World Depopulation is top NSA Agenda   Club of Rome & Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy
3.10.81   Lonnie Wolfe EIR

"The professionals," said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population-or else we will have trouble. So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The El Salvador govt failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it.... There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there." Civil wars are somewhat drawn-out ways to reduce population, the OPA official added. "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa or through disease like the Black Death," … Ferguson's OPA monitors populations in the Third World and maps strategies to reduce them. Its budget for FY 1980 was $190 million; for FY 198l, it will be $220 million. The Global 2000 report calls for doubling that figure. The sphere of Kissinger In 1975, OPA was brought under a reorganized State Department Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs-- a body created by Henry Kissinger. The agency was assigned to carry out the directives of the NSC Ad Hoc Group. According to an NSC spokesman, Kissinger initiated both groups after discussion with leaders of the Club of Rome during the 1974 population conferences in Bucharest and Rome. …
"For a long time," Ferguson stated, "people here were timid" They listened to arguments from Third World leaders that said that the best contraceptive was economic reform and development. So we pushed development programs, and we helped create a population time bomb. "We are letting people breed like flies without allowing for natural causes to keep population down. We raised the birth survival rates, extended life-spans by lowering death rates, and did nothing about lowering birth rates. … Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World … According to an NSC spokesman, the U.S. now shares the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than "nuclear annihilation." "Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point," said Ferguson who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the "arc of population crisis."

This is corroborated by statements in the NSC Ad Hoc Group's April 1980 report. There is "an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over control of land and resources," says the NSC report. It then cites "demographic pressures" as key to understanding "examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador. Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential forinstability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan." Through extraordinary efforts, the Ad Hoc Group and OPA estimate that they may be able to keep a billion people from being born through contraceptive programs. … According to an NSC spokesman, the United States now shares the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than "nuclear annihilation." "Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point," said Ferguson who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the "arc of population crisis."
This is corroborated by statements in the NSC Ad Hoc Group's April 1980 report. There is "an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over control of land and resources," says the NSC report. It then cites "demographic pressures" as key to understanding "examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador. Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential forinstability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan." Through extraordinary efforts, the Ad Hoc Group and OPA estimate that they may be able to keep a billion people from being born through contraceptive programs.
[ reminder: Many anti-pop.control campaigns are explicitly, albeit unpublicized, funded by Catholic Church on doctrinal basis that elevates infallible institution above the planet & the species in determining ethics.   Influence of conflicts of interest upon premises must be constantly examined to assess advocates of either side of this issue. ]

Genocide United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, more commonly known as the 1948 Genocide Convention or "The Genocide Treaty." … Ironically, the first proceeding brought expressly under the banner of genocide is the Arusha trial, the case arising from the mass slaughter in Rwanda that began in 1994. But the Rwanda situation, as utterly catastrophic is it has been, was nonetheless a civil war. And it is not one that differs, except possibly in scale, from a number of other post-colonial conflicts in the southern hemisphere. As Barry Crawford has noted (Submission to the UN Tribunal on Rwanda, London, 1995), "Genocide means more than mass murder. [It] is distinguished from all other forms of killing by the motivation behind it." The critical point is made that western intervention, both military & economic, set the stage for what may be the most memorable mass orgy of human violence in recent times. Rwanda, already impoverished by a World Bank-imposed structural adjustment scheme, had become completely polarized. … The intent of the Genocide Convention, then, was clearly to separate those in positions of power who engage in planned, carefully-executed & premeditated actions to destroy a group of people from those who act in a random or spontaneous manner, no matter how terrible the outcome of a conflict or how intense the ethnic hatreds that may flare during such a confrontation. Crawford suggests this requirement when he argues: "The idea that the beleaguered Hutu-led govt could plan & execute the deliberate annihilation of an entire people, at a time when it could not even organize to sell the coffee beans on which its economy depended, borders on the incredible." In other words, the organization & competence required for an act of genocide simply did not exist in Rwanda. … The invocation of the genocide treaty against Rwanda's old-guard military does nothing to prevent similar situations from occurring elsewhere on the continent. It merely criminalizes the unfortunate participants in a vicious upheaval, the battle-lines for which were drawn early by foreign institutions. Even more to the point, the genocide charge conveniently exonerates the west for its provocative activities in the region. In fact, it could be argued that no one could have foreseen the scale & intensity of the fighting or the enormous loss of life it caused with the possible exception of U.S. & British intelligence. And it is obvious that western nations, acting as bilateral donors of aid & arms or through the UN, played a critical role in the events that led up to the war. World Bank policy is controlled by the U.S. through a special oversight unit at the Department of the Treasury. The western nations that aided & abetted the RPF did so in a spirit of mutual collaboration. Everything from the collapse of Rwanda's economy to the Arusha conference demands that the Rwandan govt accommodate the unpopular Tutsi opposition forces was orchestrated by westerners. Thus, one can conclude that if anyone exercised a "monopoly on the means of force" in Rwanda, it was the U.S. & its allies. And they, more than anyone, could be called perpetrators of genocide. … Hermann Rauschning, who defected from the Nazi party in the 1930s, warned of the plans of German leaders in a 1940 book called The Voice of Destruction. In that text, he recalled a 1934 conversation in which Hitler said about the peoples of eastern Europe: "We are obliged to depopulate … We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation … I don't necessarily mean destroy; I shall simply take systematic measures to dam their great natural fertility … There are many ways, systematical & comparatively painless, or any rate bloodless, of causing undesirable races to die out … By doing this gradually & without bloodshed, we demonstrate our humanity." (Rauschning, 1940, at pages 34-38). … Population Control in the Early Years The introduction of population control as a global undertaking began quietly in 1945 with the introduction of population change as an official subject for data gathering & analysis, research, & policy study at the newly-founded UN. The move to include demographic issues was promoted by the U.S. & Great Britain, and it passed over the objections of the Soviet bloc. This occurred at a time when western anxiety about low birth rates was at an all-time high. In fact, 2 years before the creation of the UN, Britain's King George the Sixth had established a special panel to look into the matter of falling fertility at home. That panel, which released its final report in June of 1949, concluded that the downward trend in Britain's birth rate was something unique to the wealthy nations, and that it constituted a tremendous danger to western interests. Among other things, the royal panel noted the extraordinarily high rate of population growth experienced by the European nations in the previous two centuries, and said: "The increase in population provided both a motive for, and a means to, the development of the modern techniques of production, trade & communications on which present day European standards of living are based, for it provided both an expanding market & an expanding labour supply." Furthermore, it advised that "the growth of European population, and the expansion of the economic system of which it was partly the cause & partly the essential condition, were largely responsible for the extension of European control over inhabited tropical & semi-tropical countries & their development as suppliers of food & raw material" (Royal Commission on Population, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1949, at page 7). Noting that population growth continued to take place beyond the borders of the industrial world, the commissioners concluded: "The establishment or continuance among western peoples of sizes of family below replacement level would accentuate a change in relative numbers which threatens in a few generations to be as radical as that between France & Germany in the 19th century, and might be as decisive in its effects on the prestige & influence of the west. The question it should be observed is not merely one of military strength & security; that question becomes merged in more fundamental issues of the maintenance & extension of western values, ideas & culture" (Royal Commission on Population, 1949, at pages 135-136). In the U.S., too, similar worries were being expressed. Frank Notestein, head of an elite demographic research center at Princeton University, warned in 1944 that the development of industry in nations with high fertility rates would only guarantee that western peoples would "become progressively smaller minorities & possess a progressively smaller proportion of the world's wealth & power." Notestein, who soon afterward was chosen the first head of the UN Population Division, admonished: "The determination of national policy toward the underdeveloped regions must be made in light of that fact" (Notestein, in Demographic Studies of Selected Areas of Rapid Growth, Proceedings, 22nd Annual Conference, Milbank Memorial Fund, New York, 1944). Western promotion of population control in developing regions began officially with the founding of the UN. Assistance was funneled to "private" family planning groups through large American foundations & non-govermental organizations and even such "secret" bureaus of govt as the Central Intelligence Agency (see, i.e., Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett, Thy Will Be Done, The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller & Evangelism in the Age of Oil, Harper Collins, 1995). After at least two military panels in the U.S. formally & publicly recommended that population control be made part of U.S. aid to developing nations, Congress in 1965 voted to include family planning in the overseas development budget. The amount of money set aside for this purpose, openly described by American legislators as "the population budget", has consistently increased from year to year. By the late 1970s, hundreds of millions of dollars in Congressionally-earmarked population funds were going every year to a variety of projects to train so- called "third world" medical personnel to operate family planning clinics, to establish & equip birth control centers, and to advocate host country policies favorable to population control activities. By the mid 1980s, money allocated for other programs (including Economic Support Funds, the Commodity Import Program, the Sahel Development Fund and African Development Fund) was being diverted to family planning campaigns in Africa, Asia, Latin America & the Middle East. And between 1980 & 1995, the World Bank increased population sector spending from about $100 million a year to over $2.5 billion (a 25-fold increase). All of this suggests that western leaders, particularly those in the U.S., considered birth curbs in developing countries to be a matter of extremely high priority. And there is much on the record to support that assumption. In 1988, the Department of Defense commissioned a series of studies on demographic trends & their impact on U.S. national security. A summary of the reports, written by an instructor at the National Defense University in Washington and published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies in its Washington Quarterly (Spring 1989) concluded: "As difficult & uncertain as the task may be, policymakers & strategic planners in this country have little choice in the coming decades but to pay serious attention to population trends, their causes, and their effects. Already the U.S. has embarked on an era of constrained resources. It thus becomes more important than ever to do those things that will provide more bang for every buck spent on national security. To claim that decreased defense spending must lead to strategic debilitation

from Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail: "There's no 3rd world. No, not anymore. That's only a phrase you coined to keep us in our place. There's one world, only one, and its going to be flooded with life, submerged. This country of mine is a roaring river. A river of sperm. Now, all of a sudden, it's shifting course, my friend, & heading west. At the first signs of flight, my duty demanded that I order the army to take up positions along the coast. The result is that now, should we only choose to do so, we are perfectly able to repulse the invasion & destroy the invader. Assuming, that is, that we are willing to murder, with or without regret, a million helpless wretches. Past wars have abounded in just such crimes, but conscience back then hadn't yet learned to waver. Survival was all, and it condoned the carnage. Besides, those were wars of rich against rich. Today, it's the poor who are on the attack, with their ultimate weapon." 2.17.01 early morning decrepit Cambodian-registered ship "East Sea," loaded with 1000 Iraqi Kurds packed shoulder to shoulder, was intentionally beached in sandbank 20 yards off Boulouris Beach near resort of Nice.

We still haven't proved Malthus wrong   10.9.98   Donella H. Meadows AlterNet ¹ ² ³ … Both Marxists & capitalists energetically bash that idea. Marxists don't believe people can ever be in excess if the economy is just organized to use them properly. Capitalists mock Malthus for not foreseeing the progress that now allows us to feed six times as many people as there were in 1798. … A new publication by the Worldwatch Institute is full of facts that show Malthus to be not dead, not wrong, maybe not right either. The patterns by which the human race reproduces itself are changing. Over another few decades, we will probably put old Malthus to rest at last. It's up to us to decide whether he'll rest triumphant or discredited. The most striking global change is that population growth is slowing. The growth rate peaked in 1964 at 2.2 percent. In 1998 it is 1.4 percent. That's an amazing drop. The average number of children born to a woman in India has gone down from 5.3 to 3.6. In China the average woman bears just 1.8 children, fewer than the average in the United States. In 32 countries, including Japan ¹, France, U.K. and Spain, population growth is at or near zero. … These slow or no-growth countries contain 2 billion people, about one-third of the world population. They are either rich industrial countries or past or present communist countries. What they have in common is not wealth, but education. But the other two-thirds of humanity is chillingly close to proving Malthus right. These are the countries we like to call "developing," where virtually all population growth is now happening. Birth rates in most of these places are dropping too, but slowly. They are growing by 80 million people a year, the equivalent of a whole new Mexico every 14 months. The United Nations expects them to add another 3.3 billion people over the next 50 years. The Worldwatch booklet makes that forecast look impossible. It points out that the world fish catch per person has been stagnant since 1968, and that many great fisheries are now in active decline. Global grain production per person has been dropping for 14 years -- the world's farmers are constantly more productive, but they're not keeping up with population growth. Irrigated agriculture is particularly threatened as aquifers are overpumped and water tables fall. If the rising population and declining groundwater trends continue, Worldwatch calculates, by 2050 there will be only one-fourth as much fresh water per person as there was in 1950. … More IVF babies in Europe, fewer multiple births 7.3.01   Reuters LAUSANNE, Switzerland   Most European nations are carrying out more test-tube baby procedures, but there are fewer multiple births, scientists said on Tuesday. The latest figures on in-vitro fertilization (IVF) in 18 countries in Europe, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology meeting on Tuesday, showed treatments increased by 14 percent to 232,225 in 1998 compared to the previous year. The pregnancy rate per embryo transfer rose to 27 percent from 26 percent -- but the number of twins, triplets and quadruplets decreased to 26.3 percent from 29.6 percent. Although the number of embryos implanted in women varies from country to country, doctors are tending to use fewer embryos to reduce the risk of multiple births which carry increased health risks for both the mother and children. "This means that although fewer embryos are being transferred to the mother, the efficacy of IVF treatment has remained roughly the same. This is very good news," said Dr. Karl Nygren, of the Sofia Hospital in Sweden. The data from national registers throughout Europe showed that more than half of IVF treatments were done in Germany, France and Britain. Iceland tops league But Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark had the highest number of pregnancies and deliveries for each embryo was fertilized and implanted. "In Iceland, Denmark, Finland and Sweden nearly three percent of all children are born as a result of ART (assisted reproductive technology," said Dr. Anders Nyboe of the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. IVF and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection), in which a single sperm is injected into a female egg, were the most common treatments. The availability of IVF treatment is highest in the Nordic countries. Denmark reported the highest number of IVF treatments per million inhabitants and Britain was among the lowest. Nygren said far more treatment cycles were performed in Europe than in U.S. Earlier on Tuesday, Dr. Robert Edwards who along with his colleague Dr. Patrick Steptoe helped to produce the world's first test-tube baby 23 years ago, said fertility treatment should be available for all couples who needed it. "There is great inequality in the world," Edwards said, adding that the availability of treatments even vary within countries. One in 6 couples experience some form of fertility problem. More than a million babies have been born through assisted reproduction in the past two decades. Edwards said the world was now embarking on the next generation of IVF children as the first test-tube babies begin to have their own children. study:Test-tube babies show no emotional problems 7.3.01   Reuters LAUSANNE, Switzerland   Babies born with the help of fertility treatment grow into emotionally and socially well-adjusted children, according to new research announced on Tuesday. The world's first study that followed in-vitro, or test tube, babies to the brink of adolescence showed that youngsters who had been conceived through fertility treatments do not suffer any more psychological problems than other children. Since Louise Brown, the world's first test tube baby, was born 23 years ago, more than a million children worldwide have been born using assisted reproductive technology (ART). In some countries as many as three percent of children have been conceived using some form of fertility treatment. "These very wanted children are well-adjusted and much loved," Professor Susan Golombok, told a fertility conference. The director of London's City University Family and Child Psychology Research Centre said concerns about the development of test-tube babies and those born through artificial insemination with donor sperm were unfounded. "We found these children to be well adjusted with no evidence of emotional or behavioral problems," she added. Children born with the help of fertility treatments agreed. "My parents needed help and I'm grateful they got it, otherwise I wouldn't be here," said Susannah Hedgley who lives near Belfast in N.Ireland. The 13-year-old, who can't remember when her parents told her how she was conceived, said she doesn't feel any different from other children. Tyler Madsen, a 10-year-old boy from New York, told the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) he doesn't fell any different either. Neither of the children took part in Golombok's study. no differences The study of more than 400 children, who were naturally conceived or born through fertilization techniques, found no differences in the mental and social development of the youngsters. But the researchers noted that only one in 10 children conceived through donor insemination were aware that their father was not their genetic parent. This was because most of the parents did not inform their children about their genetic origins. "In spite of this, the children do not seem to experience negative consequences arising from the secrecy," said Golombok. "But this does not mean that it is preferable for children not to be told. Many parents have informed other people and this creates a risk that the children will find out from someone else." One in six couples suffers some form of fertility problem and may seek medical treatment to help them become parents.

is fatuous. Rather, policymakers must anticipate events & conditions before they occur. They must employ all the instruments of statecraft at their disposal (development assistance & population planning every bit as much as new weapon systems). Furthermore, instead of relying on the canard that the threat dictates one's posture, they must attempt to influence the form that threat assumes."
And a 1991 report commissioned by the U.S. Army Conference on Long Range Planning, published in the Summer 1991 edition of the journal Foreign Affairs, came to an even more remarkable conclusion. Noting the relatively rapid increase of populations in other regions and the pending decline of the west in terms of absolute & relative numbers, the document stated: "By these projections a very different world would seem to be emerging. Such trends speak to pressures for a systematically diminished role & status for today's industrial democracies. Even with relatively unfavorable assumptions about Third World economic growth, the share of global economic output of today's industrial democracies could decline. With a generalized & progressive industrialization of current low-income areas, the Western diminution would be all the more rapid. Thus, one can easily envision a world more unreceptive, and ultimately more threatening, to the interests of the U.S. & its allies. The population & economic-growth trends described could create an international environment even more menacing to the security prospects of the Western alliance than was the Cold War for the past generation".

… Literature prepared by USAID contractors, UN agencies, the World Bank, and a host of private & semi- private family planning associations is redundant to the point of absurdity when it comes to the "problems" encountered in administrating population campaigns. And virtually all of the tens or even hundreds of thousands of reports & memos evaluating the "problem" over the last few years deal with the unpopularity of the services & near-universal resistance to population planning. Of course, voluntarism is what these institutions, too, would prefer to see. It would make their work far easier. But where voluntarism does not work, persuasion is tried. And where persuasion fails, bribery, intimidation, and even outright force is sure to follow.
Lest there be any doubt that coercion is an officially-sanctioned part of U.S. population "assistance," the enforcement of strong population policies by "police & military" in developing nations is explicitly endorsed in a 1976 briefing produced by a high-level task force on population within the U.S. National Security Council. Population policies, says that document, are most likely to be effective if three essential conditions are met: there must be "strong direction from the top" (meaning govt officials), "community or 'peer' pressures from below," and "adequate" services that "get to the people." It concludes: "population programs have been particularly successful where leaders have made their positions clear, unequivocal, and public, while maintaining discipline down the line from national to village levels, marshaling governmental workers (including police & military), doctors, and motivators to see that population policies are well administered & executed. Such direction is the sine-qua-non of an effective program" (Attachment to Memorandum for the Chairman, Under Secretaries Committee, National Security Council, January 3, 1977, study by NSC task force May 1976).

… This is not a new observation nor is there anything the least bit unique about the assumption that below- replacement fertility in the west, combined with high birthrates in the south, will ultimately dislodge the current world powers from their coveted place of preeminence. "[W]e must never lose sight of the fact that the world population imbalance is heavily against us and is becoming ever more so," says a fairly typical National Security Council memorandum written back in January of 1959 (NSC 902/1; 1 January 1959). In 1994, former Deputy Director for Intelligence at the CIA Ray Cline wrote an entire book on the topic which was called The Power of Nations in the 1990s: A Strategic Assessment ((University Press of America, 1994). … But population, according to Cline, is the single most important factor. "People exploit the raw economic resources of the territory the live in a develop the political & social traditions that shape national cultures," he wrote. "A large territory, if accompanied by a large population, almost automatically confers the status of power on a nation and will be so interpreted by strategists & makers of foreign policy" (Cline, 1994).
And the nations destined to attain such status in the future are, of course, those now described almost contemptuously as "the third world." … similar reports & essays, literally thousands & thousands of them, produced over the past half-century by govt agencies, powerful "think tanks," and well-connected scholars. In fact, one is virtually assured of finding some reference to the "national security" dimension of world demographics in any U.S. govt study of foreign relations or military power that applies to a region (as opposed to a single country) and takes a long-term view.
Control is being exercised in ever more complex & varied ways. It has become evident since the beginning of the 1980s that the purposeful impoverishment of the developing world has become the essence of the global agenda. Mandatory structural adjustment schemes imposed by western-controlled lenders, the devaluation of currency, inequitable trade practices, and self-serving "aid" projects have all visibly contributed to the breakdown of the world's most vulnerable economies.

With the cold war now over, the old constraints against western intervention have evaporated, and the U.S. & allied nations see themselves as free to intervene politically & militarily in ways that adversely affect local stability. They increasingly pursue policies that lead to situations in which there is a power vacuum, as was the case in Rwanda, knowing the horrendous outcome that is possible in the event some domestic crisis ignites an orgy of spontaneous violence. And the resulting human catastrophe is inevitably exploited as "proof" that the local populace is unfit for self-governance and in need of administrative control (meaning both political &/or military supervision, as well as reproductive control) or even punishment. To invoke the Genocide Convention as a way to validate this image is a perversion of the intent & meaning of the treaty. It also diverts attention from the genocidal nature of western population programs and military/economic intervention in the less-developed world. Indeed, the combined effect of this exploitation & aggression demonstrates that reproductive interference is at the core of a much larger strategy to impede development and to prevent the rise of other regions & blocs as competitors for power.

eugenics U.S. eugenics program Howard Garber,   Orange Cty CA eugenicist & 46th Cong. Dist. candidate ¹ ² ³

Why Global Gag Rule undermines U.S. Foreign Policy & harms women's health   factsheet

