnancies in the Philippines are unplanned-10% more than a decade ago. In a first-of-its kind study in the Philippines, the Guttmacher Institute calculates that easy access to contraception would reduce those births by 800,000 and abortions by half a million a year. Furthermore, it would deliver a net savings to the government on the order of $16.5 million a year in reduced health costs from unwanted pregnancies, including the brutal medical consequences of illegal back-alley abortions.

Iran's fertility rate: 7 in 1980; 1.7 today. From a high of 7.7 in 1966, total fertility fell to 6 during the Shah's reign, spiked to 7 during the Islamic Revolution (when marriage became legal for 12-year-old boys and 9-year-old girls), then plummeted 50% between 1988 and 1996, continuing down to 1.7 today. That plunge, known as the "Iranian miracle," was one of the most rapid fertility declines ever recorded. Women of all childbearing ages in urban and rural parts of the country simply began to have smaller families practically overnight. The feat was engineered through a mobilization between government and media: Information was broadcast nationwide about the value of small families, followed up with education about birth control, implemented with free contraceptives.

Progressive social measures further primed Iran: increasing public education for girls (today more than 60% of Iranian university students are women); a new health care system; access to electricity, safe water, transportation, and communication. Similar fertility reversals have occurred in Costa Rica, Cuba, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, and Morocco-as quickly as in China but minus the brutal one-child policy.

The United States has been less helpful lately, beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1984, the "global gag rule," also known as the Mexico City Policy, prohibited US funding of any foreign family planning organizations providing abortions. The gag rule barred the discussion of abortion or any critique of unsafe abortions, even if these medical services were implemented with the group's own money (a ruling that would have been unconstitutional in the US). Bill Clinton rescinded the policy in 1993, but George W. Bush reinstated it in 2001, and before Barack Obama could rescind it again, the flow of aid to developing countries slowed or even stopped, eviscerating health care and severely undermining family planning efforts in at least 26 developing nations, primarily in Africa.

Joanna Nerquaye-Tetteh, of the Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana, testified before Congress in 2004 on the policy's effects in her country. "The gag rule completely disrupted decades of investment in building up health care services," she said. "We couldn't provide contraceptives and services to nearly 40,000 women who had formerly used our services. We saw within a year a rise in sexually transmitted infections and more women coming to our clinics for post-abortion care as a result of unsafe abortions."

As a result of the global gag rule, the UN estimates that at its height in 2005, the unmet demand for contraceptives and family planning drove up fertility rates between 15% and 35% in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Arab states, Asia, and Africa-a whole generation of unplanned Bush babies.

In Bangladeshi Muhammad Yunus founded Grameen ("villages") Bank in 1983. His revolutionary model was to loan to the unloanable poor-notably women-who lacked collateral, enabling them to develop their own businesses and free themselves from poverty. This radical innovation won Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. Empirical studies now support his intuition of 27 years ago: Women make better loan recipients than men if your aim is to increase family well-being. Compared to men's loans, women's loans double family income and increase child survival twentyfold.

The best 21st-century contraceptive is a Yunusian device, a microloan. The paradox embedded in our future is that the fastest way to slow our population growth is to reduce poverty, yet the fastest way to run out of resources is to increase wealth.

The business of microloans is growing exponentially. Between March 2008 and March 2009, 22.6 million people in India received them, 60% more than a year earlier, despite the worst global recession since the Great Depression. This innovative approach to development is rewriting the demographics of poverty.

Rajendra Pachauri, cowinner of a Nobel Prize for his chairmanship of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warns that India's growing population can't afford increased consumption levels. "We can't support lifestyles even remotely like those in Europe and North America," he says. "We need policy initiatives to assure this doesn't happen. But the movement has to take place in both hemispheres. Awareness has to be raised in both the East and the West to deglamorize unsurvivable consumerism."

As of 2005, women in 18 of the 24 wealthiest nations were having more babies than in previous years. Nobody knows why. These 18 are the US, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, Israel, Italy, Sweden, France, Iceland, the UK, New Zealand, Greece, and Ireland. The exceptions are: Japan, Canada, Australia, Austria, Switzerland, and South Korea. This fifth stage is upending a key tenet of social science: that increasing wealth, education, and gender equality invariably and irreversibly trigger a decline in fertility and a smaller population. This small but important fertility increase is good news for those who worry about Social Security deficits, but bad news for those who worry about societal security on a planet with finite resources.

What portion of the increase is due to the cultural norms of new immigrants? Or to abstinence education? The only known correlates are the highest levels of economic and social development. Perhaps the core question is, how much has our silence around population growth contributed to the emergence of this fifth demographic stage? Even in rich nations, most families calculate the costs of each child in their household budget-in the size of their house, the need for quality child care, and college costs. So would these same families make different decisions if they were calculating the costs of each child in their (equally limited) planetary budget-in the costs of clean air, water, and adequate food for all?

