Population-Control Politics

  1. The following is from the editorial page of the 7/15/2003 New York Times. Well worth the read.


    Population-Control Politics

    The House of Representatives faces a crucial vote today affecting the health of women in 140 poor countries. Through the authorization of the State Department budget, the House can restore tens of millions of dollars in vital American aid for the United Nations Population Fund or, for a second year in a row, cut it off in the mistaken belief that the fund colludes with coerced abortions in China.

    The Population Fund is the largest agency in the world focused on women's reproductive health. There was a brief, unremarked ceremony yesterday in the Afghan capital, Kabul, that illustrates what the fund does. With help from the fund, the Khair Khana Hospital, once filthy and overcrowded, was reopened with a large staff, modern equipment and the possibility of helping Afghan women with complicated pregnancies deliver their babies safely.

    The Population Fund helps women give birth safely. It fights such debilitations as obstetric fistula, a hideous and difficult complication in pregnancy. Indeed, it is just the kind of organization and work the United States should be supporting. Instead, conservative Republicans stripped the fund of American support last year because of false accusations that the U.N. Population Fund has either stood by or helped with coerced abortions in China.

    Today's vote on the State Department budget includes a restoration of the organization's funds, thanks to an amendment by Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat from Queens. Opponents, who mistakenly believe-or cynically advertise-that they are protecting Chinese women and unborn babies, want to kill the amendment.

    The opponents, led by Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican, unfairly describe the Population Fund as an organization with a "long history of complicity in human rights violations" engaged in an "attack on women overseas." These are irresponsible, unsubstantiated accusations. They have helped persuade numerous members of Congress that it is wiser to deny the organization American support.

    The fact is that Population Fund performs no abortions and is working to end coerced abortion in China. An American investigating team sent by the administration last year found "no evidence" that the fund "has supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China." In previous years, Congress has supported the fund with the stipulation that no American money be spent in China. That is unnecessary, but if that is what it takes to get the fund the $50 million it deserves from Congress this year, it is a compromise that should be explored.
  2. 10 Comments

  3. by   Spidey's mom
    This is another one of those "he said, she said" debates. I did a search and came up with lots of evidence that the United Nations Population Fund is corrupt.



  4. by   donmurray
    Interesting sources! I read some of the "evidence", but I had to stop and take a shower, it felt like swimming around in a sewer. I think I'll agree with the NY Times on this one.
  5. by   Ted
    Just read the three articles. Thanks.

    I'll trust the New York Times on this one too.
    Last edit by Ted on Jul 15, '03
  6. by   Spidey's mom
    The same New York Times who recently had to let a reporter go for falsifying his stories . . . .not to mention an editor for knowing about it and doing nothing?

    Okey dokey . . . .

  7. by   Q.
    Originally posted by stevielynn
    The same New York Times who recently had to let a reporter go for falsifying his stories . . . .not to mention an editor for knowing about it and doing nothing?

    Okey dokey . . . .

  8. by   Ted
    Hey, folks.

    Never said that New York Times was perfect. However, it's much more reliable than the National Review. . . the ultimate in propaganda spinning for the political "far-out" politically "right".

    (My source is better than your source. . . . )

    Last edit by Ted on Jul 15, '03
  9. by   Q.
    Originally posted by efiebke
    Hey, folks.

    Never said that New York Times was perfect. However, it's much more reliable than the National Review. . .
    I wouldn't go that far. Many think that the NY Times is about as far left as the National Review is right. The point is just what Stevielynn said: it's a he-said, she-said debate. The fact that the Times and the National Review are so polar on it demonstrates this point.

    Now, forget the National Review for a moment. What about the CATO Institute? What's your view on that?
  10. by   fergus51
    I don't see how any nurse who works OB can be for cutting funding to population control
  11. by   Ted
    Cato's Mission
    The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.

    Cato's Publications and Events
    The Cato Institute undertakes an extensive publications program dealing with the complete spectrum of public policy issues. Books, monographs, briefing papers and shorter studies are commissioned to examine issues in nearly every corner of the public policy debate. Policy forums and book forums are held regularly, as are major policy conferences, which Cato hosts throughout the year, and from which papers are published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal. All of these events are taped and archived on Cato's Web site. Additionally, Cato has held major conferences in London, Moscow, Shanghai, and Mexico City. The Institute also publishes the quarterly magazine Regulation and a bimonthly newsletter, Cato Policy Report.

    How Cato Is Funded
    In order to maintain an independent posture, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding or endowments. Contributions are received from foundations, corporations, and individuals. Other revenue is generated from the sale of publications. The Cato Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Cato's 2000 revenues were just under $13 million, and it has approximately 90 full-time employees, 60 adjunct scholars, and 16 fellows, plus interns.

    How to Label Cato
    Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

    "Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

    Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.

    The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

    The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is--or used to be--the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

    Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.


    Seems like a "Libertarian" web site. What do I think about it? Don't know too much about it, to be honest. In reading this page I can see strengths and weakness to Libertarianism. It seems to be pro-democracy and seems inclusive.

    I don't think anyone wants TOO large of a government. However, I'm concerned about its stance with a small government and business. I'm concerned that the philosophy of Libertarianism would limit the role of government in such a way that it would promote business practices harmful for our society; that it would eventually promote an oligarchial society based on business - like it is now.

    In an unsophisticated manner, I think the role of government should always be "For the People by the People". . . should always promote an educated and healthy society. . . should always be a watch dog organization against anything that could weaken democracy, citizenry of this country and our well-being. . . ALWAYS supporting humans first, businesses second . . and again always "For the People by the People" with the people empowerd first.

    It's not that I'm against business. I'm against government supporting the interests of "corporate business" above flesh and blood.

    I ardently believe the it's big business that runs this country; the special interests of corporations; a big business-based oligarchy . Not it's citizenry. Not human beings.

    For many, many reasons, I most certainly do NOT believe that democracy is alive and well in this country. I'm dead serious when it say that I believe the democracy in this country is quite ill. . . possibly dying.

    Now, where were we??? Oh yea. . . .

    The politics of population control. . . .

    Now, if a discussion on "The Role of Government for a Society" or discussion on "The Pros and Cons of Libertarianism" is warrented, I suggest a new thread to hold such discussions.
    Last edit by Ted on Jul 16, '03
  12. by   H ynnoD
    I read an article not long ago,that most populations are going down insted of up,because of abortion.Only a few countries populations are increasing.Did'nt read all the articles so if this has already been mentioned Sorry!