Steven Mosher

, ,

Corrupted by Population Control? The Case of CARE

Steven Mosher
By Steven Mosher
Image

Should Catholics and other Christians be Supporting an Organization Whose Policies, if not its Programs, are Indistinguishable from those of Planned Parenthood?

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, August 20, 2012 (pop.org) - Should Catholics and other Christians be Supporting an Organization Whose Policies, if not its Programs, are Indistinguishable from those of Planned Parenthood?

Today’s CARE has nothing in common to the food relief organization that was set up by Christians in the wake of World War II. People need to know that instead of CARE packages full of canned goods, the organization now devotes its resources to promoting “Sexual and Reproductive Health” (SRH), which in practice means abortion, sterilization and contraception. The best way to “empower” poor women to get an education, advance economically and reduce maternal mortality, CARE believes, is to disable their fertility.

But don’t take my word for it. As CARE itself says, “Effective programming in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is a vital component of CARE’s work to reduce poverty and social injustice. Improving SRH and addressing the unmet need for family planning are central to CARE’s commitment to poverty reduction and gender equity. It is clear that improvements in SRH—and health in general—are linked to economic and social development and must be addressed to achieve sustainable reductions in poverty. CARE is committed to improving access to and use of quality SRH information and services by poor and vulnerable people. CARE is equally committed to addressing the underlying causes of poor SRH status.”

As I have written in the pages of the Linacre Quarterly, I take issue with all these claims. While it is true that economic development, higher levels of education, and a general reduction in poverty all work to lower birthrates—the developed world is dying, after all—it is not at all clear that forcing birthrates down will itself jump-start economic development, reduce poverty, etc. In fact, the best way to reduce maternal mortality is not, as CARE supposes, to put women on the pill, but instead to have trained midwives attend births.

CARE, like IPPF, also stridently opposes the Mexico City Policy, which was put in place to protect Americans from having to fund abortion overseas. Immediately after Obama’s election, the organization came out with an editorial entitled “A Request for President Obama.” This screed opened with a sentence that was both inflammatory and false: “It’s time to get rid of a [Mexico City] policy that kills women around the world.”

The CEO of CARE, Helene Gayle, also joined the radical feminists in testifying before Congress against the Mexico City policy: “In the reproductive health field, many of the best local organizations provide comprehensive family planning services, sometimes including counseling on safe abortion. The Mexico City Policy prohibits organizations like CARE from working with such organizations, and in some cases, prevents us from working with the only organizations that are capable of providing the most basic family planning services. Thus, it diminishes not just the availability of these services but also their quality.”

Just so you know, “comprehensive family planning services” is the code phrase for performing abortions, while “safe abortion” is the code phrase for legalizing abortion. The Mexico City policy saves the lives of countless unborn children by preventing U.S. funds from going to organizations that promote, perform, or lobby for the legalization of abortion.

It is true that, in addition to CARE’s SRH projects, the organization continues to carry out a number of “Development” and “Emergency Relief” projects which provide basic needs, such as food, water and sanitation, to remote areas in poor countries. But even these projects generally have a family planning component. In Guatemala, for example, CARE “operates projects in water and sanitation, agriculture, agroforestry, primary health care, population, girl’s education and small economic activity development.” (Italics added) The “primary health care, population, girl’s education” aspects will all doubtless include a family planning component. CARE Honduras has projects that “include maternal and child health and nutrition, small enterprise development, agroforestry, irrigation, micro-watershed protection and environmental education.” Remember here that CARE prefers to guard “maternal health,” ironically enough, by preventing women from becoming mothers.

But CARE’s glamour projects, which is to say its largest and best-funded initiatives, are those that involve chemically or surgically sterilizing large numbers of women. In 2008, CARE launched their Mothers Matter initiative in Bangladesh and Tanzania. As the campaign expanded http://www.care.org/campaigns/accessafrica/downloads/SigProg_Overview_v1.pdf, CARE requested “$150 million in funding to support the implementation of MOTHERS MATTER in at least 10 countries,” including Nicaragua, Cambodia, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Rwanda and Sierra Leone.

In describing the project, CARE claims that “if all women could have access to family planning and obstetric care, maternal mortality and morbidity could be significantly reduced.” While it is certainly true that obstetric care—missing in most developing world villages—dramatically reduces the possibility of dying in childbirth, the same cannot be said of “access to family planning.” CARE confounds the two because it believes that poor women simply have too many children.

Then there is Madagascar, for which more projects are listed than in any other country. Many of these are Development Projects that may or may not have a family planning component. But its flagship project in this country of 20 million people is the Extra Mile Initiative (EMI). This is billed as “one of CARE Madagascar’s largest project zones,” and it is intended to “increase awareness and access to family planning services” in rural areas.

CARE is confident that its promotion of abortifacient contraceptives and population control will succeed, according to one summary, because of the way the “program’s strategies have been integrated into local health systems, communities, and local government.” What this means, in plain English, is that any woman of childbearing age who walks into a local health clinic—for whatever reason—will not leave until she has been propagandized about the need to be on birth control.

The involvement of local government officials in enforcing the policy is troubling as well, although CARE doesn’t seem to think so. The organization brags that “the twist…was to embed the EMI not only in the local health system and the communities it serves, but also in local government, forming a solid triad of implementation and oversight.” Since local government officials are powerful figures in poor countries, it is easy to see why CARE wants them to help convince poor women to go on the pill. After all, they are well-positioned to do any arm-twisting that may be required.

If you know anyone who has been donating to CARE, you might ask them to reconsider. No person of conscience should be supporting an organization that is engaging in this sort of contraceptive imperialism around the world.

This article was originally published as the August 20 Population Research Institute’s Weekly Briefing.


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook