U.S. Funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

In fact, not only has UNFPA been aware of abuses, it has been an active voice for restraint there (UNFPA, 2002a; Kristof, April 26, 2002; Hardee, 2002). UNFPA was instrumental in pushing for the removal of many Chinese policies, such as birth quotas, that contribute to coercion and their pressure on the Chinese government to eliminate steel ring IUD’s was instrumental in saving many lives (UNFPA, 2002a; Hardee, March 31, 2000; Kristof, April 26, 2002). Furthermore, PRI is hardly the only NGO to have worked in China in the last 20 years. Others, such as the Washington DC based Futures Group International (FGI) have also maintained a presence there, and it is worth noting that these groups do not independently corroborate PRI’s allegations. While most agree that China has been, and in a few instances still is, heavy handed, they are quick to point out that significant overall progress has been made (Hardee, March 31, 2002). As has already been pointed out, the U.S. State Dept. concurs (U.S. State Dept., 2000; U.S. State Dept., 2001; U.S. State Dept., 2002). Remaining abuses aside, it is precisely this overall progress that UNFPA officials have praised (People’s Daily, March 15, 2001).

UNFPA Participation in Coercion

A careful review of the evidence presented before the U.S. House (U.S. House, 1998; U.S. House, 2001; Smith et al, 2002) and in PRI’s press releases (www.pop.org/briefings/) reveals considerable evidence of coercive activity by Chinese officials, but nothing documenting any direct UNFPA involvement. There are numerous specific accounts of coercion from eyewitnesses, anecdotal accounts of alleged statements by Chinese officials, and testimony from a single former Chinese population program official. After presenting these accounts, it was then pointed out that UNFPA has a presence in the same area and has been working with the Chinese on the implementation of their fourth country program – therefore, they are guilty by association. However, not one single piece of evidence was presented which directly implicated any UNFPA official or activity in any of these incidents. The closest thing presented to a demonstration of actual UNFPA involvement was the claim that they had a desk in a building shared with Chinese population control officials. This is a textbook example of a post-hoc fallacy (i.e. – the argument that correlation implies causation). In the absence of more tangible evidence, such as incriminating UNFPA memos or eyewitness accounts of abusive UNFPA personnel, the mere presence of UNFPA activity in a region known for coercive incidents does not clarify the nature or extent of their involvement - whether they have been instigators of such activity or a voice for restraint. To date, no such evidence has ever been provided by PRI or anyone else.

In addition, though the evidence of coercion by Chinese government officials that has been presented is compelling, it is ultimately based only on the testimony of 2 or 3 dozen witnesses from a single Chinese county. While this documents the existence of some coercive activity, it is not a statistically significant sample even for the county in question, much less for the entire nation. As already mentioned, China is a nation of over 1.2 billion people geographically distributed over an area the size of the continental United States. Their reproductive health care programs are extensive, implemented nationwide, and cover a wide range of activities spanning a number of years. Proper documentation of institutionalized abuse at a national level requires far more than this, even without bringing up the subject of UNFPA involvement.

To demonstrate the flaws in this reasoning, imagine how it might be applied here at home. By population, the United States is barely one-fifth the size of the People’s Republic of China. Even so, it would be a simple matter to find two-dozen witnesses claiming to be victims of civil rights violations at the hands of local law enforcement agencies such as the LAPD (for instance, see LA Times, Feb. 8, 2002 or LA Times, May 3, 2002). It is also known that the LAPD has cooperated with various federal and local agencies on criminal investigations and public awareness programs, and with community-based groups on a variety of education, youth awareness, and community watch programs (LAPD Online, 2002). Based on these facts alone, logic similar to PRI’s would require us to conclude that the FBI, the Los Angeles Mayor’s office, and Los Angeles neighborhood block watch groups were all directly complicit in the beating of Rodney King and many other similar incidents simply because they work with the LAPD on public safety issues. Likewise, in past years the United States has provided aid to El Salvador at times when it had been demonstrated that there were death squads operating there, at least a few of which were thought to have ties to the government. In 1985, the Reagan Administration proposed increasing aid to El Salvador, and restoring military and security force training aid before such activity was known to have ended (for instance, see New York Times, Sept. 13, 1985 or Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27, 1984). Once again, without offering any further evidence of direct complicity or restraint by U.S. personnel or agencies in death squad activities, the same reasoning would compel us to conclude that the United States is a terrorist state. Indeed, many leftist advocacy groups have argued exactly this (without considering that the United States had linked the provision of this aid to demonstrated progress in human rights in El Salvador for over 11 years). Regardless of one’s feelings about the U.S. presence in El Salvador, this is not acceptable scholarship or critical thought.