The paradox embedded in our future is that the fastest way to slow our population growth is to reduce poverty, yet the fastest way to run out of resources is to increase wealth. The trial ahead is to strike the delicate compromise: between fewer people, and more people with fewer needs...all within a new economy geared toward sustainability. Perhaps this is the sixth stage in our demographic maturity: the transition from 20th-century family planning to 21st-century civilizational planning. doclink

This is a wonderful article that I highly recommend. It talks about some reasons why the subject is taboo. However, the section on the Sierra Club and its fight with 'anti-immigration' activists displays lack of understanding on the author's part. First of all, the controversial elections took part in the early 2000's, not early 1990s. Second, to call them anti-immigration, or worse yet, anti-immigrant, is highly inaccurate. I was very involved with Sierra Club population program starting in 1998, when the Club was having problems with some very insensitive immigration reductionists (or restrictionists, another acceptable term). Up until 1996, the Sierra Club supported a reduction in population growth of the U.S. regardless of whether it was from births or immigration. SUSPS was formed in 1996 after the Sierra Club reversed its 30-year comprehensive population policy which addressed both the impacts of fertility and mass migration on U.S. population growth. SUSPS felt that the large contribution of over-immigration to the rapid growth in U.S. population must not be ignored.

Unfortunately, many people who realize population is a serious problem are numbers-oriented, nerdy types who are not the most sensitive or socially aware. But, just as we are able to overlook Malthus' political incorrectness, we should be listening to what these nerds are saying. In my experience with the Sierra Club is that the types that remained active after the population program weeded out the restrictionists, were the ones who who do not do the math, who did not realize just how unsustainable the world's (and the U.S.) population really is. For example, a recent power point presentation produced by the Sierra Club population program, goes on for 2/3 the presentation about women's roles, reproductive health, etc, and only mentions water shortages, and strains on the environment at the very end. Many people in the Sierra Club realize population is a problem, but they don't realize how serious a problem it is. The Sierra Club steers clear of the term 'overpopulation', as if to say that would be an overreaction. Another example: when one of the restrictionist board members, Doug LaFollete, suggested that biofuels were bad for the planet, the Sierra Club ignored him, and went on to promote biofuels. Belatedly, the Club seems to have become aware that biofuels are accelerating the world's food shortages. Another example: the Sierra Club is big on Climate Change. But, the companion problem, Peak Oil, is virtually ignored, even though the tremendous gap between lessened food production and increasing population, due to oil shortage, will have devastating consequences. This article makes an excellent case for limiting the population growth of the U.S., because of its tremendous carbon foot print. That is one reason we should not discredit the prophesies of the immigration restrictionists, bigoted or not. While there are a few racists among them, their message about the upcoming 'crash', including unsustainable food production, should not be ignored.
And, as far as the Southern Poverty Law Center is concerned, this organization called a lot of people racist, who weren't, including John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club.

End of "Funding, Politics News" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Write or Lobby Your Lawmaker


Writing a letter to your lawmaker, letters to the editor, or even better, lobbying, are two of the more effective ways to influence policy makers in matters of funding for foreign family planning clinics, contraceptives with health insurance, and other important population and sustainability solutions. doclink

U.S.: State Facts About Unintended Pregnancy

   December 19, 2012, Guttmacher Institute

There are 6.7 million pregnancies in the U.S. each year About half of these are unintended. Births resulting from unintended pregnancies have been linked to adverse maternal and child health outcomes and myriad social and economic challenges, including costs to the federal and state governments of $11 billion (2006).

The Guttmacher Institute has launched a new tool that gives the incidence and outcomes of unintended pregnancy in each state, including the proportion of all pregnancies that are unintended; the rates of unintended pregnancy; the proportions of unintended pregnancies that result in births and abortions; and the proportion of all births resulting from unintended pregnancy;

Also given is the public cost of unintended pregnancy in each state, and the impact in each state of publicly funded family planning services.

Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at Guttmacher, said of the fact sheets: "They are a comprehensive resource that documents the significant state-level benefits of investing in publicly funded family planning services, both in helping women avert unintended pregnancies, births and abortions, and generating considerable savings to the federal and state governments." doclink

Karen Gaia says: Sounds like a very useful tool for activists to use when having a conversation with their legislators.