Stop the Global Gag Rule House committee to repeal Bush family planning gag order 5.1.01   PAI Washington   Population Action International today urged HIRC to pass the Lee Amendment, Rep. Barbara Lee D-CA sponsor, to repeal the global gag rule & reverse President Bush's family intl family planning gag order which banned recipients of U.S. intl family planning assistance from providing abortions with their own funds, counseling women on abortion or engaging in political speech on abortion. "The women who have been gagged by this order need Congress to speak out for them," said Amy Coen, President of PAI. U.S. intl family planning assistance provides women in developing countries with reproductive health services, incl contraception, prenatal care and HIV/AIDS prevention. Already, Intl Planned Parenthood Federation and Ipas have lost millions of dollars in family planning assistance. IPPF reports that they will have to cancel campaigns promoting safe sex & contraception, esp. in Asia & Africa. Ipas has indicated that they will have to cancel programs to train nurses & midwives in poor countries. Result of these cuts will be reduced access to family planning, contributing to higher rates of unintended pregnancies, maternal death & abortion. The global gag rule also forces family planning providers to withhold potentially life-saving information about safe abortion. More than 70,000 women worldwide die each year from botched abortions, a number that could climb as result of Bush gag rule. Finally the global gag rule forces family planning providers to give up free speech rights by promising not to engage in political advocacy on abortion, an unconstitutional restriction if imposed on Americans. "President claims to have bipartisan support for the gag rule. He's wrong," said Coen. "Republicans & Democrats alike have joined the American people in opposition to this policy." Since … announced, response … European Union immediately blasted the gag rule and is considering increasing assistance for intl family planning to "fill the decency gap." Newsweek poll showed majority of American people disapprove of gag rule. 75+ newspapers across the country have condemned the order; 5 supported it. Senate bill to repeal gag rule has 5 Republicans support, Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Jim Jeffords (VT), and Lincoln Chafee (RI). Even members of Bush's cabinet spoke out against the policy. Bush Sidesteps Congress On Gag Rule Legal Sleight-of-Hand 3.27.01   PAI Washington   &133; decision to issue Presidential Memorandum imposing the gag rule comes on the heels of an effort in Congress to prevent the restrictions from going into effect. Last week 5 Republicans … and 2 Democrats, Barbara Boxer (CA) & Harry Reid (NV), introduced joint resolution of disapproval on the gag rule. … Amy Coen, PAI president. "It is patently anti-democratic, as is the gag rule itself, and calls into question his stated desire to work with Congress." Last week's bipartisan effort to repeal the gag rule came under the Congressional Review Act, seldom-used law that allows Congress to repeal new regulations within 60 days of their implementation. At least 30 Senators had already sponsored the resolution. … Coen, "Bush has responded by taking procedural steps aimed at stopping Congress from even voting on the issue." Bush budget silent on overseas family planning 3.9.01   PAI President Bush's budget blueprint, released last week, leaves little room for the U.S. to meet commitments to increase funds for international family planning assistance. Meanwhile, 3.8.01 PAI & CARE report illustrates the desperate need for basic reproductive health services in the developing world. &3133; Bush budget proposal contains few specifics, broad outlines for funding levels & priority pgms leave little room for much-needed increases in funding for international family planning assistance. The President did propose a modest increase of $1.2 billion for intl affairs spending overall. However, the President also proposed $1.3 billion in new funding for embassy security, $1.3 billion for the drug war in Colombia, and unspecified increases for HIV/AIDS, primary education in developing countries, and military aid to Israel. … makes no direct mention of family planning whatsoever … in stark contrast to earlier promises of support for intl family planning funding. Following global gag rule imposition, Pres.Bush said he "is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services." … report data on reproductive health in 133 countries … never-before released: one in every 65 women in developing countries will die from reproductive health-related causes during her lifetime, a rate 33 times higher than the risk to women in developed countries. New estimates suggest that about 515,000 women die each year in pregnancy … childbirth, or almost one death every minute, and millions more women become ill or disabled. The new estimate confirms that maternal mortality remains a serious problem, particularly in sub- Saharan Africa where half of all deaths from pregnancy-related causes occur. In countries with the highest teen birth rates, including Angola, Niger, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, one in five girls aged 15 to 19 give birth each year. The report identifies universal access to contraceptives, essential obstetric care, and HIV/AIDS prevention programs as 3 keys to reproductive health. The report identifies 2 crucial building blocks for achieving universal access to basic reproductive health care. First, govts in both wealthy & poor countries must increase support & funding for reproductive health services, esp. for family planning, essential obstetric care, and HIV/AIDS prevention. Second, govts must increase support & funding for pgms that create economic & educational opportunities for women. Because reproductive health is linked to a woman's social & economic wellbeing, programs that contribute to her status within her family, and to her knowledge of & access to institutions & ideas, will improve not only her own health, but also the health of her children. The U.S. Shirking its Commitments Crippling rates of reproductive health problems in the developing world are doubly tragic given the availability of relatively inexpensive life-saving interventions. Recent analysis by PAI & team of other family planning experts found that $169 million increase in intl family planning assistance (restoring a 30% cut imposed in 1995) would provide 11.7 million couples with access to contraception, resulting in 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million fewer abortions, and half a million fewer miscarriages. Every one hundred thousand dollars in U.S. assistance would buy nearly four million condoms. A safe pregnancy kit costing just 50 cents to American taxpayers is enough to reduce dramatically a woman's chance of dying from complications of childbirth. … U.S. commitments made at 1994 Intl Conference on Population & Development (ICPD) in Cairo … called for intl spending of $17 billion annually by the year 2000 (rising to $21.7 billion annually by 2015) to achieve universal access to basic reproductive health services. 6 years later, U.S. is allocating barely one-third of its fair share of these costs. By contrast, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway provide 4 times more assistance than U.S. by percentage of GNP. Powell, Whitman Join Opposition to Bush Global Gag Rule Bipartisan Bill Introduced In Congress to Repeal Gag Order 2.28.01 … PAI … bipartisan family planning supporter coalition in Congress introduced "Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001" bill that would repeal President Bush's global gag rule on family planning providers in developing countries. … by prohibiting President from refusing to fund organizations solely because they provide services that are legal in their countries & would be legal in U.S. Also blocks President from imposing on foreign orgs free speech restrictions that would be unconstitutional if imposed on Americans. Bill's lead sponsors incl Rep. Nita Lowey D-NY & Nancy Johnson R-CT, and Sen. B.Boxer (D-CA) & Olympia Snowe R-ME. Introduced in Senate 2.15.01, the date that the global gag rule went into effect with impressive bipartisan support. Senate version has 19 original cosponsors, incl 5 Republicans. House version had at least 66 original cosponsors, incl 7 Republicans. Bills referred to Senate Foreign Relations Committee & HIRCommittee. Supporters of family planning might also attempt to repeal global gag rule through amendment to Foreign Operations Appropriations bill later this year. Sec.State Colin Powell voiced personal opposition to the policy, saying, "It is the policy. I have other views that are my personal views" (This Week, 2/4/01). EPA Admin Christine Todd Whitman used even stronger language opposing the policy on CNN's Crossfire, saying ,"I was sorry he did that, and I obviously don't agree with that" (2/26). … Some of most capable, experienced and committed groups may be unable or unwilling to meet the gag rule's requirements. That was the experience of Intl Planned Parenthood Federation, which lost U.S. funding as a result of the global gag rule from 1984-1993. More Key Decisions for Bush Last week, Pres.Bush appointed Andrew Natsios, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority chair, to head U.S. Agency for Intl Development (USAID), agency that distributes U.S. intl family planning assistance.. Indications are that he is an outstanding administrator; … Bush first budget … Funding was increased slightly last year to $425 million, but remains far below amount provided before 1996 when severe one-third cut was imposed. Bush decision threatens intl family planning Gag Rule will hurt pgms that reduce unplanned pregnancies & abortion 1.22.01   Intl Planned Parenthood Council IPPF/WHR Announcement today Pres.Bush intends to reinstate Mexico City Policy, known as "global gag rule" … Global Gag Rule Lifted Intl family planning assistance bolstered in Foreign Aid bill passed by House 1.25.01   Intl Planned Parenthood Council IPPF/WHR Washington   … "Today's compromise marks a reprieve from five years of funding cuts, free speech restrictions, audits, accusations, harassment and intimidation," said Amy Coen, PAI president. "It's a victory for women's health & for democracy." Facing a threatened veto by Pres.Clinton, Cong. leaders relented on Global Gag Rule and agreed to first increase in intl family planning assistance since Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. Bill increases assistance for intl family planning to $425 million from $385 million last year and lifts Global Gag Rule. (Use of U.S. funds for abortion has been illegal since 1973.) As condition of final compromise, bill delays release of funds until 2.15.01   Bush would have power to impose Global Gag Rule by executive action, effectively overturning today's compromise. Similar restrictions were imposed by both Pres.Reagan & Bush. "Depending on the voters' decision on Election Day, today's compromise may not be worth the paper it's written on," said Lisa Moreno, PAI sr policy analyst. "It's no secret that Governor Bush would likely renew the family planning restrictions of his father's admin." U.S.AID est. tens of millions of couples in developing world have used family planning as a direct result of U.S. assistance, lowering rates of unwanted pregnancies, abortion, maternal death, and HIV/AIDS transmission. Family planning also helps to protect the environment and reduce poverty by stabilizing population growth. … Coen. "… Family planning is a simple, win-win solution to many complex problems."   MEXICO CITY POLICY   Abortion funding in foreign countries 10.27.00   Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance In 1984 during UN Intl Conf on Population in Mexico City, Pres.Reagan by executive order announced ban on U.S. govt financial support for U.S. & foreign family planning agencies involved in any way with provision of abortion in foreign countries. This ban totally removed all U.S. govt funding from such agencies even though main part of their budget involved simple contraceptive, family planning ed. & service delivery, and had no involvement in providing abortions. … "During 9 years ban was in effect, funding increased substantially for USAID population planning assistance, and 350 private, foreign organizations received aid." Intl Planned Parenthood Federation & a few other agencies refused to conform to the Mexico City policy. They continued to direct part of their budget to abortion provision, and to political activity to advocate for access to abortion. They were denied all govt funding. Opposition to the funding ban Argue main effect is to remove funding from family planning pgms around the world. This increases the unwanted pregnancy rate, inevitably causing an increase abortions. Thus the policy negates its own goals. Legislators who favored a lifting on the funding ban stated in a 1997 joint resolution of Congress … Support for the funding ban Legislators who favored continuing funding ban deny contraceptive usage & abortion numbers are related. They stated in a 1997 joint resolution of Congress that: "This vote is about taxpayer funding of abortions in other countries and of lobbying other countries to overturn their pro-life laws. Any claim to the contrary is intellectually dishonest. … U.S. has no business funding elective abortions in other countries, esp. when world opinion is that abortion should never, ever be promoted as a method of birth control; U.S. has no business funding abortions in countries in violation of those countries laws; U.S. has no business paying for organizations to pressure countries to adopt pro-abortion laws in violation of deeply held cultural & religious beliefs of their citizenry." Argue abortion rates are primarily influenced by improvements in the economy & increases in personal freedom: "During 1980s under Pres.Reagan's & Pres.Bush's leadership, nearly all Latin America moved from dictatorships to free-market democracies, and the Soviet Empire collapsed. Countries that have had greatest amount of economic progress & greatest increase in personal freedom have had the largest decline in the abortion rates. This change can be seen very dramatically in Russia; our colleagues totally ignore the democratic & economic gains Russia has been making when looking at the huge decline in the abortion rate; they instead attribute it entirely to the fact that contraceptive use has gone up by 5% roughly 24%." Reinstatement of the funding ban 1.22.01   Pres.GWBush reinstated funding ban … rationale somewhat confusing. He wrote to U.S.AID "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." But no such funds have been involved. Existing legislation prevents foreign grants from being used to fund abortions. … [ This is civil liberties issue. Can a federal grantee spend separate non-tax$ as self-determined & speak without censorship by funding? Contra cocaine lords did ] Reaction was swift Ann Stone, Republicans for Choice chair "He's supposed to be measuring for drapes on his first day, not interfering with women's rights. To start out like this makes us very sad." Douglas Johnson, Natl Right to Live Committee leg. dir. "The U.S. govt will no longer be using taxpayer dollars to try to legalize abortion in countries in Latin America, Africa, and Muslim countries in which the people are strongly opposed to abortion and believe in the protection of unborn children." Kate Michelman, Natl Abortion and Reproductive & Reproduction Rights Action League pres. "Bush made it clear that he will use his presidential powers to undermine the reproductive rights of the world's women" links "Congress jettisons 'Mexico City' Policy" Pete Winn Focus on the Family "Foreign population aid & abortion (Mexico City Policy) Joint resolution passed 53 - 46" The Paul Amendment 6.23.00   Pro-life Policy for Today TALKING POINTS Concerned Women for America 8.3.99 Rep. Ron Paul R-TX once again offered his amendment to Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The "Paul Amendment" is a motion to strike all U.S. funding for intl population control. Although the amendment failed (145-272), this is still a significant pro-life vote. Since there are now fewer pro-life members of Congress, and the House voted only recently to restore funding to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), Concerned Women for America (CWA) did not know how well this vote would do. CWA is pleased that the amendment maintained its momentum and will continue to work with Congress to stop U.S. intl population control funding. 