Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report Rounds Up Responses to Withdrawal of UNFPA Funding
[Jul 26, 2002]

      Several newspapers have recently printed editorials and opinion pieces and advocacy groups have issued statements commenting on the Bush administration's decision to withdraw the United States' $34 million contribution to international family planning programs run by the United Nations Population Fund. The State Department on Monday announced the decision after reviewing a report from a fact-finding team that traveled to China to investigate allegations that UNFPA funding was used to fund forced abortions and sterilizations in the nation. A summary of some of these statements and opinion pieces appears below, listed in alphabetical order:

Editorials

• Albany Times Union: It is "clear" that President Bush "wanted to curry favor with the antiabortion groups within the United States who support him and his party" when he decided to withhold U.S. funding from UNFPA, a Times Union editorial says. However, "in trying to do so, [Bush] may well have set the stage for an outcome that is just the opposite of what those supporters were seeking," the editorial states, noting that the decision could increase the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies in other countries. The Times Union calls that outcome "too high a price to pay for abortion politics" (Albany Times Union, 7/26).
• Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Bush's decision to withhold UNFPA funds is a "cheap political decision" that will increase, not prevent, abortions in other countries, a Journal-Constitution editorial says. The president's "thinly veiled election-year pandering to GOP social conservatives makes a mockery of his rhetoric about the importance of women's well-being" in developing nations and endangers the lives of the world's poor women, the editorial concludes (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/25).
• Boston Globe: "No other nation has ever pulled funding" from UNFPA, and the Bush administration's decision to do so "is not just an international embarrassment but a threat to the lives and health of millions of women overseas," a Globe editorial states. The Globe says that withholding the funding "will have no direct effect on China because U.S. contributions to [UNFPA] have been withheld from China for the past eight years." Instead, the decision "really undermines ... access to contraception," particularly for women in developing nations, the editorial concludes (Boston Globe, 7/24).
• Charleston Gazette: Bush's decision to withhold UNFPA funding is a "disgusting flip-flop" and a "sorry example" of how "'religious right' forces wield great power in the Republican party," a Gazette editorial says. "Bush is behaving like a puppet of hidebound, puritanical, narrow-minded groups who are out of step with most of America, and the world," the editorial concludes (Charleston Gazette, 7/25).
• Daily Oklahoman: The Bush administration was "right" to withhold funding for UNFPA programs that "effectively assis[t]" and "support" China's policy of forced sterilizations and abortions, an Oklahoman editorial says. "The United States shouldn't aid and abet that kind of activity," the editorial says, concluding, "The Bush administration made the right call" (Daily Oklahoman, 7/24).
• Dallas Morning News: The denial of U.S. funds to UNFPA is "shortsighted" and "hurts the very cause conservatives are trying to support," a Morning News editorial says. Although the Chinese government penalizes some Chinese couples for having more than one child and uses abortion "as birth control," denying family planning funding "reduces women's power over their lives, which contributes to the very paradigm of power that is one reason Chinese families value male babies more," the Morning News states. "The U.S. withdrawal of its support is another wrongheaded slap at multilateral cooperation. It's a shame the Bush administration is allowing partisan politics to drive policy like this," the editorial concludes (Dallas Morning News, 7/25).
• Detroit Free Press: The withdrawal of UNFPA funding is a "hollow victory" for abortion-rights opponents because neither U.S. foreign aid funding or UNFPA money is used to fund abortion services overseas, a Free Press editorial states. The United States "is eliminating what amounts to 12.5% of UNFPA funding," money that is used to help people in 141 countries other than China receive family planning education, which is "one of the best ways to improve their health and living conditions," the editorial concludes (Detroit Free Press, 7/24).
• Houston Chronicle: Although Bush was "clearly ... sending a friendly signal to his antiabortion constituency" by withholding UNFPA funds, "no pro-life goal is achieved here when releasing the funds to UNFPA could prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions due to unwanted pregnancies," a Chronicle editorial says. "If Bush is really concerned about abortion, he should show some leadership by releasing family planning funds and pointing out how reproductive health services that let women and couples control fertility reduce the overall number of abortions in the world," it concludes (Houston Chronicle, 7/25).
• Minneapolis Star Tribune: In "succumb[ing] to pressure from abortion foes" by deciding to withhold UNFPA funding, Bush has "chosen a most foolish course," a Star Tribune editorial says. UNFPA has been "universally hailed for spurring a decline in infant mortality, unwanted pregnancy and needless abortion," and to deny the organization U.S. funds "virtually assures that the global prevalence of abortion will increase," the editorial concludes (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 7/26).
• Newsday: UNFPA does "good work that is widely praised" in the area of reproductive health, and the Bush administration's withdrawal of funding for the agency is a "brain-dead decision," a Newsday editorial states. If the United States opposes China's population-control policies, it should continue to stipulate that U.S. funding to UNFPA cannot be used in China, Newsday states. "Like Dr. Strangelove, the Bush administration seems unable to pass by a right-wing agenda without saluting. ... [W]hen it comes to a hot-button issue for the right wing's antiabortion faction, common sense and good policy take a back seat to partisanship in this White House," the editorial concludes (Newsday, 7/24).
• Philadelphia Daily News: It is puzzling "how a leader who calls himself compassionate can choose political expedience over the health of women and children," a Daily News editorial states. The editorial says that the withdrawal of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA will result in two million additional unintended pregnancies and 4,700 additional cases of maternal mortality -- "all to please the hardest of right wingers in the Republican party" (Philadelphia Daily News, 7/24).
• South China Morning Post: The Bush administration's decision "shows the hypocrisy of Bush and his policymakers," who are sacrificing the health of women for political reasons, a South China Morning Post editorial states. The Post adds that China's one-child policy has "been increasingly relaxed and now applies mostly to overcrowded urban areas." The editorial concludes, "With just three months before the [congressional] elections, it is clear the Bush administration's actions are of a political nature. For the sake of votes, Washington has also endangered the lives of tens of thousands of women and children in the developing world" (South China Morning Post, 7/24).
• Toronto Globe and Mail: The midterm congressional elections and the "formidable weight of the right-wing, antiabortion vote" were the motivating factors for the Bush administration's "reckless, myopic decision to scrap a much-needed" contribution to UNFPA, a Globe and Mail editorial states. "[T]he grating stupidity of this particular move ... is that it will produce precisely the opposite effect of what's intended. There will be more abortions ... [and] more unwanted children" worldwide, the editorial concludes (Toronto Globe and Mail, 7/24).
• Wall Street Journal: The Bush administration's decision to redirect UNFPA funding to USAID is a "sensible compromise," given China's "barbaric one-child policy," a Journal editorial states. The Journal says that there is "[n]o doubt" that politics factored into the decision, but it adds that "self-described liberals and feminists" should be focused on pressuring China to abandon its population control strategies. Noting China's unequal sex ratio -- 117 males for every 100 females -- the editorial continues, "Apparently reproductive 'choice' is a virtue everywhere but China, where the state causes the abortion of many more female babies than male." The Journal concludes, "The truly cynical politics here [are] being played on the left, which is once again trying to make an unrelated issue a matter of national abortion politics, and in the process whitewashing human rights abuses overseas" (Wall Street Journal, 7/24).
• Washington Post: Although Bush has said that fighting global poverty is part of his plan for eradicating terrorism, the withdrawal of U.S. UNFPA's funding is "a blow to poor women," a Post editorial states. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has praised UNFPA's work, "has considerable leverage by virtue of his national stature, [and] ought to use that leverage more forcefully," the editorial continues. Diverting UNFPA funding to USAID will not be as effective, the editorial states, adding that in the area of development assistance, "bilateral programs are not a substitute for good multilateral ones." The Post concludes that withdrawing UNFPA funding will ultimately "weaken efforts at population control, an important component of the broader fight against global poverty" (Washington Post, 7/24).

