Late last week, 73 members of the House sent a letter to the White House urging the Obama administration to provide one billion dollars in funding for international family planning in his 2011 budget.
The letter highlights the many benefits that such an investment will bring: environmental security, political stability and maternal and child survival. Indeed, a recent report from UNFPA and the Guttmacher Institute makes clear that real investment in family planning is critical to making dramatic health improvements.
UNFPA also recently released its 2009 State of World Population Report making a compelling argument that increased funding for family planning around the world is a key component of both climate change mitigation and adaptation.
The congressional letter follows some very important progress. Over the weekend, both the House and Senate passed legislation to increase U.S. support for family planning around the world to $648 million – nearly a 40 percent increase from just two years ago, and more than a hundred million more than last year. This increase will allow more than 3.5 million more women to use contraceptives. But there are more than 200 million women who want to prevent or delay pregnancy but have no access to birth control, so much more needs to be done. That’s why we are encouraged by the strong support shown by Congress for real investment in family planning.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Appropriations Finale Brings Real Progress, and some Disappointment
Late yesterday a House-Senate conference met and finalized a “minibus” appropriations bill for FY 2010.
All in all, the outcome is quite positive, with one big disappointment. First the bad news, the conference report does not include a provision – added to the Senate bill by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) -- that would prohibit a future president from unilaterally acting to reinstate the Global Gag Rule.
The good news is that the bill will provide $648 million for international family planning programs -- an increase of more than $100 million from the current level. Of that total, $55 million will be provided to UNFPA. In addition, the Labor/HHS/Education portion of the bill eliminates funding for Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) and provides $114 million for a new “evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention program” that will allow federal funding to be used for real sex education. Finally, the bill will repeal the long standing ban on the District of Columbia using local revenues to provide abortion services to low-income women.
Each of these is an important victory. The increased funding for international family planning programs will allow more than 3.5 million additional women to use contraceptives and will prevent more than 2 million unintended pregnancies. The shifting of funding from incomplete, abstinence-only to real teen pregnancy prevention means that American youth will finally be given the information they need to make healthy responsible decisions about sex, and will finally be told the truth about ways they can prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections. And finally, the people of DC can make their own decision about the use of their own tax dollars for abortion services.
It seems that in the end, the gag rule issue got tangled up in the debate and discussion of domestic abortion and reproductive health politics and policies. The ongoing debates around the issues as they relate to health reform also played a role in the final outcome. It’s a reminder that members of congress don’t necessarily separate these issues in their own minds the way we do. We think of the gag rule as an issue of global access to family planning – to many of them, it’s just another abortion issue. Negotiators decided they could only pick so many fights on contentious issues, and the gag rule, to them, was one too many. I remain hopeful, however, that we can make a renewed push for this legislation in the coming months and that it can be passed into law in 2010.
All in all, the outcome is quite positive, with one big disappointment. First the bad news, the conference report does not include a provision – added to the Senate bill by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) -- that would prohibit a future president from unilaterally acting to reinstate the Global Gag Rule.
The good news is that the bill will provide $648 million for international family planning programs -- an increase of more than $100 million from the current level. Of that total, $55 million will be provided to UNFPA. In addition, the Labor/HHS/Education portion of the bill eliminates funding for Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) and provides $114 million for a new “evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention program” that will allow federal funding to be used for real sex education. Finally, the bill will repeal the long standing ban on the District of Columbia using local revenues to provide abortion services to low-income women.
Each of these is an important victory. The increased funding for international family planning programs will allow more than 3.5 million additional women to use contraceptives and will prevent more than 2 million unintended pregnancies. The shifting of funding from incomplete, abstinence-only to real teen pregnancy prevention means that American youth will finally be given the information they need to make healthy responsible decisions about sex, and will finally be told the truth about ways they can prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections. And finally, the people of DC can make their own decision about the use of their own tax dollars for abortion services.
It seems that in the end, the gag rule issue got tangled up in the debate and discussion of domestic abortion and reproductive health politics and policies. The ongoing debates around the issues as they relate to health reform also played a role in the final outcome. It’s a reminder that members of congress don’t necessarily separate these issues in their own minds the way we do. We think of the gag rule as an issue of global access to family planning – to many of them, it’s just another abortion issue. Negotiators decided they could only pick so many fights on contentious issues, and the gag rule, to them, was one too many. I remain hopeful, however, that we can make a renewed push for this legislation in the coming months and that it can be passed into law in 2010.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Copenhagen Talks Not Just About Energy
By John Seager
As world leaders convene the Copenhagen climate talks, discussion has focused on the need for wealthy countries to reduce emissions. Far less attention has been paid to the inevitable reality that emissions in the poorest parts of the world need to increase. And there has been scant recognition of the role played by rapid population growth in rising emissions worldwide.
President Obama is taking a bold first step in Copenhagen by putting forward an ambitious emissions target for the United States. Yet global population growth threatens to undercut - even cancel - all progress. Global population may grow by 18% or more from 2005 to 2020, according to UN projections.
Reducing carbon emissions is actually three separate but related challenges. First, we must reduce global emissions. Second, we must slow population growth by supporting programs such as voluntary family planning. Third, we must recognize that about half the world now suffers from "carbon starvation" and needs to increase emissions.
Historically, as population has increased, emissions have also risen. Most emissions reductions must occur in wealthier countries since that's where they are highest. At the same time, in order to give billions of poor people a reasonable quality of life, emissions in some parts of the world must increase significantly. Rapid population growth makes this balancing act even more difficult.
Given available technology, the often-tiny carbon footprints of billions of people are both a cause and an effect of impoverishment. The one billion people who struggle to survive on less than $1/day use very little in the way of fossil fuels. And the additional 1.6 billion living on less than $2/day hardly use more. In order to have decent lives, they must increase their emission levels substantially, despite advances in green technology.
Much of sub-Saharan Africa is mired in the most desperate, grinding poverty imaginable. Governments there are already unable to meet the most basic needs of their citizens. And it is these people - who contribute least to climate change - who will suffer most from the problems that climate change brings. Women especially will face new challenges to their health, livelihoods, and even their lives.
Africa's per-capita emissions must increase. But, if Africa's population grows by the 39% that is projected by 2020, it will be nearly impossible to create a healthy quality of life for people in that part of the world.
Population growth will undermine all efforts to achieve lower carbon emissions unless investments in clean energy are matched by equally comprehensive investments in universal access to contraception along with other health and development programs.
As we develop hybrid cars and the like, what about the other half of the world? Will they be left to sweat and starve while we glide forward into a century of renewable energy? Their carbon footprint needs to grow. That can only work if we are willing to meet the population growth challenge.
This is one of those times - and one of those issues - where we need to keep our eye on multiple goals. Reducing emissions is an energy issue. But it is also in equal measure a human rights challenge, one that must include unprecedented investments in a full spectrum of reproductive health services for women and couples. Worldwide, 200 million women have an unmet need for family planning. And demand for contraception is projected to increase by 40% in just 15 years.
If we fail to act on this broader agenda, initiatives for reducing greenhouse gases will be swept away by a tidal wave of population growth. The White House has already made great strides in reversing the pernicious policies of the Bush Administration which turned a blind eye to the needs of billions. But additional bold action is needed.
No doubt President Obama is keenly aware of the multiple dimensions of the climate challenge. Yes, it's about energy. But, more than that, it is about meeting the basic human needs of soon-to-be seven billion people. Universal access to family planning must be a centerpiece of the climate change agenda in Copenhagen and beyond.
As world leaders convene the Copenhagen climate talks, discussion has focused on the need for wealthy countries to reduce emissions. Far less attention has been paid to the inevitable reality that emissions in the poorest parts of the world need to increase. And there has been scant recognition of the role played by rapid population growth in rising emissions worldwide.
President Obama is taking a bold first step in Copenhagen by putting forward an ambitious emissions target for the United States. Yet global population growth threatens to undercut - even cancel - all progress. Global population may grow by 18% or more from 2005 to 2020, according to UN projections.
Reducing carbon emissions is actually three separate but related challenges. First, we must reduce global emissions. Second, we must slow population growth by supporting programs such as voluntary family planning. Third, we must recognize that about half the world now suffers from "carbon starvation" and needs to increase emissions.
Historically, as population has increased, emissions have also risen. Most emissions reductions must occur in wealthier countries since that's where they are highest. At the same time, in order to give billions of poor people a reasonable quality of life, emissions in some parts of the world must increase significantly. Rapid population growth makes this balancing act even more difficult.
Given available technology, the often-tiny carbon footprints of billions of people are both a cause and an effect of impoverishment. The one billion people who struggle to survive on less than $1/day use very little in the way of fossil fuels. And the additional 1.6 billion living on less than $2/day hardly use more. In order to have decent lives, they must increase their emission levels substantially, despite advances in green technology.
Much of sub-Saharan Africa is mired in the most desperate, grinding poverty imaginable. Governments there are already unable to meet the most basic needs of their citizens. And it is these people - who contribute least to climate change - who will suffer most from the problems that climate change brings. Women especially will face new challenges to their health, livelihoods, and even their lives.
Africa's per-capita emissions must increase. But, if Africa's population grows by the 39% that is projected by 2020, it will be nearly impossible to create a healthy quality of life for people in that part of the world.
Population growth will undermine all efforts to achieve lower carbon emissions unless investments in clean energy are matched by equally comprehensive investments in universal access to contraception along with other health and development programs.
As we develop hybrid cars and the like, what about the other half of the world? Will they be left to sweat and starve while we glide forward into a century of renewable energy? Their carbon footprint needs to grow. That can only work if we are willing to meet the population growth challenge.
This is one of those times - and one of those issues - where we need to keep our eye on multiple goals. Reducing emissions is an energy issue. But it is also in equal measure a human rights challenge, one that must include unprecedented investments in a full spectrum of reproductive health services for women and couples. Worldwide, 200 million women have an unmet need for family planning. And demand for contraception is projected to increase by 40% in just 15 years.
If we fail to act on this broader agenda, initiatives for reducing greenhouse gases will be swept away by a tidal wave of population growth. The White House has already made great strides in reversing the pernicious policies of the Bush Administration which turned a blind eye to the needs of billions. But additional bold action is needed.
No doubt President Obama is keenly aware of the multiple dimensions of the climate challenge. Yes, it's about energy. But, more than that, it is about meeting the basic human needs of soon-to-be seven billion people. Universal access to family planning must be a centerpiece of the climate change agenda in Copenhagen and beyond.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Stupak Amendment Blame Game
There has been a lot of discussion lately in the blogosphere and op-ed columns about what how and why the Stupak amendment passed the House. One of the themes getting a lot of play here in DC is that we were put on the path to Stupak when “the Democrats” decided after the 2004 elections to aggressively recruit and support anti-choice candidates for Congress.
The facts simply don’t support this. Of the 64 Democrats who supported the Stupak amendment, only 14 were first elected in 2006 and 2008. Of the remaining 50, many have been in office for decades. In fact, the Democratic House classes elected in both 2006 and 2008 are more pro-choice than the House Democratic Caucus as a whole.
The fact is that there have always been anti-choice Democrats in Congress. In the past, though, that was largely balanced by pro-choice Republicans. Today, the balance is gone. The number of pro-choice Republicans can be, at best, counted on one hand. That makes the anti-choice Democrats far more noticeable and, arguably, important. The pro-choice Republicans have largely been replaced by pro-choice Democrats (in New England, for example). Some, of course, have been replaced by anti-choice Republicans (i.e. Dave Reichert for Jennifer Dunn in Washington and Erik Paulsen succeeding Jim Ramstad in Minnesota).
That said, I can’t remember a time when the House – or the Senate – had a true pro-choice majority. It’s undeniable, though, that it’s better now than it has been in the past – but it’s still clearly short of where we need to be.