2 years ago 9.4.97 Rep. Paul offered his critical amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. This amendment received 147 votes on the floor, and 2 members later changed their vote, for a total of 149 House members in support, a significant pro-life victory. For the first time in history, entire House of Representatives had voted on whether or not to completely defund … population control policies … in developing nations for over 30 years. Since Feb.1997, CWA has made passage of this amendment one of our top 3 legislative priorities. While "Mexico City Policy" would stop taxpayer funding from being spent to lobby foreign govts to liberalize their abortion laws, …U.S. funds would still be used for Organizations that perform surgical abortions; Distribution of abortifacients such as "morning after pill," Norplant, Depo-Provera and RU-486 Fertility experiments on women, or intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, often without a woman's consent or knowledge of the dangerous side effects Advancement of Planned Parenthood-like models of sex education, that seek to socially re-engineer cultures by undermining family and religion Massive & wasteful condom distribution to children & unmarried couples to the extent that many children in developing nations use condoms for balloons while doctors have no access to simple penicillin or anti-malarial medication Examples of U.S.-funded intl population control horrors: In 1980s, Christina, Costa Rican woman, began to look sick. She became more pale & obviously very ill. When Jim Woodall, Central American missionary (and former CWA Chief Exec. Officer) asked Christina what was wrong, she said, "It's a female problem. My bleeding won't stop." Christina had to travel a long way by boat then by car to reach a doctor. He examined her and found that an IUD had been implanted in her womb, without her knowledge or consent. 1995 BBC documentary entitled The Human Laboratory revealed U.S.AID money been used through local contractors to conduct fertility experiments on poor women in Bangladesh & Haiti slums. They received Norplant but were not told Norplant was experimental or that they were part of a fertility drug trial. "Family planners" refused to remove the Norplant when many of these women went blind, bled severely and had unbearable headaches. "We'll take it out of your dead body," one woman was told. These women said they felt like human guinea pigs. "It's cheaper for them to use Third World women than to use a lab animal in the West," said Farida Akhter, Exec. Dir.r for Research for Development Alternatives in Bangladesh. USAID gives U.S. tax dollars to population control programs in 67 countries (Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Eastern Europe). In 1995, USAID gave $21,491,811 to the Western Hemisphere region of the Intl Planned Parenthood Federation, and $26,570,160 to Population Services International intl pro-life organization Family of the Americas filmed interviews with poor women in Guatemala slums. Local Intl Planned Parenthood affiliate encouraged these women to be sterilized yet never told them that sterilization was permanent. Many other women interviewed were given contraception, but never told of the severe side effects. At 2 intl UN conf., Dr. Margaret Ogola of Kenya testified she cannot get the penicillin she needs to treat dying children, but more expensive IUDs are readily available. She also described how "family planners" have put so many condoms into Kenya that the children use them as balloons and play with them in the streets. Many nations are regularly coerced into accepting intl "population policies." At intl UN conf., many diplomats told us they tried to refuse money for "population assistance" pgms but were told the funds were inextricably linked to World Bank loans or other types of economic foreign assistance. U.S. govt participating in population control pgms in Peru since mid-1960s. Dec.1999, Population Research Institute again sent investigators to Peru, who presented findings at 3.14.00 cong, briefing. Although sterilization campaigns had subsided, family planning abuses were still rampant: pressure to choose a contraceptive, threats to withhold health care, bribes, targets and quotas. Family planning is now integrated into general health care. Consequently, women fear they may be sterilized or given birth control without their knowledge. Physicians had also verbally abused women, calling them "stupid" & "animals." Even the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP), along with Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (CLADEM), acknowledged & documented this fact in its joint report, Silence and Complicity Pres.Clinton said his 2001 budget proposal will include $169million, 45% increase, for family planning services overseas. U.S. currently contributes $394million toward intl population control, greater contribution than any other country, with $372.5 million earmarked for USAID. Claim that women around world will die without U.S. "population" assistance is smoke screen for a population control agenda. "We cannot accept a world in which part of humanity lives on the cutting edge of a new economy, and the rest live on the bare edge of survival," said Pres.Clinton. Rather than advocating funding for basic survival needs, clean water, medicine, nutrition, he called for increased "family planning" funds. YOUR BILL IS PAST DUE 3.11.98   PBS NewsHour KWAME HOLMAN:   Pres.Reagan adopted that provision as part of U.S. foreign policy following a 1984 conf. in Mexico City. The policy banned U.S. financial support for international family planning groups that perform or promote abortions, even if they used their own funds. President Clinton overturned that ban 3 days after he took office in 1993. Now, despite the President's threatened veto, congressional Republicans are trying to re- establish the Mexico City Policy by attaching to the same legislation that contains the money owed the United Nations. At a hearing last month Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Jesse Helms urged Sec. Albright to at least seek a compromise with Republicans on the Mexico City policy. 3.11.98   PBS NewsHour Sen. Rod Grams R-MN, chair Senate Foreign Relations Intl Operations Subcommittee Rep. Lee Hamilton D-IN HIRC ranking member HAMILTON   I oppose this conference report for a lot of reasons. It micro-manages all over the place in the State Dept. It intrudes on the president's ability to conduct foreign policy, it doesn't pay our bills that we owe to the UN. It has many, many provisions in it that I think are intrusive in the foreign policy process. It's a bad bill and I think would substantially hurt the President in his ability to carry out American foreign policy. GRAMS   Well, I have supported Rep. Smith on this. I disagreed with him on attaching it to this package, but, nonetheless, it is on the package. It went to the President last year. He vetoed it. And the one line says "to allow U.S.-funded organizations to lobby to change abortion laws in other countries." That's all that's said. Now, Rep. Smith moved a long ways in the negotiation towards the President. The President refused to move even an inch and decided that U.N. arrears, U.N. reforms, State Dept reorganization, and IMF funding was not as important as that one line in the bill and decided to veto it. He's threatening to do it again. So all that we do might be for naught. But if the President decides that all of those are not as important as allowing our country to or funding for lobbying on the abortion issue, I think this is something the President should really look at because the ball is in his court. We've done our job on the Hill. Now the President has to make that last decision. About the funding, really we're only $54million behind on dues, and that's only because of calendar years. We're not in arrearage on that. The bulk of the money is peacekeeping not owed to the U.N. but to other UN members, such as Britain, France, Fiji, et cetera. So these are funds that are not holding up the activities of the U.N.. We might be making some of our friends a little anxious in getting their money, but it's not stopping any of that, but basically it says if you want the dollars, you're going to have to have the reforms. And it's very basic, very simple. HAMILTON   Well, they certainly are. It's not that our friends are anxious; they're just outright mad at us. What we're doing is asking the world to take over all these burdens of peacekeeping. We're not going to pay our share. We want them to pay the bill. And they don't like that. And I don't blame them for not liking it. We ought to pay our bills on time in full. With regard to Mexico City, my view is that's a very important issue. Members feel very strongly about it, but linking it to the question of the U.N. and to the other big question, international question, International Monetary Fund, I just don't think makes good sense for American foreign policy. These issues of payment of dues to the United Nations & payment of the quota for the IMF go right to the heart of the ability of this nation to conduct its foreign policy. They are tough enough issues in & of themselves, as the differences here have made very clear. But to link it to another very difficult issue, no matter whose fault it is, is just putting a great obstacle in the way of the conduct of American foreign policy. GRAMS   We paid over $2.97 billion last year alone in peacekeeping fees, U.S. taxpayers, $700 million already with the Saddam Hussein issue with Iraq. So we pay more than our fair share. So being a little bit behind on these arrears has nothing to do with our obligation and what we do to help keep peace around the world. Difficult Straits Economic Interdependence & Women's Labor in Taiwan Elizabeth K. Spahn, Prof. Law, N.England Law School … The women's vote, overwhelmingly pro-choice, is significant enough to the Democrats that Pres.Clinton is resisting Republican efforts to attach an anti-abortion restriction to a bill providing $18billion for the IMF & $1billion past due to the UN.   cf "House GOP puts brakes on IMF Funds; Abortion restriction threatens Clinton veto & another standoff" Eric Schmitt NYTimes 3.12.98 pA10.   In rejecting the Republican proposal, "the White House & its Democratic allies … suggested Pres.Clinton would veto the all important spending bill, despite furious lobbying by his foreign policy advisors … rather than buckle to Republican anti-choice demands." More on the Mexico City Policy Congress has adjourned until 1998 11.19.97   Michael Reagan RII … Pro-life leader Rep. Chris Smith R-NJ agreed to language that would make the Mexico City policy permanent law, but allowing President Clinton to the power to waive exceptions for agencies that perform abortions. Should he exercise the waiver, the $385million in family planning funds would be reduced to $350million, permanently capping all expenditures for those purposes, from any federal account, at that amount. Funding for family planning services overseas comes from govt sources other than foreign operations, increasing the amount far beyond the $385 million of concern here. The compromise was accepted by the Senate but was stopped by House Foreign Operations Subcommittee chairman Rep. John Porter R-IL & Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen R- NJ, both staunch supporters of abortion. When Congress reconvenes in January, these issues will reemerge. In 11.14.97 WashTimes, Rep. Smith said he has been assured the U.N. money will never be paid without the abortion language he wants. Mexico City is absolutely, totally, inextricably linked to U.N. arrearages & IMF, he said. U.S. Population Assistance Pgm 1997 PAI … In the 28 largest recipient countries of U.S. funds, av. number of children per family has dropped from 6.1 in the 1960s to 4.2 today, nearly one-third decline. U.S. govt provides population assistance through 3 channels: bilateral, nongovernmental and multilateral. One-third to one-half of the funds are provided directly to govts of about 40 developing countries for projects jointly managed by U.S.AID field missions. Remainder of USAID funds support wide range of population activities in over 100 countries implemented by NGOs. U.S. also been major contributor to UN Population Fund (UNFPA), largest multilateral organization involved in population, since its founding in 1969. Virtually every major innovation in the population   family planning field can be directly or indirectly linked to U.S. support. For example, U.S. pioneered variety of successful approaches to extending family planning through the private sector. Modern technology has also been creatively applied to the population field in the areas of mass communication, demographic data collection & analysis, and biomedical research in the development of new contraceptives. Staff of career experts on population & related areas within USAID is unique among donor agencies. In addition, strong public-private partnership with U.S. based NGOs been key to USAID's ability to provide high quality technical advice & support to govts & indigenous NGOs in developing countries. … In the 1980s, domestic political debates on abortion spilled over into intl population assistance policy. Foreign aid funds used for abortion or for coercive programs has been prohibited by law since the passage of the Helms amendment in 1973, and support for biomedical research on abortion was banned in 1981. But the Reagan Admin imposed addtl policy restrictions on pgm in 1984 with Mexico City Policy which denied U.S. assistance to a foreign NGO if it had any involvement in abortion, even if paid for with non-U.S. funds. In addition, Reagan & Bush admin withheld U.S. contribution to UNFPA between 1986 & 1992 because of its projects in China. In 1993, Mexico City Policy was overturned by Pres.Clinton. U.S. contribution to UNFPA was restored after existing law was reinterpreted by the Clinton admin and after Congress approved safeguards disassociating the U.S. from any coercive practices and ensuring that no U.S. funds would by used by UNFPA in China. During 104th Congress, anti-choice opponents of family planning have sought repeatedly to reimpose Mexico City Policy and to cutoff U.S. funding of UNFPA. Congress first appropriated funds for population assistance in 1965. Funding rose fairly steadily to a peak of nearly $600 million in 1995 before suffering a drastic 35 percent funding reduction in 1996. But even before this congressionally imposed funding cut, effects of inflation and increases in the number of women of reproductive age have meant that the growth in U.S. funding for family planning and other reproductive health programs has failed to keep pace with the demand for high quality services around the world.

Restoration of Mexico City Policy USAID "This policy recognizes our country's long history of providing intl health care services, including voluntary family planning to couples around the world who want to make free & responsible decisions about number & spacing of their children." 1.22.01 Pres.Bush announced reinstatement of so-called Mexico City policy that required NGOs to "agree as condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The President is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services. The President's clear intention is that any restrictions do not limit organizations from treating injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion care. This position has wide Congressional support. [ Invoked Cong. Review Act during 100day honeymoon] Since 1965 beginning, USAID family planning pgm involved in all major innovations in intl family planning. Agency is recognized for its leadership in the field. USAID support for family planning helped developing countries providing family planning services to more that 100 million couples and has contributed to over 40% decline in av. family size in 28 countries since 1965. This decline contributed to meeting global health goals of halving maternal mortality rates, reducing child mortality by one-third and decreasing the rate of new HIV infections by 15%   Since 1973 with Helms Amendment enactment, USAID legally prohibited from supporting or encouraging abortion as family planning method. USAID has strict procedures to ensure no USAID provided funds are used for abortion, incl legally binding contracts with orgs receiving funds, separate accounting procedures to ensure that no USAID funds support prohibited activities, close technical monitoring, and regular financial audits by outside nationally-recognized accounting firms. WHouse PressSec on Mexico City Policy restoration USAID … This policy recognizes our country's long history of providing intl health care services, incl voluntary family planning to couples around the world who want to make free & responsible decisions … State Dept daily press brief 1.23.01   USAID … Q   what the effect is of this on this, the President's executive order on the abortion, what the effect is? BOUCHER   Okay. A couple of things to go through. What is called the Mexico City Policy, I think. Most of you are familiar with the history of this, so I won't go over it again. In addition to issuing, announcing the executive order yesterday, the White House also issued a statement on policy that says the President is committed to the $425 million funding level that is provided for in the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation, because they know that one of the best ways to prevent abortions is by providing quality voluntary family planning services. Support at that level for voluntary family planning services remains part of our policy. … discussion over the years has ranged, revolved around funding fungibility issue, so if we provide money to organization, in Clinton admin they said, well, that can be used only for the purposes of voluntary family planning, not to support or promote abortions. People on the other side have said, but money is fungible; if you fund this side of the organization they have more money to do whatever they do with regard to promoting abortion. The Mexico City policy here, as it applies to organizations, is to not provide funding to organizations that promote or advocate abortion. That is the policy that this Administration has adopted. There are some 450 non-US based grantees, meaning organizations, that receive US aid funds. The vast majority of these organizations will probably consent to the Mexico City restrictions, and thus would choose not to lose their funding. Q   Does that mean that these are people that do right now provide some kind of abortion services, whether it is, well, some kind of abortion services that will now stop doing that in order to continue to get US money? BOUCHER   Or people who don't provide any abortion services at all already. Q   Already? BOUCHER   So among those 450, we don't have any way of measuring it right now until we have heard back and talked to the organizations. But based on previous history of this issue, we would expect a vast majority of these organizations to be able to comply with this directive. There will be some unknown number of organizations that may not accept the Mexico City restrictions. But as the announcement said yesterday, voluntary family planning remains important, and we will continue to fund that. Q   When you said, "voluntary family planning", usually part of these family planning counseling includes the option of abortion. Are you saying that when these organizations offer these services and give the family the option, are you saying that abortion is not supposed to be one of the options that they present? Whether they provide -- even if they don't provide the services, some clinics just give the counseling. BOUCHER   Just provide the counseling? My understanding is that the way that this was done before is that organizations can provide information on all legally available options. But how exactly that will be handled and the details, I'm not sure I know at this point. Q   Has this building had any communication with your European Union counterparts on this subject, either on Sunday or since then, given that the European Commission on Welfare and (inaudible) I think it says has basically accused President Bush of turning reproductive rights back 20 years with this decision? BOUCHER   We have seen the statement. I am not aware that we have had any contact. I would have to check more on that. Q   Richard, within this building, is this decision seen as a foreign policy decision, or simply a -- or mainly a reflection of a domestic policy that has kind of leached out into an area that you guys are involved in? BOUCHER   It involves the funding of foreign organizations, so it is a foreign policy issue. It is obviously one with domestic ramifications. But the fundamental question is how we fund intl organizations, intl NGOs that are involved in family planning. Family planning has been part of our foreign policy and remains part of our foreign policy. Q   Okay, well, can I -- and along the lines of my other question about the MidEast, can we see here now a shift from the last Administration to this Administration, and a shift in terms of whether this Sec.State is as convinced that this kind of thing, that reproductive health and women's health is as much of a priority as the last Secretary of State thought that it was in terms of foreign policy? BOUCHER   You are certainly free to draw conclusions that something is different, because something is different. They have announced a different policy out of the White House. On the other hand, I would reiterate to you, as the Secretary has reiterated in conversations in this building, that the commitment to provide funding for family planning internationally remains consistent and remains at the same level. It is just the way and the kinds of organizations that funding might be provided for is changing. So you are free to draw conclusions that something is different, but I don't think it is what you said. Q   You don't think that it is a reflection of a change in the commitment to -- in the overall commitment, in terms of foreign policy, to reproductive health? BOUCHER   I think in terms of the amount of money, that "Put your money where your mouth is." In terms of what the President said yesterday, that he is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level. That is a fairly clear indication that the commitment to carry out family planning and health care is part of our international programs remains. Q   Can you tell us how this foreign policy decision fits with Sec. Powell's previously stated position, as I understand it, which is to be pro-choice? BOUCHER   I guess I would reiterate what I have just said, that this is a position that the Administration has taken. Obviously he supports it, and in his discussions with us and others, I think he has reiterated the view that the White House reiterated yesterday, that the decision on the Mexico City policy is accompanied by his decision to maintain the funding of voluntary family planning as part of our foreign policy. Q   Richard, if some of these groups do drop out, as is very possible, and refuse your offer of assistance, what will you do to ensure that the funding does remain at that level? I mean, will you actively go out and find other programs to finance, or will you -- I mean, what is the value of this commitment to 425 if you are essentially likely to cut off some of the groups which are now receiving that money? BOUCHER   We are not committed to funding any specific number of groups. We are committing to funding programs where there are needs, and I'm sure there are significant needs already that we are not able to meet. Whether the needs are going to be met by funding new groups and programs in the same locations, but maybe through different organizations, or whether the needs can be met by increasing the funding some of the organizations that do accept the policy, I don't know. That is something that would happen as we go forward. Q   You will actively seek ways of spending any extra money left over? BOUCHER   We will continue to support international family planning as part of a health care program, and we will continue to support it at this level of funding. I think it is not too hard to find the ways to spend the money usefully. Q   Did the White House give a -- did they give a deadline as to when people have to -- was it immediate? Do they have to say, yes, we want to continue -- we will drop our abortion services and we want to stay in, or is that just something that is -- I mean, when does this take -- obviously it takes effect immediately, but when does it actually take effect on the ground? BOUCHER   I would assume it would take effect on the ground as the funding is dispersed for this fiscal year that the Congress has appropriated, $425 million to support family planning programs in the fiscal year 2001. Then as that money is dispersed, it would be dispersed to organizations who can meet the standards of the policy. Q   One more on this, if I may. Sec. Powell said yesterday that one of his aims was not to shove US policy down the throats of other countries. Given the fairly harsh reaction that has come out of Europe already today to this, is this not really rather a bad way to start off his foreign policy decisions? BOUCHER   First of all, the reaction out of Europe -- all I saw is, I think, one statement by one commissioner. So I'm not sure that Europe as a whole has taken it. But, in any case, I think the point is that this is a decision about the disbursement of American money, and I think the United States has a right to decide how we disbursed our funds. Q   Can I get one more in on this? This means that as -- okay, and I want to just do this comparison again between Friday and yesterday. On Friday, you had people from -- hypothetically going to have people from USAID going -- or whoever disburses this money -- saying, okay, here is your money; do with it what you will. And today, those same people are going to be going out to those same groups and saying, okay, here's the money, but you can't have anything to do with -- there can't be anything to do with abortion or you don't get anything. Is that correct, basically? Layman's terms? BOUCHER   To put it in the very basic