9th August 2002
President George W. Bush is in my bad books, not I suppose that he is likely to find out or that it would bother him. He wouldn't even choke on one of his favourite pretzels and be rescued by his dogs if he knew how cross I am with him. I was annoyed enough with his repudiation of the Kyoto agreement, the International Criminal Court reversal and his proposed war on Iraq but his refusal to give a miserable $34 million out of his huge budget to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
The UNFPA supports the education of people, women in particular, in reproductive health and family planning. Education of women is one of the most important factors in reducing infant mortality in developing countries and it is the survival of their children that frames so many people's lives in the developing world. Years ago at a meeting of the International Medical Women's Association I remember a woman doctor from Indonesia presenting a paper in which she demonstrated that the survival rate of an infant born there was 60 times greater if his or her mother had secondary education than if she had none. It was even more important than access to clean water.
Life for a woman whose children survive to become 5 year olds is totally different to those women who see their children perish as infants. The woman whose children die must become pregnant repeatedly, no matter what her own health status is, the other woman can see that her children will grow up and she can guard her own health, too.
The U.S. Congress approved a $34 million contribution to the UNFPA last December but the White House blocked the release of funds until 23 July 2002 when it was announced the money would not be paid. The President relied on the Kemp-Kansten amendment which disallows funding to any organisation which it is decided promotes abortion or forced sterilization. How he and his entourage decided the UNFPA does either is a mystery which they intend to keep secret. Recently his Administration sent a fact finding mission to China regarding the United Nations Population Fund's alleged involvement in coercive practices in that country. The report apparently gave a positive evaluation of the Fund's work in China but the public release of the report was blocked by the Bush administration. A previous British fact finding mission sent to China in April 2002 had concluded that "UNFPA was a force for good" in China.
At about the same date in July as President Bush cut this important 13% of the UNFPA funding, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted a 2003 Bill which earmarks $50 million for the UNFPA and rewrites the Kemp-Kansten amendment to disqualify only those organisations which "directly participate" in coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization. Let us hope the wishes of the Senators will prevail next year.
Efforts to reduce maternal mortality, infant mortality and the spread of HIV/AIDS in the poorest of the planet's countries are fortunately well supported by Ireland and the other countries of the European Union. Indeed when the US Government cut its funding the European Commission decided, with the approval of the Member States, to strengthen its support for sexual and reproductive health by 32 million euro to the 22 developing countries concerned. This fulfilled the promise made last year by Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, Paul Nielson, that if the U.S. withdrew its aid to UNFPA the EU would fill the "decency gap". Maternal mortality rates vary in some of the developing countries from 500 to 1,800 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births. The countries are mainly in Africa but Haiti, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic feature in the west, too. Illegal abortions are a leading cause of maternal deaths in underdeveloped countries but reducing the chance at education for women and lack of access to contraception will not help reduce these figures.
In the Oireachtas we have a cross party committee on Population and Development and with Ireland's long history of concern for education and health care in Africa in particular, members have great concern for the people of these countries. I regret the reduction in Overseas Aid decided upon recently by the Government. We have a long tradition of supporting our less fortunate fellow human beings and it is a pity that a mild "blip" in our financial figures has made us less generous.
But to get back to President Bush, he is, of course, entitled to his views on abortion, family planning and so forth, but it is a great pity that he has directed his attention to programmes aimed at helping the poorest on the planet rather than starting at home. Partial birth abortions are still allowed in the United States as far as I know. But then it is only people who have access to the most up to date technology who are likely to be involved in these, and these are President Bush's constituents.
Senator Mary Henry, MD