UNFPA Safe Delivery Kits

The suffering of poor women in war torn areas like Afghanistan, and the need for proper medical supplies including safe delivery equipment, has been well documented (Bartlett et al., 2002). In response to a number of humanitarian crises, UNFPA has distributed Safe Delivery kits in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Similar kits were also distributed in Peru, El Salvador, and other locations (UNFPA, 2002). PRI has claimed that these kits contain “morning-after” pills, abortifacient chemicals, and Manual Vacuum Aspirators (MVA’s) for use in abortions (PRI, Nov. 12, 2001). World (www.worldmag.com), a fundamentalist news and commentary magazine affiliated with Bob Jones University that frequently covers PRI activities, ran a feature story in 1999 referring to these kits as “ethnic cleansing in a pill” in an attempt to suggest that UNFPA cooperated with the Milosevic regime in genocide (World, Oct. 30, 1999).

Every word of this is either misleading or false. No abortifacient chemicals chemicals have ever been included in these kits and no independent confirmation of PRI’s or World’s anecdotal claims to the contrary has ever been provided. Regarding MVA’s, PRI claims that these devices can only be used for abortions and that their utility in safe deliveries is “medical nonsense” (PRI, Nov. 12, 2001). The only support cited for this statement was an anecdotal reference to a conversation with “local Planned Parenthood personnel” (who of course, were never named). But even a cursory review of the peer-reviewed medical literature demonstrates that such devices are not only suitable for safe delivery, they are widely used for such (ACOG, 1998; USFDA, 1998; Chan et al., 1999). There are issues surrounding their use, including possible complications for infants, and proper training is necessary (ACOG, 1998; USFDA, 1998). However, it has also been shown that they can reduce risk to mothers under certain conditions (Johanson & Menon, 2000), which is precisely why they are used in refugee and natural disaster scenarios. They are also widely used for delivery right here in the United States (Curtin, 1999; Ross et al., 2000; Kabiru et al., 2001). The claim that they are only suitable for abortions flatly contradicts easily obtainable facts. It is difficult to see how any responsible attempt at proper scholarship would not have exposed these errors and omissions.

The morning-after pill provides emergency contraception if taken within 72 hours of intercourse (Sarkar, 1999; Gold, 2000; Rodrigues et al, 2001). It is provided in refugee kits because of its utility in preventing pregnancy after rape – a common occurrence in war torn refugee areas. The pill works by interfering with a fertilized zygote’s ability to implant in the uterine wall and become viable. Because both PRI and World hold to the doctrine that human life begins at conception, they have argued that the pill is abortifacient (PRI, March 22, 2002; World, Oct. 30, 1999). The referenced PRI press release presents expert testimony to defend this claim (despite the fact that it is widely known), but neglects to point out that in the normal human reproductive cycle, fewer than one out of three zygotes naturally implants anyway (Scott & White Ob. Gyn. Dept. Online, 2002; Creighton University School of Medicine Online, 2002). As any couple trying unsuccessfully to get pregnant will tell you, sex during a fertile period does not always result in pregnancy! If we accept the doctrinal framework held by PRI and World regarding conception, it follows that God “aborts” 2 out of 3 “infants” anyway - a position I doubt they would find acceptable. This does not say much for their arguments about the “abortifacient” nature of the morning-after pill.

UNFPA’s “Green Front”