Opinion Pieces

• Marilyn Bowie, New York Times: The Bush administration's decision to block UNFPA funds to "appease its right-wing supporters" is "appalling," Bowie, former executive director of Planned Parenthood of South Central Indiana, says in a Times letter to the editor. Are Bush and his administration "so blind that they don't know that the only effective way to prevent abortions is to make family planning ... services as widely available and accessible as possible?" Bowie asks (Bowie, New York Times, 7/24).
• Ken Fireman, Newsday: The Bush administration's decision not to fund UNFPA "represents a major victory for an important element of the Republican political base: antiabortion activists," Fireman says in a Newsday column, adding that the decision could "energize conservative voters who regard abortion as an important issue." However, Fireman states that the administration "packaged" the decision in a way that made it appear to be "nothing more than a bureaucratic shuffle of $34 million" from one program to another and "took great pains to distance Bush" from the final decision (Fireman, Newsday, 7/24).
• Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe: The Bush administration knows that UNFPA "isn't part of the problem of China's coercive policies; it's part of the solution," syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman says in a Globe opinion piece. According to Goodman, the $3.5 million that UNFPA spends in China is used to "show the Chinese government that voluntary family planning works" by training family planning workers in quality care and informed consent and informing Chinese citizens of their rights under U.N. human rights treaties. Noting that abortion rates have dropped in the areas of China where UNFPA has worked, Goodman states that the United States is withdrawing funds that pay for midwives, hospitals, birthing kits and contraceptives "to appease the domestic 'right-to-life' lobby" (Goodman, Boston Globe, 7/25).
• Derrick Jackson, Boston Globe: Although Powell has said that UNFPA "does invaluable work" and gives "critical population assistance to developing countries," the "politics" of the situation have forced Powell to "go from supporting [UNFPA] to giving out aid that will probably have so many gag rules on it that the programs cannot possibly reflect his views," Jackson says in a Globe column. Powell's support of UNFPA likely led to Bush's "early pledge" to give $25 million to the fund, but the "clucking of the right wing got Bush's attention," Jackson states, adding that the administration "showed no real interest in the facts" of the State Department's mission to determine UNFPA's level of involvement in "coercive elements" of China's family planning programs (Jackson, Boston Globe, 7/24).
• Stephanie Salter, San Francisco Chronicle: The campaign buttons proclaiming "W stands for women" that were worn by female Bush supporters at the 2000 Republican presidential convention were "ridiculous" then, but they are now a "cruel ... joke" that "will kill thousands of women and children in 142 countries," Salter writes in a Chronicle column. "It's funny how aiding and abetting the Chinese government's abortion policies -- or any of its human rights policies -- never comes up when the question is whether to grant the country most favored nation trading status," Salter notes, concluding, "It only matters when money is earmarked for contraception and health care for poor women" (Salter, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/24).
• Alex Sanger, Women's Enews: The Bush administration's decision to deny UNFPA funds makes it "obvious" that "both facts and women's health take a back seat to the Republican Party's goal to win both houses of Congress in the November elections by mobilizing the party's antichoice wing," Sanger, chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council Western Hemisphere Region, says in a Women's Enews opinion piece. The "irony" of the administration's decision, according to Sanger, is that it comes "just at the time when the Chinese government is making progress in addressing the reproductive rights issues for which it has been criticized," including forbidding the abandonment or maltreatment of infant girls, preventing the use of sonograms to selectively abort female fetuses and allowing couples to apply for a second child. "Though not perfect, China's new law is a major step forward and it is a clear indication that [UNFPA's] presence in China has been a positive force for voluntary family planning," Sanger concludes (Sanger, Women's Enews, 7/24).
• Georgia State Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R), Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Those criticizing Bush's decision to withhold UNFPA funds have "totally missed the reasoning behind the decision" -- China's "barbaric" one-child policy -- Westmoreland says in a Journal-Constitution opinion piece. The policy imposes fines of up to three times the annual income of a poor family for those who refuse to have abortions. "I am confident that the American people earnestly desire to support those families in China who wish to have children rather than have their right to self-determination brutally denied by a regime that has all too often denied the basic human rights of its own people," Westmoreland says. He concludes that the administration's decision demonstrated "courage and leadership on this vital human rights issue that should be admired, not condemned" (Westmoreland, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/25).

Organization Statements

• American Life League: "President Bush's recent decision to redirect $34 million in government funds from the United Nations' abortion coercion activities in China to USAID's abortifacient 'contraceptives' program is a purely political move with no consistency behind it," American Life League President Judie Brown said, adding, "What [Bush] has given to pro-lifers with one hand, he has taken away with the other" (American Life League release, 7/23).
• International Center for Research on Women: "The administration [has] turned its back on millions of women in developing countries for whom access to reproductive health care and family planning services provides a ticket out of a life of poverty and ill-health," ICRW President Geeta Rao Gupta said, adding, "By withholding U.S. funds to UNFPA, the [administration] is withdrawing reproductive and family planning assistance to six of the 10 poorest countries on the face of the earth. This decision further sacrifices good public health policy to narrow ideological politics" (ICRW release, 7/23).
• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Bishop Wilton Gregory, in a letter to Bush, "commended" him for withholding UNFPA funds and thanked him for "taking this action in defense of women and children in developing nations." Gregory added that he "hope[s]" Bush's action will "encourage the UNFPA to reconsider its involvement in ... injustice[s]" such as forced sterilizations and abortions (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops release, 7/23).

Email this story to a friend.	Link to this story.
Print this story.	Save this story in my saved links.