Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

Opinion,

The Guttmacher Institute has a bad prescription for Uganda

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

February 8, 2013, (C-FAM) - The Guttmacher Institute released a brief report titled Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion in Ugandain which they make their case for why increased contraception and access to “safe” abortion will reduce maternal mortality.  Briefly, their argument is that unintended pregnancy in Uganda is high, and this is because women don’t have access to contraceptives.  Because of these unintended pregnancies, women seek abortions, which Guttmacher claims are often “unsafe” due to a combination of confusing laws, lack of knowledge regarding one’s options, and stigma due to a pervasive negative attitude toward abortion.  The Guttmacher Institute, founded as a research division of Planned Parenthood, predictably offer their boilerplate recommendations: more contraceptives to reduce the “need” for abortions, and more access to “safe” and “legal” abortions for when contraceptives fail or a pregnancy turns from “wanted” to “unwanted”, if the unborn child is diagnosed as ill, disabled, or, in some cases, female.

Guttmacher estimates that just over 54% of pregnancies in Uganda are unintended, and state that “The high level of unintended pregnancy and the gap between actual and desired fertility in Uganda can be attributed largely to insufficient contraceptive use.”  According to the latest numbers from the United Nations Statistics Division, “unmet need” for contraception in Uganda was 38% in 2006.

Just for the sake of comparison, let’s look at the numbers from the United States: Guttmacher claims that 49% of pregnancies in the US are unintended, yet the UN Statistics Division puts “unmet need” for contraceptives in the US at only 6.6%, as of 2008.

As illustrated by this graph, the Guttmacher Institute’s assumption that more contraception will reduce unintended pregnancy rates in Uganda could stand a bit more scrutiny:

Relationship between “unmet need” for contraceptives and unplanned pregnancies in Uganda and the United States

Source data: Guttmacher Institute and  United Nations Statistics Division

Multiple conclusions can be drawn from this: first, the concept of “unmet need” is highly flawed (which experts have demonstrated), yet it is continually being used by organizations like UNFPA to demand funding – most recently 8.1 billion dollars a year to saturate the world with contraceptives.

Second, access to modern contraceptive methods isn’t enough to stop unintended pregnancy, as the United States numbers clearly indicate.  So what happens to those babies conceived unintentionally?

It should be noted that the Guttmacher report pays no attention whatsoever to the alarmingly high rate of miscarriage, which is almost three times higher than that of the comparable group in the United States.  Instead, the report “highlights steps that can be taken to reduce levels of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion, and, in turn, the high level of maternal mortality.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Since the Guttmacher Institute’s strategy on unintended pregnancy seems unlikely to work, their strategy for reducing maternal mortality would seem to hinge on dealing with unsafe abortion.  The exact percentage of maternal mortality in Uganda attributable to abortion is hard to pin down: Guttmacher cites an unpublished report from the 1990s claiming a rate of 21% and a statement by the Minister of Health in 2008 claiming 26%.  However, when Uganda’s Ministry of Health issued its annual report for 2011-2012, they attributed 13% of maternal deaths to abortion, which is consistent with global estimates, and, in fact, lower than the 18% rate the World Health Organization (WHO) cites for the East African region, which includes Uganda.

Outcomes of Unintended Pregnancies (United States vs. Uganda)

Source data: Guttmacher Institute

In addition to the Guttmacher Institute, the Center for Reproductive Rights also relies on the highest available estimate of maternal mortality due to abortion.  Once again, their goal is explicit: “increasing access to safe abortion services.”

It seems that Uganda does not share their priorities.  Uganda’s health ministry has been clear in defining the interventions that will improve maternal mortality.  From their Strategic Plan for 2010/11-2014-15 (PDF):

“The main factors responsible for maternal deaths relate to the three delays – delay to seek care, delay to reach facilities and intra-institutional delay to provide timely and appropriate care. Slow progress in addressing maternal health problems in Uganda is due to lack of HR, medicines and supplies and appropriate buildings and equipment including transport and communication equipment for referral.”

In other words, general improvements in medical infrastructure and transportation, the same things that have reduced maternal mortality or kept it low in many countries with laws restricting or prohibiting abortion, such as Ireland, Malta, and Sri Lanka.  WHO researchers point out that in Latin America, good healthcare infrastructure “has kept the mortality relatively low in Latin America, and the unsafe abortion case fatality rate is just about equal to that in Europe,” despite the lack of liberal abortion laws in the region.

If the Guttmacher Institute or the Center for Reproductive Rights were truly serious about saving women’s lives in Uganda, they would not rely on relatively unsubstantiated (and certainly debatable) numbers on abortion-related maternal mortality simply because they are the highest available estimates.  To do so would be to risk underestimating the rates at which other complications occur, like hemorrhage or infection or underlying health problems caused by poor nutrition, such as anemia.  Furthermore, promoting access to abortion would do nothing to improve the overall status of health care in Uganda, to say nothing of ensuring access to good roads and bridges that are crucial in ensuring prompt medical attention for everyone, including expectant mothers.

