More on the United Nations Population Fund

Rob's post raises the question -- also raised by Mr. Kristof in his recent NYT column -- whether there is a tension between (a) President Bush's opposition to funding the U.N. Population Fund and (b) the President's professed pro-life commitments.  And, Rob's colleague, Elizabeth Brown, asks:  "[S]houldn't the supporters of the policy have to show that it has in fact done something concrete to save lives rather than be merely a symbolic gesture which imposes real harms on women and children in other countries?"  Apparently, by "something concrete, Prof. Brown means that President Bush has to "show that the denial of funding has prevented more abortions and deaths from complications from abortions than the lives lost due to stillbirths and deaths in childbirth which are occurring because the UNPF didn't receive the $125 million from the US to pay for the medical programs that would have prevented these deaths[.]"

I don't think so.  That is, it seems to me that the question whether someone is "pro-life" need not be answered by asking whether, all things considered, more people (including unborn children) died during that person's administration than would have died under someone else's, or than would have died had that person pursued other policies.  The reason not to support the U.N. Population Fund is to avoid funding -- and, arguably, culpably cooperating with -- intentional and unjustified homicides.  It seems to me that, even if it were the case that, on balance, the U.N. Population Fund "saves more lives" than it takes, that fact would not undo the wrong of such culpable cooperation.  It appears that Prof. Brown's argument tracks pretty closely the argument, advanced by some, that cloning and then destroying human embryos for research purposes should be endorsed and funded -- even if the practice involves ending human beings' lives -- because such activities could produce medical breakthroughs that will save lives.

Relatedly, a colleague, and former counsel to the President's Council on Bioethics, passed on to me this press release from the National Right to Life Committee: 

It has been reported . . . that the Bush Administration within the next few days will announce that it will deny U.S. funding ($34 million) to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and redirect those funds to other programs.  A spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) today expressed strong approval of this reportedly imminent action.

"The UNFPA is a cheerleader and facilitator for China’s birth-quota program, which relies heavily on coerced abortion,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “Top UNFPA officials have been completely cozy with China’s birth-quota bosses. For 20 years, top UNFPA leaders have consistently praised China’s program and attacked its critics.”

The Bush Administration reportedly has determined that the UNFPA remains in violation of the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion law. The amendment prohibits giving U.S. “population assistance” funds to “any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

. . .   "In China, government officials continue to subject women and their families to crushing fines and employment sanctions, and even destroy their homes, for becoming pregnant without government permission,” said NRLC’s Johnson. “U.S. law prohibits funding an agency that in any way participates in such a coercive program.”

For two decades, top UNFPA officials have vigorously defended China’s program against its critics, and have held China’s program up as a model for other developing nations. For example, UNFPA Executive Director Nafis Sadik told a congressional briefing on May 24, 1989, “The UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the government of the People’s Republic of China, that their program is a totally voluntary program.”  (For factsheets containing numerous similar examples, contact NRLC at [email protected] or 202-626-8820.) Currently, the official website of China’s State Family Planning Commission features a report on an award presented earlier this year to Sadik, who headed the UNFPA from 1987 to 2000. (See www.sfpc.gov.cn/EN/enews20020114-2.htm)

Currently UNFPA prefers to focus attention on 32 Chinese counties (out of about 2,800) in which the UNFPA says that China’s government “has agreed to lift” birth quotas. But last year a private team of investigators associated with the Population Research Institute (PRI) traveled in one of these counties -- without government officials witnessing their interviews -- and documented that local officials were employing destruction of homes, incarceration of family members, and other forms of coercive pressure on women who were pregnant outside of the quota system.

This evidence and other testimony regarding systematic coercion in China was presented at a hearing of the House International Relations Committee on October 17, 2001, posted here .

Moreover, a report by three British members of Parliament who traveled to China in April found that even in the 32 counties “where UNFPA insists that only voluntarism exists,” Chinese citizens “still have to pay a ‘social compensation’ payment if they have more than one or two children. . . . Chinese officials confirmed that the compensation payment is set at a level, which most families would find extremely difficult to pay. It therefore acts as a pretty powerful incentive to conform. This is a form of coercion.” (The British team recommended continued funding of the UNFPA by the United Kingdom, but their observations provide additional evidence that the Kemp-Kasten Amendment would be violated by U.S. funding of the UNFPA.)

NRLC takes no position on federal funding of contraceptive services. Nor does NRLC take any position on what the funding level for the population assistance program should be so long as President Bush’s “Mexico City Policy” and the Kemp Kasten Amendment remain in effect. NRLC is strongly opposed to any weakening of these two policies, which would result in resumption of U.S. taxpayer support for organizations which promote abortion and even programs of coercive abortion.

Rick