Though it probably won’t make the front pages of any newspaper, and it won’t get mentioned on any of the nightly newscasts, the House of Representatives’ vote on the United Nations Population Fund yesterday will have a devastating impact on the lives of families around the world.
A narrow 216 to 211 vote blocked $50 million in U.S. international family planning funds that would have gone to the U.N. Population Fund, generally known as UNFPA. It’s the second year in a row that the federal government has failed to contribute a modest sum to an institution that saves countless lives. And since Bush has not asked for a penny for UNFPA in his 2004 budget, next year will find the same result.
This is conservative politics at its most vile. Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) said on the House floor yesterday that it would be an “unconscionable act” to give money to the U.N. agency because, he claimed, UNFPA supports China’s “one child” policy, which can include forced abortions. Smith added, “We need to stand with the oppressed, not with the oppressor.”
On principle, I agree with Chris Smith completely about the need to stand with the oppressed. Unfortunately, however, by blocking UNFPA funding, Smith is actually making life harder for millions of oppressed families.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Since its inception in 1969, UNFPA has won widespread recognition around the world for its work in improving the lives of women and children in developing countries. When the Bush administration prepared its 2002 federal budget, the White House appropriated $25 million for the program, which at the time, no one considered controversial.
In explaining why the administration sought increased support for the Population Fund, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002, “We recognize that UNFPA does invaluable work through its programs in maternal and child health care, voluntary family planning, screening for reproductive tract cancers, breast-feeding promotion and HIV/AIDS prevention.”
With Powell’s endorsement, Congress complied with the administration’s request and allocated $34 million for the fund. The measure sailed through the House with bipartisan support. In the Senate, not a single member voted against funding UNFPA, a rare unanimous vote in a closely divided Senate.
Then the religious right got involved.
Once groups such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and an anti-abortion group called Population Research Institute learned of the appropriation, they began putting pressure on the administration to reverse itself.
Their criticisms were based on unsubstantiated claims that the Population Fund spent money on forced abortions and sterilization in China, the same claims Republican House members such as Chris Smith used on the House floor yesterday. Douglas Johnson at the National Right to Life Committee told The New York Times last year that UNFPA is “a cheerleader and facilitator for China’s birth-quota program, which relies heavily on coerced abortion.”
The claims are completely untrue and have been thoroughly debunked. The Population Fund’s work in China is limited to 32 counties, all of which follow voluntary family planning programs. Multiple international investigations have confirmed that fact. British officials sent a team of officials to China that concluded earlier this year that the U.N. program was actually helping steer China away from draconian policies.
Not satisfied with the British report, the Bush administration sent its own team to investigate UNFPA’s alleged role with forced abortions in China. In May, the American investigators found “no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the [People’s Republic of China]” and recommended release of the $34 million appropriation.
Instead of using the information as justification for its original position, the Bush White House suppressed the report, literally hiding it from public view for two months. In June 2002, the White House put a “hold” on all U.S. subsidies for UNFPA.
The same lawmakers on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who had voted to spend the money were displeased. Over 120 members of Congress co-signed a letter to the president, arguing that they considered the agreement on UNFPA to be binding. The administration asked for the money, Congress appropriated the money. It was a done deal.
Bush said he disagreed and refused to release the very funds his administration had requested. When Congress announced it would consider legislation that would force release of the money for UNFPA, Bush said he would veto the bill, and Congress didn’t call his bluff.
Even members of Bush’s own party expressed frustration that the administration’s policy actually promotes the very activities it claims to detest. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), a longtime opponent of abortion, urged Bush to release the funds.
“I understand, and frankly, I share your concern about China’s brutal one-child policy,” Smith wrote. But Smith noted that the UNFPA’s work in China actually “makes abuses such as coerced abortion less likely.”
The bipartisan attempts to convince the White House were in vain. On July 22, the flip-flop was complete — Bush announced his administration had officially decided to cut off all U.S. funding for UNFPA.
“The administration is going against the will of Congress and the international community by allowing a small band of extremists to hamstring its foreign policy,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) told Salon. She added, “This is all about appeasing the far right even at the expense of Bush’s credibility and honor.”
Critics say Bush’s flip-flop on UNFPA has dramatic negative consequences on families around the world. Thanks to the reversal, fewer women will receive pre-natal care in developing countries, fewer doctors will be trained to deal with pregnancy complications, fewer HIV prevention programs will be able to operate and less medical equipment will be made available to expectant mothers in the Third World. All told, the U.N. estimates that by withholding once promised funds, the new anti-UNFPA policy will result in 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 4,800 maternal deaths, 77,000 more deaths among children under the age of 5 and almost 1 million abortions.
Thoraya Obaid, executive director of UNFPA, said plainly, “Women and children will die because of this decision.”
Niek Biegman, a former Dutch ambassador to NATO who investigated UNFPA work in China, expressed dismay as to why Bush would cave to the unfounded concerns of the Religious Right.
“It’s not really understood by the rest of the world how a superpower like America can be influenced in such a deadly way by four or five fanatics,” Biegman told Salon. “It’s amazing.”
Yesterday, House Republicans, many of whom had voted a year ago to award federal funds to UNFPA, made sure this tragedy continued. It’s nauseating.