Ultimately, the focus on Uganda from these pro-abortion groups comes down to one very important fact.  As the Guttmacher report helpfully points out in its opening sentence:

“Uganda, a country of nearly 35 million (including 8 million women of reproductive age), has one of the highest rates of population growth in the world.”

And, what’s more, the Ugandan people don’t seem to share Guttmacher’s view that this is a bad thing:

“Although desired fertility is declining, many Ugandans still want large families and do not approve of abortion.”

The Guttmacher Institute is using questionable data to push a flawed agenda on a country that does not require its help to establish sound health priorities.

This article originally appeared on C-FAM and is reprinted with permission.



Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

News, ,

Donald Trump says he will promote LGBT ‘equality’ as president

Lisa Bourne

CONCORD, New Hampshire, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Does Donald Trump support the gay agenda or oppose it? On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, observers are still scratching their heads about where the GOP frontrunner actually stands.

Trump has repeatedly and consistently said he supports the natural definition of marriage, but can a President Trump be relied on to promote it resolutely and cogently? It is this question that has many marriage activists expressing concern about his increasingly likely hold on the GOP nomination.

In fact, the National Organization for Marriage has gone so far as to say that Trump has “abandoned” the pro-marriage cause.

Trump himself underscored the problem on the weekend when he told a New Hampshire television station that from the White House he would push “equality” for homosexuals even further forward.

A cable news reporter self-identifying as a lesbian asked him last Thursday after a rally in Exeter, "When President Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"

“Well, you can and look - again, we're going to bring people together. That's your thing, and other people have their thing,” Trump told Sue O’Connell of New England Cable News. “We have to bring all people together. And if we don't, we're not gonna have a country anymore. It's gonna be a total mess.”

Following the comments, Trump appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week program with George Stephanopoulos and would not commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who’d overturn Obergefell, though that would be his “preference.”

STORY: ‘Anyone but Donald Trump’: Here’s his record on life, marriage, and religious liberty

“We’re going to look at judges. They’ve got to be great judges. They’ve got to be conservative judges. We’re going to see how they stand depending on what their views are. But that would be my preference,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I would prefer that they stand against, but we’ll see what happens. It depends on the judge.”

Trump’s comments follow his statements during a Fox News Sunday interview last week, when he said, “If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things, but they've got a long way to go.” 

“[Marriage] should be a states rights issue,” Trump continued. “I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.” 

When asked by Fox if he “might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage,” Trump replied, “I would strongly consider that, yes.”

The real estate mogul criticized the Supreme Court for the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states last June, but then later in August, Trump voiced support to NBC News for banning companies from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation. “I don't think it should be a reason” to fire workers, he said at the time on Meet the Press.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a number influential evangelicals have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz in the race for president. The Texas senator has not only committed to appointing pro-marriage justices, but says the president and the states can rightly defy the “fundamentally illegitimate” ruling just as President Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision.

NOM has also been highly critical of Trump, saying he has “abandoned” their cause. The organization said in its January 27 blog post just prior to the Iowa Caucus that “Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC: ‘You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land.’”

NOM had said the week before that Trump “has made no commitments to fight for marriage, or the rights of supporters of marriage to not be discriminated against and punished for refusing to go along with the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.'”

New Hampshire voters have been tracked as showing support for homosexual “marriage,” as a poll last February showed 52 percent of Republican NH primary voters saying opposing gay “marriage” is unacceptable.

The latest CNN/WMUR tracking poll shows that overall 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a growing 17-point lead over the nearest GOP contender. RealClearPolitics polling average in the state puts him at 31.0 percent support, with Marco Rubio second at 14.7, John Kasich third at 13.2, and Ted Cruz fourth at 12.7.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Rich Koele / Shutterstock.com
Greg Quinlan

Opinion, , ,

The unravelling of Chris Christie

Greg Quinlan

February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- I'm a member of the clergy and for the past eight years have lobbied the powerful in Trenton, covering the administrations of both Governors Jon Corzine and Chris Christie.  I did much of my work on behalf of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, associated with Tony Perkins' Family Research Council.  I am currently the President of the Center for Garden State Families.

Those of us who are engaged in the fight to secure the right to believe, speak, and practice the Christian faith in America were all heartened by the election of a Pro-Life Governor in 2009.  Not only did Chris Christie run as an open Pro-Lifer, but he adopted a position in support of natural marriage in the course of the campaign.  And when legislative Democrats attempted to pass same-sex marriage in the lame duck session, so they could have outgoing Governor Corzine sign it into law, Chris Christie rallied opposition and stopped it.  Those were the early, hopeful days; but as Governor, Chris Christie has presented himself in an inconsistent, even scatterbrained way, often making decisions that go against earlier stated beliefs. 