It’s easy to get frustrated and lash out at allies when something like this happens, but it’s counterproductive. To paraphrase Barney Frank, one of the smartest members of Congress, if what you’re doing makes yourself feel better, it’s probably completely ineffective. We need to focus on making sure the Senate votes down the Stupak amendment, not looking for people to blame for the House passing it.
The facts simply don’t support this. Of the 64 Democrats who supported the Stupak amendment, only 14 were first elected in 2006 and 2008. Of the remaining 50, many have been in office for decades. In fact, the Democratic House classes elected in both 2006 and 2008 are more pro-choice than the House Democratic Caucus as a whole.
The fact is that there have always been anti-choice Democrats in Congress. In the past, though, that was largely balanced by pro-choice Republicans. Today, the balance is gone. The number of pro-choice Republicans can be, at best, counted on one hand. That makes the anti-choice Democrats far more noticeable and, arguably, important. The pro-choice Republicans have largely been replaced by pro-choice Democrats (in New England, for example). Some, of course, have been replaced by anti-choice Republicans (i.e. Dave Reichert for Jennifer Dunn in Washington and Erik Paulsen succeeding Jim Ramstad in Minnesota).
That said, I can’t remember a time when the House – or the Senate – had a true pro-choice majority. It’s undeniable, though, that it’s better now than it has been in the past – but it’s still clearly short of where we need to be.
It’s easy to get frustrated and lash out at allies when something like this happens, but it’s counterproductive. To paraphrase Barney Frank, one of the smartest members of Congress, if what you’re doing makes yourself feel better, it’s probably completely ineffective. We need to focus on making sure the Senate votes down the Stupak amendment, not looking for people to blame for the House passing it.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
UN Report Focused on Women, Population, Climate
By Rebecca Harrington, National Field Coordinator
Yesterday, at the National Press Club, UNFPA launched its annual state of world population report entitled “Facing a changing world: women, population, and climate”. The report launch featured an engaging panel that included Rep. Carolyn Maloney, former Sen. Tim Wirth, the current President of the UN Foundation, and representatives from UNFPA, Worldwatch Institute, and PAI.
The meeting room was packed with those in the family planning and environmental communities eager to hear about the often-neglected relationships between population, climate change, and women. The release of the report is timely, as it precedes this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, taking place next month in Copenhagen.
Ironically, while women are least responsible for causing changes in climate, as they are likely to be more “sustainable consumers”, they are affected most by such climate change, according to the panelists. For example, drought uniquely affects women, who are generally responsible for the acquisition of water. As water becomes scarcer, women are forced to travel longer distances to get water. When this occurs, girls are likely to drop out of school to help their mothers with water collection.
Notably, and perhaps less obviously, women are also more likely to suffer more in the aftermath of natural disasters. The exceptional impact of natural disasters on women is eloquently discussed in the profile of Mandisa, a young community organizer who worked in New Orleans both prior to and following Hurricane Katrina.
The thoughtful audience members asked interesting questions about youth engagement in food production, the likelihood of these issues being discussed in Copenhagen, and the effect of emerging renewable energy technology on women in developing countries.
Despite these seemingly transparent connections, it is unlikely that the subject of gender will feature prominently in Copenhagen, according to the panelists. Encouragingly, there will be a side event at the Conference where IPPF, its Danish affiliate, Worldwatch, and PAI will discuss the importance of the empowerment of women in mitigating climate change.
Yesterday, at the National Press Club, UNFPA launched its annual state of world population report entitled “Facing a changing world: women, population, and climate”. The report launch featured an engaging panel that included Rep. Carolyn Maloney, former Sen. Tim Wirth, the current President of the UN Foundation, and representatives from UNFPA, Worldwatch Institute, and PAI.
The meeting room was packed with those in the family planning and environmental communities eager to hear about the often-neglected relationships between population, climate change, and women. The release of the report is timely, as it precedes this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, taking place next month in Copenhagen.
Ironically, while women are least responsible for causing changes in climate, as they are likely to be more “sustainable consumers”, they are affected most by such climate change, according to the panelists. For example, drought uniquely affects women, who are generally responsible for the acquisition of water. As water becomes scarcer, women are forced to travel longer distances to get water. When this occurs, girls are likely to drop out of school to help their mothers with water collection.
Notably, and perhaps less obviously, women are also more likely to suffer more in the aftermath of natural disasters. The exceptional impact of natural disasters on women is eloquently discussed in the profile of Mandisa, a young community organizer who worked in New Orleans both prior to and following Hurricane Katrina.
The thoughtful audience members asked interesting questions about youth engagement in food production, the likelihood of these issues being discussed in Copenhagen, and the effect of emerging renewable energy technology on women in developing countries.
Despite these seemingly transparent connections, it is unlikely that the subject of gender will feature prominently in Copenhagen, according to the panelists. Encouragingly, there will be a side event at the Conference where IPPF, its Danish affiliate, Worldwatch, and PAI will discuss the importance of the empowerment of women in mitigating climate change.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Debunking Stupak
By Brian Dixon
New Report Shows House Abortion Restriction Could End Nearly All Insurance Coverage of the Procedure
A new study out of the School of Public Health and Health Services at The George Washington University makes clear that pro-choice advocates are right when they claim that the Stupak Amendment is likely to significantly reduce, if not end, insurance coverage of abortion.
Late last week the main authors of the amendment to the Health Reform bill in the House, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), published a letter to the Washington Post in which they said “We are not looking to restrict access to abortion…” The new study points out how utterly disingenuous such a claim is. Of course, it was always obvious that this claim was laughable given the long record of efforts to restrict access to abortion that each has.
The study also claims that the option for women to purchase a “policy rider” to cover abortion is largely meaningless as the amendment likely outlaws such riders in the first place. “In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions.” Supplemental coverage, or riders, the authors say, must work in conjunction with the basic coverage, but the amendment prohibits that conjunction. So, again we have the authors being either purposely misleading or woefully uninformed about the scope of their own legislation.
The GWU study can prove to be very helpful as we work in the coming weeks to ensure that the U.S. Senate rejects this approach and to convince members of the House who supported the amendment originally that they were misled regarding the scope of the restriction.
New Report Shows House Abortion Restriction Could End Nearly All Insurance Coverage of the Procedure
A new study out of the School of Public Health and Health Services at The George Washington University makes clear that pro-choice advocates are right when they claim that the Stupak Amendment is likely to significantly reduce, if not end, insurance coverage of abortion.
Late last week the main authors of the amendment to the Health Reform bill in the House, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), published a letter to the Washington Post in which they said “We are not looking to restrict access to abortion…” The new study points out how utterly disingenuous such a claim is. Of course, it was always obvious that this claim was laughable given the long record of efforts to restrict access to abortion that each has.
The study also claims that the option for women to purchase a “policy rider” to cover abortion is largely meaningless as the amendment likely outlaws such riders in the first place. “In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions.” Supplemental coverage, or riders, the authors say, must work in conjunction with the basic coverage, but the amendment prohibits that conjunction. So, again we have the authors being either purposely misleading or woefully uninformed about the scope of their own legislation.
The GWU study can prove to be very helpful as we work in the coming weeks to ensure that the U.S. Senate rejects this approach and to convince members of the House who supported the amendment originally that they were misled regarding the scope of the restriction.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Economist is Stingy with Praise for Family Planning Accomplishments
By Marian Starkey, Director of Communications
The print edition of The Economist this week focuses on fertility and population. The lead story, "Falling Fertility" makes important connections between rapid population growth and poverty and the inverse relationship between population stabilization and economic growth. I was reading through the story, pleased with the facts covered, until I came to this paragraph:
The briefing, "Go Forth and Multiply a Lot Less" describes the global move toward replacement-level fertility (the level required for each generation to replace the last). This article at least mentions unwanted pregnancies and unmet need for family planning as factors in high fertility, but the reader is quickly diverted to discussion of girls' education--which is a proxy factor for lower fertility--and then reminded of the terrible coercion of China's one-child policy.
Another briefing, "The rich are different" quickly outlines the phenomenon of rising fertility in the developed countries that have higher gender equality than in the countries where fertility remains unprecedentedly low.