Writing a letter to your lawmaker, letters to the editor, or even better, lobbying, are two of the more effective ways to influence policy makers in matters of funding for foreign family planning clinics, contraceptives with health insurance, and other important population and sustainability solutions. doclink

Sample Letter to a Member of the US House of Representatives Supporting Title X


I wish to appeal for your support for the maximum possible funding for Title X of the Public Health Service Act--Domestic Family Planning Assistance which pays for gynecological and contraceptive services for poor US women. President Clinton's FY2000 budget contains $240 million for the Title X family-planning grant program. (Congress approved $237 million for FY1999 and $215 million for FY1998.)

Every public dollar spent for family planning services saves $4.40--over $3 in medical costs alone--that otherwise would be spent over the next two years to provide medical care, welfare benefits and other social services to pregnant women. Publicly funded family planning services prevent an average of 1.2 million unintended pregnancies each year, including 516,000 abortions (1995 data).

Public support for family planning services for those who would be unable to afford them is a cost-effective way of reducing the public costs of problems like aid to families with dependent children, poverty, drugs, prison over-crowding, crowded classrooms and numerous other costs that taxpayers support. Yet, despite all these benefits, funding for Title X has fallen 72% during 1980-98 (corrected for inflation). As a result, fewer than 50% of women eligible for Title X services now receive these services.

No Title X funding is used for abortions. In fact, Title X services significantly reduces the need for abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancies. (Nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abor tion in the US.) About 60% of all pregnancies to US women are unplanned--about three million/year. But 76% of pregnancies to poor women are unplanned. In the US, the proportion of births that are unintended is as high as or higher than it is in 25 developing countries.

About 33 million US women are considered to be at risk for unintended pregnancy; more than 16 million are low-income women needing subsidized contraceptive services (1995 data).

Compared with other industrialized countries, US teenagers experience considerably higher rates of pregnancy, despite the fact that levels of adolescent sexual activity are about the same. The US teenage pregnancy rate is twice as high as in Eng land, France, Wales and Canada, and 9 times as high as in the Nether lands. One million US teenagers become pregnant every year, 85% unintentionally. Half of these pregnancies end in birth, a third in abortion, and the rest in miscarriage (1995 data). 73% of US teenagers who accidentally become pregnant are poor or low-income, even though overall only 38% of those aged 15-19 are poor or low-income. 54% of lower income teenagers who become pregnant choose to have an abortion (1995 data).

Sincerely, ... doclink

14 Steps to An Effective Visit with Your Legislator

   Population Connection

  1. Dress nicely but comfortably.
  2. Introduce yourself and where you are from (city, neighborhood, organizations, affiliation.) Make a connection to their district.
  3. Lead with an appreciation-Thanks for meeting with me. Thanks for your vote on XX.
  4. State clearly and concisely: your issue and your position on the issue;-What you want him/her to do?
  5. Stress how the issue will affect the member's district or state.
  6. Give the legislator a brief fact sheet.
  7. Mention other organizations, important individuals, government officials, &/or legislators that support your position.
  8. Be a good listener. Be ready to write down what happened immediately after the meeting.
  9. Answer questions, but if you don't know the answer tell them you will find out and get back to them.
  10. Ask a direct question to which the legislator can respond "YES" such as "Can we count on you to co-sponsor the bill?"
  11. Thank the legislator for his/her time and find out the names and titles of any aides working on the issue.
  12. Always follow up with a prompt thank you letter.
  13. When appropriate, report back to coalition groups, friends, the press and others about your meeting.


Build Mutual Respect
  1. Avoid taking the direct opposite point of view.

  2. Avoid trying to prove that your lawmaker is wrong, all wrong.

  3. Find something that your lawmaker has done that you like and mention it.

  4. The "Us Against Them" approach seldom wins converts.

  5. Ask questions of your lawmaker to see what his concerns are and to show that you are open.

  6. Offer to be a resource. But use only statistics that have a reliable source.

  7. Address only one or two points. Try not to be argumentative.
  8. Find out what statistics your lawmaker is using and what is the source. Research them and check their veracity with organizations like ZPG, NWF, Audubon Society, and Population Action International (see links page).

  9. Use a personal antecdote to illustrate your point, but balance that with objective, not gut-level, facts.


Is your lawmaker -
  • For US foreign funding of family planning clinics ask if your lawmaker will co-sponsor a bill funding family planning
  • Against family planning -
    point out that many of his constituents are using family planning and wouldn't he want the same for the poor families in other countries.
  • Doesn't think overpopulation is a problem - Give him facts and figures about population and tell him about the worldwide impacts or point out the economic benefits of limiting family size. Explain that, while birth rates are falling, they are not falling fast enough, and the number of women of childbearing age is at an all-time high.
  • Against abortion - Check out the subject at and tell him that family planning prevents abortions.

End of "Write or Lobby Your Lawmaker" section pg ... Go to page 1 2 3