terms that you are doing, I would say that what we are doing today is we are going to organizations that we are working with or intend to work with, and say, I have the money here; if you agree to the following conditions, I will give it to you; if you don't, I can't give it to you. Q   Right, but generally it is the same person. Have you -- and I mean, it is basically going to be the same office in the embassy doing this, right? And so what I am wondering is, have you had any complaints back from the embassies about this? Any resignations? Anyone jumping up and down for joy saying, thank God, it has finally come? BOUCHER   Not that I have heard of. Q   Is there a State Department role in this case involving the American-born twins over whom there is a custody battle and who are now in the care of the British govt? BOUCHER   There is a bit of a role, but not a great role. I think we are trying to facilitate and help out the people involved. The British authorities, we understand, have taken legal action to make these twins the wards of the court. We have been assisting the law enforcement and the social welfare agencies in both countries, and describe our role as facilitators. The case obviously raises important international adoption issues, including the use of the internet for adoptions. International adoption within the United States actually falls within the jurisdiction of individual states. Once The Hague Adoption Convention that was recently signed enters into force for the U.S., it would provide a mechanism for more uniform regulation of adoptions between member countries. But at this point we have been trying to work with the local authorities, with social services and legal authorities to help them resolve the situation. Q   New subject? Do you have anything more on the Congo? Are you ready to welcome the peaceful transfer of power to the son of former president Kabila? BOUCHER   No. We are ready to reiterate the fact that we don't think violence is the way to resolve issues and to change governments, because that is what happened here. But at this point, Embassy Kinshasa reports that the city remains calm, airports open. The river crossing is expected to open after the funeral of President Kabila today. The curfew has been temporarily lifted for the mourning period. Shops and businesses are closed to observe the national days of mourning. We expect them to reopen tomorrow. We understand the police continue to investigate and in some cases to detain and question people concerning President Kabila's death. The authorized departure of US Govt personnel has led to a draw down of about 25 non-emergency personnel and Embassy dependents who have departed at this point. The Embassy is closed in adherence to the national days of mourning, but we do continue to provide emergency services to American citizens. Ambassador Swing is there now, and he is representing the U.S. at President Kabila's funeral today. Q   Is there any consideration going to lifting the authorized departure since things don't seem to be particularly grave? BOUCHER   I think at this point prudence dictates that we maintain this departure. We have had 25 or so of our people leave, and they will stay out until we think it is safe for them to go back. Q   And have we heard anything new on the possibility of the Lusaka participants meeting in Mozambique? BOUCHER   Nothing new today on that. Q   A question of drug certification or certification of drug problem countries across your radar scope at all. Sec. Powell seemed hostile toward that process when he testified last week, and I think the certification deadline is coming up pretty soon. BOUCHER   I think the report is actually due March 1, so that is an annual process that is under way, and obviously Sec. Powell will have a chance to look at it as we go forward, and I wouldn't be surprised if this arose in the discussions during President Bush's trip to Mexico as well. Q   Can we go back to the Congo for a second? Is there anything to lead you to believe that the government under the son will be any different than the government under the father, the policies? BOUCHER   At this stage it is clearly too early to tell. We reiterate once more, we think the most important thing is to implement the Lusaka Accords, and that is what we will be looking for. WHouse memorandum for U.S.AID Acting Administrator 3.28.01   CIB 01-08 USAID .pdf … for immediate implementation. … language to be incorporated into the standard provision entitled "Voluntary Population Activities (March 1999)" contained in CIB 99-6. Note that when amending an existing grant or cooperative agreement that contains the "Voluntary Population Planning (June 1993)" standard provision, Agreement Officers must: a. Delete the 1993 version of the standard provision in its entirety and replace it with the March 1999 version; and b. Incorporate the new paragraphs contained in the White House Memorandum as applicable. … CIB 01-03 cancellation re voluntary pop. activities 3.23.01   Restoration of Mexico City policy CIB 01-06 USAID .pdf Voluntary Population Activities Restoration of Mexico City Policy   CIB 01-03 USAID HIRC budget hearing 2.25.97 USAID admin J. Brian Atwood Rep. Ben Gilman chair REP. CHRIS SMITH   Mr. Atwood, I know that you're very sincere in asking it and in suggesting that we work for a bipartisan foreign policy. I think many of us would agree with that. But as I know you know, there is at least one major obstacle that will lead to perhaps impasse again and a great deal of argument on both sides, and that's the linkage of the population control issue with abortion. There are some in the administration who have decided, in my view, that human beings are a sort of cancer on the planet. They see numbers and the reduction of numbers as something that needs to be done at all costs, including the promotion of abortion overseas. They put it ahead of human rights, they put it ahead of feeding people, they put it ahead of child survival efforts because what is the bottom line, a lower number seems to be what it's all about. I happen to believe that child survival efforts in this country are very seriously undermined & compromised when we support organizations that are aggressively promoting abortion overseas. You know, UNICEF is fond of saying that diarrheal disease is the leading killer of children. No, it's number two. The leading killer of children overseas, and in this country, happens to be abortion, whether it be legal or illegal. These precious, unborn children are being slaughtered in countries all over the world. And unfortunately, we're playing a part by contributing to those organizations that see it as their mission and mandate to promote abortion where it is illegal. I'm sure you have seen -- I asked Madeleine Albright this when she was before our committee recently, and she had not seen it. She was very candid in her comments. But I'm sure you have seen the Vision 2000 statement that IPPS, based in London, issued back in 1992. And it says, and I quote, very simply, "To bring pressure on governments and to campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortion." Fred Sye (ph), who was the former chairman or president of IPPS said, "Now for the first time, the IPPS strategic plan, Vision 2000, outlines activities at the both secretariat and family planning association level to further IPPS's explicit goal of increasing the right to access to abortion." They put it ahead of human rights, they put it ahead of feeding people, they put it ahead of child survival efforts because what is the bottom line, a lower number seems to be what it's all about.Mr. Atwood, I would ask you, you know, you won the victory -- you won the vote the other day. It was somewhat mixed in that members also voted for legislation that I offered, but we all know that the prospects for that legislation are seriously dimmed as a result of the House vote. Let me advise you, though, that it was won at a cost. There are a number of members who were intending on voting against the president who were pressured as I've never seen pressure before, and I've had this told to my face so I'm not making anything up here, and you can check this out. You probably know who they are. But it was a pyrrhic victory. Yes, you won the first round and that money goes out to these organizations and they will spend it as they see fit. But there's money in the pipeline or money in the next appropriations cycle that will not be loosed to go to these organizations to promote abortion. The level of interest and the level of education among the members will increase, I believe, and among Americans. This Vision 2000 and all of the country action plans that IPPF envisions for these countries to bring down their right-to-life laws will be made more known to people. And I hope that somehow, if the interest really is in promoting family planning, that you will see that my language is offered and now pending in the Senate, was very simply to get to abortion neutrality; contribute money to family planning, remove the lid, have no ceiling. I mean, I think you'll agree if our legislation, Smith/Oberstar/Hyde legislation, had passed, there would be more not less money available on March 1st. Isn't that true? MR. ATWOOD   First, I want to say that from a personal point of view, I abhor abortion. I am a Catholic. I've just had my daughter baptized as a Catholic. I have my own personal beliefs about these matters. And I can say to you from that perspective that it is not our goal to try to overturn laws in various other countries against abortion. It is not our goal to have any influence whatsoever over what other countries do on this very, very serious and very sensitive matter. As a matter of fact -- and I think this is why the statement you read relating to IPPF's 1992 statement is mitigated considerably -- all nations that adopted the Plan for Action that was adopted in Cairo, agreed that this was a sovereign matter and that there would be no effort to try to overturn abortion laws of one sort or the other. And our vice president -- and you were there, Mr. Smith -- made that statement very clear that this was not our goal, and not the goal of our family planning program, in particular, which has, of course, nothing to do with abortion, unless, of course, you look at the plan objectively and say that fewer abortions occur as a result of our family planning program. We operate in countries like Russia and Romania, which do not have a population problem in the sense that they can't sustain the population growth, but they have an abortion problem in those countries. The women in those countries were having upward to eight pregnancies in their lifetime, and most of them were aborted. And our program has dropped that number down from eight to two, and I believe that we've had a major impact in stopping abortions in those countries. And we have that impact all over the world where people are voluntarily practicing family planning programs. Is it to try to end the life of human beings? I mean, I have my personal views about what abortion does, and I want to tell you that when a family is able to space its children adequately in very poor environments, that they are, in doing that, able to feed those children and assure that they survive, which is why, of course, I appreciate very much your support for our child survival programs. That's an important aspect of what we do. So I believe that our family planning programs reduce abortions; that if we continue to see cuts in those