fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
Casualties of Compassionate Christian Conservatism
Published on July 20, 2004 By kingbee In Current Events

an estimated 510,000 women lose their lives giving birth each year: roughly 251,000  in sub-saharan africa, 253,000 in asia,  22,000 in the caribbean and about 2,500 in all the first world countries.  maternal mortality rates rise in reverse proportion to the number of births attended by a midwife or caregiver.  in the us, europe and latin america, nearly all deliveries are assisted by a caregiver. in sub-saharan africa and asia, the percentage drops to about 58%.  

needless deaths are deplorable. needless deaths of young mothers devastate their surviving children, families and communities. worldwide, the communities least able to sustain the loss of any healthy young adults--especially parents--are those in aids-ravaged sub-saharan africa and asia. 

in at least 10% of maternal mortality cases, the newborn infant dies as well..

while there are not now nearly enough qualified birth assistors to prevent all these needless deaths, there is a simple, effective, inexpensive means of  significantly reducing them.  called a "safe motherhood kit", its intended to provide clean birthings. each kit consists of a sterile plastic sheet to provide a clean delivery area, a razor, soap, gauze,  a surgical blade to cut the umbilical cord, tape with which to tie off the umbilical cord and step-by-step illustrated instructions.

kits have been distributed to 140 countries through the united nations fund for population activities (unfpa).  there's no question as to their efficacy when it comes protecting the life of both baby and mother.  

the united states congress has allocated 34 million dollars to the unfpa each year for the past three years.  on july 16, 2004, secretary of state powell announced the administration was withholding these funds for the third year in a row.  the state department, powell said by way of explanation, is convinced the unfpa helps china manage its coercive 'one child' program which involves forced abortions. 

according to representative carolyn maloney  d-ny,  state department investigators concluded two years ago there was no evidence linking the fund to any coercive abortion programs in china.

a unfpa press release issued on july 16, 2004 also refutes powell's assertion.  the following is excerpted from that release. 

“The United States’ contribution could have saved thousands of lives,” said Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UNFPA’s Executive Director.

"UNFPA has not, does not and will not ever condone or support coercive activities of any kind, anywhere," Ms. Obaid said.

An assessment team sent to China in 2002 by the U.S. State Department found no evidence that the Fund supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization—on the contrary, it reported that UNFPA had registered its strong opposition to such practices. That team recommended that funds allocated by Congress be released to UNFPA. Three other independent teams, from the United Nations, the British Parliament and a multi-faith panel of religious leaders, reached the same conclusion.

The United States is the only country to deny funding to UNFPA for non-budgetary reasons."

so what's really going on?  

here's a clue:

in iraq and afghanistan, islamist theocrats demand implementation of their interpretation of the q'uran.  in the us, religious rightist  theocrats demand implementation of their interpretation of christianity. one such american ayatollah wannabe--rep chris h. smith r-nj--applauded the administration's decision, proclaiming, "President Bush has taken the side of the oppressed and refused to cooperate with the oppressor." 

that should come as no surprise since smith--as point man for the anti-abortion forces of the religious right--led the attack on unfpa funding. 

actions speak much louder and more effectively than words or slogans such as 'pro-life'.  based on last week's decision, one can only conclude smith, his colleagues and the president's commitment to life is being sublimated to their  belief in miracles--because barring a miracle, another 500,000+ women are going to die thanks to this decision.

"
Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 20, 2004
The agenda of those in office right now, scare me more on a daily basis than any threat of terror has since 9/11. I've heard nothing about this, of course. Other than reading how many women and children still die on the UNICEF page. Thanks for the insightful article.
on Jul 20, 2004
"-because barring a miracle, another 500,000+ women are going to die thanks to this decision."


The people you oppose see your alternative as 500,000+ children dying. Don't pretend it is as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Pro-Life is not a small minority, not by a long shot. If you pretend that your "ideals" are universal truths then you aren't any better than those you villify for opposing you.

Let the people of a nation decide the laws for their nation, not a minority and activist judges. If you don't then you are as bad as the theocrats you invent in your sick imagination.
on Jul 20, 2004

I've heard nothing about this, of course

i just recently learned about it thanks to a piece profiling 2 american women who have been raising funds to help unfpa provide these kits in spite of the administration's attempts to shut the program down.  thanks for your comment.

on Jul 20, 2004

The people you oppose see your alternative as 500,000+ children dying. Don't pretend it is as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

there's no pretense here.  

on one hand, blocking this funding will not save any lives.  the chinese government is going to do whatever it intends. its policy is not funded through unfpa.

on the other, since unfpa asserts it is actively opposing forced abortions, there is always the possibility their efforts will succeed in convincing china to reconsider its policy.  but even if that doesnt happen,  theres no greater good achieved by impeding unfpa's efforts to prevent women--who are alive and breathing at this moment just like the rest of us--from dying needlessly and painfully. 

on Jul 20, 2004

Pro-Life is not a small minority

but a minority all the same.

Let the people of a nation decide the laws for their nation, not a minority and activist judges. If you don't then you are as bad as the theocrats you invent in your sick imagination.

the people did decide when their representatives allocated the funding.  youre the one supporting the action of a faction you just qualified as a minority.  there are no judges involved whatsoever. 

id appreciate a clarification as to the health of my imagination.  the religious right are self-proclaimed theocrats.

on Jul 20, 2004

I'm pro-choice. But describing 45% of the population as a minority is really abusing the term minority. And of the 55% that aren't "pro-life" most of them support limits on abortion.

on Jul 21, 2004

this isnt really about abortion.  if unfpa were totally shut down, china wouldn't change its policy. unfpa is on record as opposing coercive abortion in general as well as china's approach to population control. it hardly makes sense that a sincere commitment to protecting the life of unborn children would somehow  preclude preventing the death of women while giving birth or as a consequence of bringing a child into the world.

impeding the unfpa's distribution of kits that reduce maternal mortality does not seem pro- anything except possibly promoting ones political career at the expense of the unfortunate.

on Jul 21, 2004
Does the UNFPA do anything related to abortion? If not, then I can't understand why the administration would be withholding funds from it.
on Jul 21, 2004
I'm pro-choice, but I feel that in the future, when there is 5 billion people in USA alone, all countries will make and heavily enforce some kind or other of policy that limits the number of children.
on Jul 21, 2004

Does the UNFPA do anything related to abortion? If not, then I can't understand why the administration would be withholding funds from it.


despite emphatic statements by unfpa to the contrary, the administration asserts the organization helps china manage its 'one child' policy.  investigations conducted by the state department and the british government in 2002 found nothing to support that claim. china's state family planning committee denies the allegation as well


according to unfpa executive director thoraya obaid, "UNFPA does not support or promote abortion anywhere in the world.  The services we promote reduce the incidence of abortion.  Abortion rates are actually declining in the 32 counties in China where we operate."  unfpa spokesman stirling scruggs said the agency's policies in china "are working.  There are no more coerced abortions or sterilizations in any of these counties."

on Jul 21, 2004
It seems to me that this article and UNFPA have nothing to do with abortion, other than stating the ridiculous stand of the United States by trying to turn it into an abortion issue.
on Jul 21, 2004

the ridiculous stand of the United States by trying to turn it into an abortion issue


using what appears to be an unsubstantiated claim of abortion advocacy as the basis for holding back funds allocated to enable the un prevent mothers from dying in childbirth is not merely ridiculous, its cruel and hypocritical.  it seems to me the fault lies with the administration rather than the united states.  congress--representing the wishes of the country--approved the allocation.  i believe if this issue received wider coverage, the american people would demand these funds be released to unfpa. 

on Jul 21, 2004
It does sound incredibly stupid to be against an organization that doesn't do anything controversial. I don't understand the reasoning behind it at all. If there was more publicity on the issue, maybe the administration would provide a reasonable excuse or stop withholding funds.
on Jul 22, 2004

doesn't do anything controversial

there is controversy, obviously, but--from what i can determine--it's unfounded.

on Jul 27, 2004


While their own website does not mention the word abortion on any of the main pages, it does state that they promote supporting the families that "lack adequate means to plan their families or space their children" with the services needed to do so.

Sounds like a roundabout way of saying they will provide abortions.

So I can understand why the Pro-choice president would feel unwilling to support such an organization.
2 Pages1 2