Gender equality and reproductive health are not just
women’s issues ““ they affect families, societies and
(for those of you who need a dispassionate reason) the economy.
Recent U.N. reports show that funding to health, education, and
specifically women’s reproductive health in developing
nations, is crucial to the fight to end poverty.
As sex education becomes more prevalent and reproductive choices
increase, fertility rates drop, the number of dependent children
drops, and the economy grows.
Also, if women have fewer children and access to equal education
rights, they are able to contribute to the economy as part of the
work force.
With all those issues on the line, it’s extremely
important for any developed nation fighting poverty (such as the
U.S.) to implement or fund programs that provide sex education and
work toward gender equality.
However, for the past four years the Bush administration has
withheld funding from an organization that does exactly that
““ the U.N. Population Fund.
While the Bush administration’s reasons for withholding
funding sound reasonable (it has accused the fund of indirectly
supporting China’s policies involving coerced abortion and
female sterilization), these are only excuses to appease
Bush’s anti-abortion and pro-abstinence followers.
According to the U.S. government, contributing to the U.N.
Population Fund violates the Kemp-Kasten Law, which prohibits
funding any organization the president determines to be supporting
coercive abortion or sterilization.
But a close look at the U.N. Population Fund’s program in
China reveals that it does the exact opposite.
On a worldwide scale, the Population Fund is a major supplier of
contraceptives, devoting substantial resources to fighting sexually
transmitted diseases (specifically AIDS), and works to ameliorate
the status of women. It also collects data and conducts research to
improve future and existing programs.
Its program in China does not support the country’s
policies, but is rather designed to show the Chinese government
that there are more beneficial ways to slow population growth than
coercion.
If the U.S. government is so worried about isolating China,
perhaps it should end mutual diplomatic and trade relations,
instead of cutting funding from a client-oriented program that
directly allots aid to 32 Chinese counties and not to the central
government.
The many countries and individuals who benefit from the
Population Fund should not have to suffer because the U.S.
government has unsubstantiated qualms about one program.
The lack of funding already had a negative worldwide effect on
the fight to end poverty. According to Planned Parenthood, had the
U.S. provided funding to the Population Fund, the program would
have prevented nearly 4,700 maternal and 77,000 child and infant
deaths, as well as almost 800,000 abortions and 2 million unwanted
pregnancies.
Every minute a woman dies of a pregnancy-related cause, and for
each of these deaths another 20 suffer serious injury.
The high worldwide maternal death rate mainly stems from a few
specific regions, where access to information about maternal and
reproductive health is not readily available. For example, in the
least-developed nations, one in 16 women die of pregnancy-related
problems, while in industrialized nations the rate is one in over
4,000, according to UNICEF.
These preventable deaths and dilemmas should not occur. They
need to be stopped, not only because they are harmful to women and
their families, rendering pregnancy a scary prospect for women in
developing nations, but also because providing the education and
health information necessary to end these deaths is a crucial step
in creating sustainable economies.
Unfortunately, the U.S. government seems more interested in
funding abstinence-oriented programs than saving the lives of women
and children around the world.
The Bush administration seems to forget that even those having
“good” (through wedlock) sex need access to birth
control. Maybe they honestly believe in telling people in
sub-Saharan Africa, where some have access to as few as six condoms
a year, to simply not have sex. Or maybe they don’t care
about ending poverty.
This isn’t the first time funding has been cut from the
Population Fund. Ronald Reagan cut funding and George Bush, Sr.
carried on the tradition, only for the funding to be reinstated by
the Clinton administration.
But Clinton didn’t just reinstate it. In order to make
sure the U.S. was not indirectly supporting coercive abortions and
sterilizations (diplomatic and trade relations aside), it was
required that none of the U.S. donations be spent in China.
But even this harsh and unprecedented move was not enough for
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., who headed the agitation against the fund
(even during the three years it did not have a program in China),
leading to the reduction and eventual halving of the nation’s
financial sponsorship.
If the United Nations didn’t even have a program in China
during these years, it makes one wonder about Smith’s true
motives.
That aside, in order to properly fight world poverty, the U.S.
needs to reinstate funding to the U.N. Population Fund.
Without ending gender inequality and providing reproductive
choice and maternal health care, the fight to end poverty will
undoubtedly be lost.
If you believe in the magical and proven benefits of latex,
e-mail Lara at lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu.