In a message dated 98-10-22 15:13:31 EDT, you write:
<< Let's try it first, before we gratuitously declare it impossible, shall
we? Joe
>>
Try what - mandatory population control?
That IS what I was referring to - I am for voluntary population limitation
not mandatory control.
If we were to try it - how would it work - who would tell who (or is that
whom?) if they could have babies?
Thanks!
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 23 12:31:46 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:31:07 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: U.S. Funding from UNFPA
Hi!
Forwarded message!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
PRESS RELEASE
United Nations Population Fund
Contact:
Alex Marshall
Corrie Shanahan
Abubakar Dungus
Fax: (212) 557-6416
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.
*********************
