This will be of interest - posted on the Health Promotion List David >X-BlackMail: 192.139.37.12, newmail.web.net, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=6153, 192.139.37.12 >X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 16:07:54(EDT) on October 21, 1998 >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:04:13 -0400 >Reply-To: Health Promotion on the Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sender: Health Promotion on the Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Sam Lanfranco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: DKProj >Subject: US Withdraws Suppor for United Nations Population Fund >Comments: To: Canchid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by newmail.web.net id PAA27565 > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: > > Executive Director's Statement on the > Withdrawal of U.S. Funding from UNFPA > > NEW YORK, 20 October 1998 Following is a statement by Dr. >Nafis Sadik, Executive Director of the United Nations >Population Fund (UNFPA): > > UNFPA deeply regrets today’s news that the United States >will not include funding for UNFPA in appropriations for >the coming financial year. The decision penalizes not only >UNFPA but the millions of ordinary women and men on whose >behalf we work. It will inevitably reduce our ability to >implement vital programmes in the area of reproductive >health and rights. > > The U.S. decision will mean the unnecessary death and >suffering of women who are deprived of the information and >means to plan their families. It will deny many people in >developing countries the right that Americans take for >granted the right to individual freedom in regard to the >size and spacing of the family. It will weaken not only >population programmes but programmes aimed at better >health, equal access to health and education for women, and >economic security. > > The U.S. decision will hit especially hard the >least-developed countries in Africa and elsewhere whose >population programmes are most dependent on external >assistance. It will contribute to the spread of sexually >transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, which pose an >ever-larger threat to health, life and prospects for >development. It is a step backwards from United States’ >leadership in the population field and United States’ >support for internationally-agreed approaches to population >problems. > > The United States’ decision is misguided from the point of >view of all those, including UNFPA, who seek to minimize >abortion. At the very time when individual demand for family >planning is rising all over the world, it will weaken >family planning programmes and increase the use of abortion >to avoid unwanted births. > > UNFPA-supported programmes have succeeded in raising the >use of family planning and reducing reliance on abortion. >All UNFPA programmes are based on the principle that >individuals have the right to make their own decisions in >regard to the size and spacing of the family and to the >means and information to do so. UNFPA reproductive health >programmes do not promote abortion nor provide assistance >for abortion services. > > Falling birth and population growth rates in developing >countries demonstrate beyond question the practical >validity of promoting reproductive health and rights as ends >in themselves, as well as the means to achieve smaller >families and slower population growth. > > The decision to deny U.S. funding to UNFPA is also >misguided from the point of view of all those who, like >UNFPA, wish to promote reproductive health and rights in >China. The new UNFPA programme in China, which is limited >to 32 counties, was carefully designed to ensure respect >for the human rights norms agreed by 180 nations at the >International Conference on Population and Development in >1994, including the vital principle of individual decision >on the size and spacing of the family. The new programme >excludes all elements which might lead to lower standards, >such as > incentives and quotas for family planning and family size. >It was approved early this year by the 36 nations that >comprise UNFPA’s Executive Board, including the United >States. > > Note for Editors: > > U.S. funding for UNFPA is $20 million in FY 1998. The total >approved by the U.S. for UNFPA in FY 1998. was $25 million, >which was reduced by $5 million the amount expected to be >spent in China. Since 1984, no U.S. funds have been >available for UNFPA expenditure in China. U.S. funding for >UNFPA was suspended in 1986 when its total pledge was $46 >million, and was restored by President Clinton in 1993. >UNFPA’s total resources in 1997 were $290 million. > > In one year alone, the impact of the United States’ >decision to withdraw funding from UNFPA will be to deprive >870,000 women of effective modern contraception. Over >520,000 will end up not using any method. Non-use and use >of ineffective methods will result in: > >1,200 maternal and 22,500 infant deaths; >15,000 life-threatening illnesses and injuries to mothers >during pregnancy and childbirth. >500,000 unwanted pregnancies, resulting in: >234,000 unwanted births; >200,000 abortions. >--------------- end of press release -------- > > > > Sam Lanfranco > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Netscape Conference Address > Netscape Co >
