LONDON, December 6, 2002 ( – The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has condemned the British government for giving more bilateral overseas aid for abortion and population control than for clean drinking water.  In a newly-published report, the Department for International Development (DFID)‘s 2001/02 bilateral funding commitments are £260 million for “reproductive health services”. In stark contrast “safe drinking water and adequate sanitation” is given only £78.8 million. “Reproductive health” is a term commonly used to include abortion, sterilisation and contraception.  SPUC political spokesman Anthony Ozimic asked: “How can the government justify spending almost three-and-a-half times more taxpayers’ money on preventing the poor from being born than on saving their lives by giving them clean water?”  Mr. Ozimic continued: “World Bank statistics show that millions of women in China and Vietnam have had an IUD fitted or are visited by Pill vendors but still do not have decent drinking water. World Bank figures also estimate that providing safe water & sanitation may cost as little as £13 per person. This would mean that the £260 million the government is spending on population control could instead be used to give 20 million people safe drinking water and adequate sanitation.  “The government’s other bilateral funding commitments also appear meagre next to its abortion/population control budget. Many countries need help with sustainable agriculture, but this need only gets £62.5 million. Likewise, aid to combat desertification, land degradation and drought only gets a paltry £6 million”. said Mr. Ozimic.  “Water and food production are basic human needs, but the British government prefers to promote its fixed ideology of population control at the expense of the developing world”, concluded Mr. Ozimic.


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.