In a world of falling fertility, we do not need a UN population control organization forcing birthrates downward. We never did.
(LifeSiteNews) — Fulfilling another one of his campaign promises, President Donald Trump in March ordered the defunding of the UN's chief population control organization, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
That process is now complete. Termination notices for more than 40 abortion, sterilization, and contraception promoting projects have been sent, cutting off some $335 million in funding, and saving countless babies.
But what really has gotten the UNFPA’s goat is the Trump administration’s announcement of May 9 that the UN group is in violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. This Amendment, which dates from 1985, states that no U.S. funds may be made available 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.”
The UNFPA, which indeed is involved in coercive programs of population control around the world, will not be eligible for one single penny of U.S. aid over the remainer of the Trump administration.
As someone who worked with New York Congressman Jack Kemp and Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten to get the original Kemp-Kasten amendment passed some decades ago, I am personally overjoyed by this decision.
It was my original research in China that first brought the brutality of the one-child policy to the attention of the world. Women who were pregnant without government permission were subjected to an escalating series of threats and punishments—even being arrested and imprisoned--until they submitted to an abortion and subsequent sterilization.
It was PRI’s later on-the-ground research in China that provided the bulk of the evidence that the UNFPA was heavily involved in China’s long-running one-child policy. Investigations into the population control programs of other countries, such as Vietnam and Peru, proved that the UNFPA was supporting the same kinds of coercive tactics around the globe.
Predictably, the UNFPA lost no time in bemoaning the recent decision, expressing its:
… deep regret that the United States of America has announced its intention to deny future funding to the organization by triggering the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. This decision is based on unfounded claims about UNFPA’s work in China that have long been disproved – including by the U.S. Government itself.
But what the UNFPA calls “unfounded claims” were anything but. We at PRI produced report after report on the UNFPA’s open support of China’s forced abortion and sterilization program, testifying before Congress on dozens of occasions, and even writing books on the subject, such as A Mother’s Ordeal and Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits.
The UNFPA’s claim that a “U.S.-government” investigation disproved our evidence is simply false. As it happens, I briefed the three members of this “U.S.-government” delegation before they went to China in 2002, and debriefed them upon their return. While Chinese officials prevented them from having any unfettered access to ordinary people, they still concluded in their report that the UNFPA-supported program was coercive and that the UNFPA itself should be defunded.
On another occasion, we had to deal with George Bush’s Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Powell who was pro-abortion, initially refused to cut UNFPA funding. It was our evidence convinced him to reverse course.
For the rest of his time in office, he consistently opposed funding the UNFPA, declaring correctly that: “UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time.”
The UNFPA has in recent years rebranded itself as a Sexual and Reproductive Health organization, but this is a mere façade. In reality, the organization is in favor of as much sex, and as little reproduction, as possible.
Consider that it measures reproductive health by the percentage of women who are using so-called “modern contraceptives” or who have been sterilized. This means that a population of women enjoying perfect “reproductive health” would not be able to reproduce at all. Why? Because they would have all been sterilized or contracepted into sterility.
Trump’s decision to again cut funding to the UNFPA mirrors his actions during his first term, when he signed an executive order defunding the UN population group because it pushes Chinese-style programs on African countries.
In a world of falling fertility, we do not need a UN population control organization forcing birthrates downward. We never did.
Steven W. Mosher
President, Population Research Institute