programs, we're going to see more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more maternal deaths as a result. I understand your position with respect to IPPF. IPPF has never, ever, even during the days of the Mexico City policy, spent more than 1 percent of its budget on abortion-related things. And when I say abortion-related, a lot of what they do is to help people that have had botched abortions. We've had such a situation during the Mexico City policies that women would come into our clinics who have been experiencing botched abortions and the doctors wouldn't even be able to help them. Now that, it seems to me, is an over-reaction to the issue. I do think that we need to understand that an international organization like IPPF operates in many different countries, that they abide by the laws of all of those countries. They do not use a single dime of American government money to perform abortions or to do anything related to abortions. And that is our position. I realize that we're going to continue to have a disagreement on those issues. I hope it will continue to be a civil one as it always has because I very much appreciate your support for other aspects of our program, Mr. Smith. REP. SMITH   As you know, Mr. Atwood, the botched abortions have always been completely permissible and I think there's a moral duty for us to provide help to those women who may be experiencing that. That -- under the Mexico City policy, that was always included and anticipated and my language explicitly included that under what we would be willing, not only to allow someone else to do, but to use our own U.S. funds because we do have an obligation to help those women. So that really isn't an issue. That ought to be off the table. We would help those women in those situations. In terms of what IPBS does overseas, as you know, they are the chief lobby force in most of these countries in trying to bring down these pro-life laws. And they will have successes if they are made very effective by huge donations by the U.S. and perhaps our other allies in doing this. Now, your not for abortion. I'm not for abortion. We need to be talking about consequences. How do we make the world abortion-free rather than having free abortion. And what's happening is that in planned parenthood documents, and people have said this over and over, in every country where abortion is liberalized and made permissive, the numbers skyrocket and then level off. Ours went to 1.5 million and now its about 1.3 to 1.4 million. And that's the expectation for every country. So if we contribute to those organizations that have an abortion manifesto called Vision 2000 to bring down these right-to-life laws, you can take it to the bank that in every one of these countries where they succeed ultimately, there will be a skyrocketing of abortion. We ought to be working to make the world abortion-free. "Wantedness" & Social Justice Wanda Franz, Ph.DWomen & Children First. Natl Right to Life president; developmental psychologist & child psychology professor W.VA Univ. In 1920, two German professors published a small book advocating the killing of people whose lives were "devoid of value." Nineteen years later, the professors' proposal became reality when Nazi Germany established a euthanasia program targeting physically and mentally disabled children, elderly patients in long-term care, and invalids from World War I. Various estimates place total number killed in this manner at 275,000 or more. In contrast to the killings in the concentration camps-which were motivated by openly-acknowledged racial, ethnic, and political hatred and prejudice-the euthanasia program was justified as being beneficial to the victims. Killing them would release them from an "unbearable life." In fact, in the German province of Brandenburg, Jewish patients were initially excluded from the euthanasia program because the local Nazis did not want to provide such a "benefit" to Jews. Killing as a "benefit" to the victim was, however, not the only justification advanced in defense of euthanasia. It was also justified as a cost-effective way to deal with the imperfect and disabled because they were a drain on the nation's resources and posed a burden to their families. … Currently, there are about 1.2 million abortions a year. The abortion industry defends these as serving high moral purpose: "Every child, a wanted child," Planned Parenthood slogan. In other words, the "unwanted" child is better off being dead: we are doing the child a favor. Planned Parenthood advertisement from 1985 proclaims: "The right to choose makes all other rights possible." Since I am speaking to Catholic Press Assoc., it is appropriate to present the counter view as expressed by Pope John Paul II. He declared "the right to life" to be "the most basic & fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights." Planned Parenthood is, of course, not above appealing to baser motivations. An advertisement from its Minnesota affiliate blares: "Babies are loud, smelly & expensive. Unless you want one." In fact, according to Planned Parenthood's own figures, only 3% of abortions are done for sake of mother's health; another 3% are done because of health problems of the baby; and 1% are reported for rape or incest. Vast majority of abortions, 93%%, are done for social reasons, because "babies are loud, smelly & expensive" and inconvenient. What we have then is killing on a massive scale as a form of birth control. Legalized abortion on demand places the unborn child in America today as much in jeopardy as a disabled person in Nazi Germany except that abortion does not even involve the pro-forma review by a panel of experts which the Nazi pgm required. Indeed, the unborn child has no rights whatsoever. There is no provision for defense on behalf of the victim, and there is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty; in fact, the victim's innocence is completely immaterial. The only thing that matters is "wantedness." Social justice is impossible if our right to life and our personhood are contingent upon somebody else wanting us to exist. "Every child, a wanted child" ultimately implies "every person, a wanted person," and that implies the end of liberty and a state of injustice. The social injustice generated by abortion is also evident when you look at who gets aborted. Survey for 1994 & 1995 in July/Aug. 1996 issue of Family Planning Perspectives journal reveals a heavy racial and ethnic bias. While black women made up only 14% of child-bearing age women, they accounted for 31.1% of all abortions. Hispanic women constituted only 10.6% of that age group, but accounted for 20.2% of all abortions. These two minority groups alone suffered over 51% of all abortions although these minorities together amounted to less than 25% of women of child-bearing age. Catholic women had abortion rates very close to the national average. Non-Hispanic, white Catholic women, however, had a 43% lower abortion rate than the national average. Heavy promotion of abortion among Hispanic Catholics that raises the overall "Catholic" rate to the national level. If you look at the history of eugenics & abortion rights movements in this country have heavy prejudice against minorities & Catholics. Aborting Catholic Hispanics satisfies both prejudices. According to Centers for Disease Control, percentage of abortions on Hispanic women nearly doubled from 1990 to 1996. This reflects Planned Parenthood's increasing effort to target this ethnic minority. These numbers are no surprise when you remember that abortion advocacy in this country has its roots in eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger remarked "all our problems are the result of over-breeding among the working class." While Planned Parenthood does not openly admit to systemic prejudice against poor & non-white minorities, it admits its "core clients" are "young women, low-income women, and women of color." Before Rev. Jessie Jackson became Democratic presidential nomination candidate, he denounced preferential abortion of African-Americans as a genocidal practice. As soon as he ran for office he found it more advantageous to promote himself as "pro-choice." Similar tactics were employed by others pursuing Democratic Party presidential nomination. For example, Democratic House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt used to vote pro-life until he concluded that the nomination politics in his party required him to be pro-abortion. Similarly, VP Al Gore voted mostly pro-life when he was in the House. Once he reached for national office, he became abortion rights promoter. Now, he is presidential candidate endorsed by the abortion lobby. Mary Meehan documented in 3 part series of articles in 1996 Our Sunday Visitor how American eugenics & birth control movement engaged in long-term population control campaign that to this day targets the poor & the members of non-white races here & abroad. For decades, many of America's super-rich & their foundations have been obsessed with promoting population control in developing countries. Now, however, their private efforts are massively aided by the power & money of U.S. govt. After World War II, population control in developing countries was promoted as a means to secure America's access to raw materials in these countries. Under Nixon admin, public moneys began to fund population control programs run by U.N. & private groups. Even though 1973 Helms Amendment prohibited use of U.S. foreign assistance funds to pay for abortions or promote them, organizations performing abortions continued to get as much as 90% of their budget from the U.S. taxpayer. Policy was changed during Reagan/Bush admins. In 1984, President Reagan instituted "Mexico City Policy" that stopped the flow of funds to organizations performing and promoting abortion as a method of family planning. One of Clinton-Gore admin first acts was to rescind Mexico City Policy in Jan. 1993. Ever since, this admin actively promoted abortion in developing countries. 4.1.93 WHouse spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers told reporters abortion was to be "part of the overall approach to population control." On 5.11.93, State Dept official Timothy Wirth told reporters the admin was insisting on access to abortion as a reproductive choice and that foreign govts may not "hide behind the defense of sovereignty." In a 1.22.94 story, 21st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Steven Greenhouse in NYTimes: "Administration officials said that the population strategy was perhaps the most concrete sign of VP Al Gore's influence on foreign policy." In fact, Gore went to great length to attend the UN sponsored 1994 Intl Conf on Population & Development in Cairo. Gore had ruptured an Achilles tendon and hobbled around on crutches. That did not stop him & large American delegation from exerting relentless pressure on developing countries representatives to accept abortion as family planning even when it was contrary to their laws, customs and religions. Threat to withhold U.S. foreign aid money & funds from intl bodies was used as a club. The Vatican denounced this campaign as a form of "cultural imperialism." …Message Mother Teresa sent to Cairo conference: "When we die, we will come face to face with God, the Author of life. Who will give an account to God for the millions & millions of babies who were not allowed a chance to live, to experience loving & being loved?" …

return to home page   §   email
 
site search courtesy of FreeFind