News

Friday December 10, 1999


UN & IPPF Behind International Promotion of “Emergency Contraception”

The rapid proliferation of abortifacient “emergency contraception” around the world in the past few years, has been engineered by an international consortium of abortion supporters. Formed in 1996, the International Consortium on Emergency Contraception, includes UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (Geneva); International Planned Parenthood Federation (London); The Population Council (New York); The Concept Foundation (Bangkok); Pacific Institute for Women’s Health (Los Angeles); Pathfinder International (Boston); Population Services International (Washington, DC); and Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH).

The stated objective of the group states that it is “committed to making a dedicated product for emergency contraception a standard part of reproductive health care around the world,” with no consideration of the effects of these potent drugs on women’s health.

Work on the project began immediately with the World Health Organization adding “emergency contraceptive pills” (ECPs) to its published list of Essential Drugs in 1996. National governments use the Essential Drugs list to help guide choice in public coverage of pharmaceutical drugs.

1996 also marked the first year the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in collaboration with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), UNICEF and WHO, worked on an emergency reproductive health kit. The inter-agency group defined ECPs as part of a Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) to be provided in the world’s refugee camps. That year UNFPA distributed the ECPs in refugee camps in Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda.

The consortium was aided by groups promoting population control since ECP’s served as an aid in this regard. In a Fact Sheet distributed to all of its overseas missions in October 1997, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) declared ECPs safe and effective and said they “constitute an integral part of the voluntary service delivery mix that USAID supports.”

The abortifacient drugs are marketed in different countries under different brand names, but all acting similarly to, in most cases, alter the lining of the womb thus not allowing the tiny baby created at fertilization to implant in the womb. Canada and the US have Preven and soon Plan B while in Nigeria and other African countries common ECPs include Postinor 2, Tetragynon and PC4; South Africans are faced with E-Gen-C. WHO even published a study indicating that mifepristone (RU486) could be used in low doses for “emergency contraception.”

While much of Western Europe has been open to the abortifacient drug regime, other countries had to be encouraged to accept ECPs. The Consortium partners launched sophisticated ECP propaganda campaigns mounting them on the Internet in as many as 13 languages. Professional slide presentations in various languages were produced for marketers. Always positive studies and surveys on ECPs appeared from one country to another. Pamphlets, posters and even toll free lines were set up to promote the drugs. Furthermore, the group worked from the beginning to have the drugs available over the counter. The consortium laboriously catalogued all opposition and developed strategies to deal with resistance and was aided in their task by many abortion-supporting groups.

In the fall of 1998 the consortium predicted that it would “fulfill its original mandate by mid-1999”. “At that time,” they said there would be an “enthusiastic response to emergency contraception around the world” and an “increase in the number of organizations engaged in introducing this method.”

For the many negative side effects of ECPs see:
https://lsn.ca/ldn/1999/sept/990922a.html


SHARE THIS STORY: E-mail Print Newsvine Digg Reddit Del.icio.us Facebook


Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

0 Comments

    Loading...