I hate to criticize whenever someone, especially a respected news source, pays attention to population issues, but I just had to point out a couple of the major flaws in the authors' arguments.
Here is the letter I sent in response to the lead article. Letters are published on Thursdays, so we'll see then if mine makes the cut. *Update: There were no letters printed about the fertility articles today. Maybe next week...
The print edition of The Economist this week focuses on fertility and population. The lead story, "Falling Fertility" makes important connections between rapid population growth and poverty and the inverse relationship between population stabilization and economic growth. I was reading through the story, pleased with the facts covered, until I came to this paragraph:
In principle, there are three ways of limiting human environmental impacts: through population policy, technology and governance. The first of those does not offer much scope. Population growth is already slowing almost as fast as it naturally could. Easier access to family planning, especially in Africa, could probably lower its expected peak from around 9 billion to perhaps 8.5 billion. Only Chinese-style coercion would bring it down much below that; and forcing poor people to have fewer children than they want because the rich consume too many of the world’s resources would be immoral.The well-meaning authors of this article are simply wrong here. If women around the world with an unmet need for family planning had affordable access to modern contraception, population growth could be slowing a heck of a lot faster. The authors also failed to disclose that the projection of 9 billion people in 2050 is dependent upon drastic fertility declines in the countries where population is growing fastest. So we're really talking about the difference between 9 and 11 billion (the projection if fertility rates stay the same as they are now), not 8.5 and 9 billion. And to suggest that any sane person supports a population policy that would force poor women to have fewer children so the rich of the world can consume more is just absurd.
The briefing, "Go Forth and Multiply a Lot Less" describes the global move toward replacement-level fertility (the level required for each generation to replace the last). This article at least mentions unwanted pregnancies and unmet need for family planning as factors in high fertility, but the reader is quickly diverted to discussion of girls' education--which is a proxy factor for lower fertility--and then reminded of the terrible coercion of China's one-child policy.
Another briefing, "The rich are different" quickly outlines the phenomenon of rising fertility in the developed countries that have higher gender equality than in the countries where fertility remains unprecedentedly low.
I hate to criticize whenever someone, especially a respected news source, pays attention to population issues, but I just had to point out a couple of the major flaws in the authors' arguments.
Here is the letter I sent in response to the lead article. Letters are published on Thursdays, so we'll see then if mine makes the cut. *Update: There were no letters printed about the fertility articles today. Maybe next week...
In “Go forth and multiply a lot less,” the UN medium population projection of 9.2 billion in 2050 is accepted as destiny. As The Economist surely knows, projections are dependent on assumptions. The scenario that would deliver a population of 9.2 billion is ambitious fertility decline starting now. In fact, projections range from 8-11 billion people, depending on how quickly fertility falls. If it drops drastically and soon, growth could stop at 8 billion; if fertility decline stagnates, population will still be growing at 11 billion in 2050.
Kenya’s fertility rate was declining impressively until a couple of years ago, when the country experienced a significant reduction in family planning aid. As a result, population projections for 2050 were doubled. Timing is everything because of the inherent momentum that keeps population growing even after “replacement level fertility” is achieved. The larger the base of women yet to reach their reproductive years, the larger the population will grow once they start having children.
The rapid fertility decline in Matlab, Bangladesh was precipitated by the availability of contraceptives, not higher incomes or better health—those followed as a result. Fertility drops when incomes rise because people can finally afford contraceptives. When contraception is available at no cost, all economic quintiles have similarly low fertility, as in Thailand and Vietnam. Educated women are, indeed, more likely to want fewer children. But they’re also more likely to be in economic positions that allow them to purchase contraceptives.
The article got most things right, but it simplified the role of family planning in fertility decline. Women want smaller families and tend to use contraception if they are educated about the methods and most importantly, if they have access. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to have high fertility because many women have no access. Donor countries have fallen shamefully short of the amounts they pledged for family planning assistance at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994. Every year that we under-fund family planning is another step closer to a world of 11 billion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