One of his first decisions was to make a liberal Democrat the state's Attorney General.  Once approved by the Senate, and she was, the Attorney General could not be fired by the Governor, as was the case with other cabinet officers.  This gave a liberal Democrat enormous power and she used it to join up with liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in filing a brief against Christians in a case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  Just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law, moving to dismiss an NRA lawsuit to overturn the law, and later vigorously opposing the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case.  Because of this appointment, New Jersey did not join in the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare.

Governor Christie appointed a radical "sexologist" to run the NJ Department of Children & Families.  This appointee would later resign when it emerged that she had held the top job in an organization that had supported a study advocating the normalization of some forms of adult-child sex. 

His judicial appointments were also confusing.  While claiming to oppose same-sex marriage, Governor Christie nominated an openly gay Republican to the state Supreme Court who supported it.  Even Democrats wouldn't support this plainly unqualified appointment, and he never served.  The Governor supported the advancement of a liberal Democrat to the job of Chief Justice, while refusing to support the re-appointment of a Republican and the Court's most conservative member.  He also appointed a controversial defense attorney who had defended a number of Islamic extremists who had violated immigration law. 

In 2013, many of those in the Christian community opposed legislation that banned young people from receiving counseling and therapy to lead them away from homosexuality.  As an ex-gay myself, I could have personally attested to the benefits of such counseling, much of which is no different than what is found in contemporary twelve-step programs.  However, the Christian community opposing the ban was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Governor.  Only the homosexual community with its pro-ban agenda was given that benefit.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

I don't blame the Governor for this, but I do blame his staff.  As President Ronald Reagan said, "personnel is policy," and  Governor Christie's choices in personnel have not advanced the policies he campaigned on, and often it was the direct opposite.   

New Jersey ended up being just the second state in the country that only allows young people to receive counseling that advocates homosexuality, but bans by law counseling that advocates heterosexuality. When he signed it into law, Governor Christie embraced the made-up "science" of the propagandists, when he cited un-specified "research" that "sexual orientation is determined at birth."  This is the so-called "gay-gene" trope that has baffled those engaged in the Science of Genetics because it has never been discovered.

As a candidate for Governor, Chris Christie talked the talk and raised the expectations of Christians in New Jersey. As Governor, and especially in his appointments, Christie undermined our confidence in his leadership. Christians should ask tough questions before extending our faith in him again.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Center for Medical Progress lead investigator David Daleiden speaks at an event in Washington, DC, before the 2016 March for Life. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

News,

Pro-life investigator hits back with new footage after judge blocks release of abortion sting videos

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

SAN FRANCISCO, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows two National Abortion Federation (NAF) employees saying that abortion clinics would be interested in kickbacks from profits on fetal tissue and body part sales.

The video comes three days after a San Francisco imposed an injunction sought by NAF against CMP videos that one of the abortion group's attorneys said meant that "NAF's members can sleep a little easier tonight."

CMP accused the pro-abortion organization of hiding behind the court.

According to U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick, however, NAF "made...a showing" that release of CMP videos would harm rights to privacy, freedom of association, and liberty of NAF members.

URGENT: Sign the petition to Harris County urging them to drop the charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Click here.

"Critical to my decision are that the defendants agreed to injunctive relief if they breached the agreements and that, after the release of defendants’ first set of Human Capital Project videos and related information in July 2015, there has been a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members," wrote Orrick.

Additionally, the judge found that CMP's videos “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions," and that nobody from the abortion industry “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit" in the CMP videos.

However, in a new video released today that is unrelated to the injunction, a NAF employee told undercover journalists that kickbacks "definitely [sound] like something some [of] our members would be really interested in," with another chiming in that money from private purchasers to abortion clinics were "a win-win" for clinics.

The undercover investigators, who had purported to be part of a biotechnology company with an interest in fetal parts, were offered the chance to be at a NAF conference. “We have an exhibit hall and then we also have the general conference. But I mean, this is a very great way to talk to our members. We have a group purchasing program through our membership,” the journalists were told. “So it seems like this would be a really great option to be able to offer our members, as well.”

This is the second ruling against CMP in recent weeks, and the second by Orrick since July. The San Francisco judge issued a restraining order against CMP related to NAF's 2014 and 2015 meetings in San Francisco and Baltimore that Friday's ruling extended.

The other recent ruling came in the form of an indictment of CMP's David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Merritt and Daleiden turned themselves into Houston authorities for booking and processing last week. After being released on bail, Daleiden spoke at a LifeSiteNews/Christian Defense Coalition press conference after which more than 100,000 petition signatures backing Daleiden were dropped off to the Harris County, Texas District Attorney's office.

According to Orrick, who says he reviewed the more than 500 hours of recordings from CMP, "It should be said that the majority of the recordings lack much public interest, and despite the misleading contentions of defendants, there is little that is new in the remainder of the recordings. Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor.”

NAF did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations by Orrick and a NAF spokesperson that CMP's videos have caused threats and other security concerns against NAF members.



Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook