Obama, the UN, and Population Control

The United Nations has a development agency called the UN Population Fund (UNPF). This agency, according to its website: “promotes the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity.” They also desire to: “reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” I have some inherent philosophical issues with this whole statement (not that I don’t want the poor to be cared for, or for births to be safe, or for children to be wanted, or for women and girls to be treated with dignity and respect), because it implies an attempt by a ‘governmentish’ agency trying to change a society’s values from the outside in (it doesn’t work that way, and usually ends in chaos). But what bothers me more specifically is this line, “that every pregnancy is wanted.” Does this mean that they think that each pregnancy that is not wanted should be ended? That’s a common pro-choice argument. What does this UN organization think about abortion? Well, interestingly enough, not only do they want to provide abortion access, there is some very frightening evidence that they support the FORCING of abortions in third world countries. Here are some articles on that:



The 2nd article talks about the findings of research conducted by the Population Research Institute in Peru and China, and about the UNPF’s attempts to cover up information about it. Some organizations that adhere to the UN’s ideals about population control have argued that the UN does not support coercive measures. Most of the ones I’ve seen have pretty shoddy argumentation. Most of what they do is simply quote the UN’s statements on the issue (it’s like asking the defendant on trial if they’re lying). But of course, it’s possible there are some better arguments out there. The PRI has put out a set of videos on youtube on their investigations into the UNPF, including video evidence of coercion. http://www.youtube.com/Colinpri1

Well, unsurprisingly, our current president has decided to start sending more money to this UN project:  http://www.lifenews.com/int1130.html http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=14300&geo=4&theme=1&size=A

Former presidents, even President Clinton, would not give money to these organizations because of reports of coercive abortions and sterilization. While I shudder to think of making such an accusation… but… is it possible that if Obama is okay with supporting an organization that possibly forces abortions and sterilization in third world countries, what about in our own country? That seems like a bit of a stretch… but…. In some parts of the country, complaints have been arisen that pro-life doctors are being fired for not performing abortions. So, a clause was instated that made it illegal for doctors to be forced to perform abortions if they believe it’s wrong to do so. Obama has overturned that clause. This blogger collected some good articles on this: http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-to-force-abortion-on-all-health.html

Also, Obama has clearly advocated the Freedom of Choice Act. Here is an analysis of the bill: http://www.aul.org/foca

In short, the bill would define abortion as a “fundamental right.” This goes above and beyond what Roe v. Wade decided. Here is a list of other laws and policies, from this article, that this new legal statute would override:

-Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

-Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)

-Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals

-Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees

-Informed consent laws

-Waiting periods

-Parental consent and notification laws

-Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics

-Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions

-“Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)

-Bans on partial-birth abortion

-Bans on abortion after viability.FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.

-Limits on public funding for elective abortions (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable) -Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions -State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions

-Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities —-

The overturning of these laws by the FOCA will make it so that your taxpayer dollars will most definitely go to fund abortions, and it will be much harder for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and clinics to have the freedom to chose not to provide abortions. If they lose their jobs over it, it could legally be treated as if someone lost their job for denying someone freedom of speech or the right to vote. It potentially could be considered unconstitutional to deny someone an abortion. Implicitly then, people are required to perform abortions. Will any of these things require women to have abortions against their will? Not that I can tell, but we’re surely headed down a slippery slope, and Obama doesn’t seem to have a problem with such coercion happening in other countries. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, after all?

I want to circumvent a possible thought someone might offer. Some might think that this is just an aberration of the UN’s behavior, just a small mistake that should be fixed: We should petition the UN and get them to stop. But in actuality, none of this this news surprises me at all. The UN is a governing body very different than the United States. In the US, when something goes wrong with the government we can scream and tell them, “ouch that hurt!” It keeps them in check. Our founding fathers believed that if government is not kept in check it can become a monster, because “power corrupts.” Having a separation of powers, and keeping the government based upon the consent of the governed, was the way to keep government in check. Imperialism is dangerous because you then have a government trying to rule over a group that has no ability to keep that government in check. They can do what they want and if someone says “ouch,” no one will hear it. So then, as power continues to corrupt, greater atrocities are carried out. If no one is there to stop them (no checks on their power), the natural way of things is for oppression to occur. This is especially so when an imperialistic body has an idealistic view of itself, as if it can change people and societies and make other people “like themselves.” When the UN tries to end poverty in third world nations, it is flirting with imperialism. It is assuming a governing role over these societies, and there is no way to keep them in check. Americans don’t directly hear about what happens when the UN intervenes, we can’t very easily say “ouch” for people who might get hurt. Even if we did hear, the UN is so separated from us that we can’t really stop them by petitioning. When an American petitions the government, they are reminding the government that we have power over them and can take their jobs away if they don’t shape up. We can’t do that to the UN. We have no power over them, because they gain their power from leaders we can’t control very easily (including our president, the part of our government we have the least control over, which is why the constitution limits the president’s role very clearly). And, most importantly, the people being ‘served’ by the UN can’t petition against the UN either. The impoverished masses of third world countries have little to no communication with the UN. Even if they could try to petition the UN through their leader, their leaders are often very corrupt.

The UN is an example of unchecked power, making it inherently very dangerous and we should think twice about continuing to give them money to these sorts of projects. The more money they have, the more power they have.

Furthermore, the ideals driving the UN are very different than American ideals. Their view of human rights seems to be more based upon a Darwinian view, that doing what is best for humanity as a whole is better than protecting individual liberties. If sterilizing women and forcing them to have abortions is “best” for the population, then it is justified. America was founded upon the idea that each individual should be equally protected. As Christians we believe in the same idea. Each human is made in the image of God, and the killing one is not justified by some misguided ideal about protecting the population.

Of course, these things going on in these third world nations could never happen in America, right? Well, maybe it would surprise you to know that eugenic practices were going on in the United States before Hitler was even trying them. It can happen anywhere.

See: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Forced-Sterilization-History.htm ©2009 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved. Links in this article: http://civilliberty.about.com/mbiopage.htm http://civilliberty.about.com/lr/eugenics/471602/1/ http://civilliberty.about.com/lr/forced_sterilization/471602/2/ http://z.about.com/d/civilliberty/1/0/G/9/-/-/nazisterilization640.jpg —–


~ by thelastinkling on June 25, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: