Daily Archives: May 16, 2012

UK Government Funds Forced Sterilizations in India

By Wendy Wright

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The British government gave $268 million to the government of India for a program that forcibly sterilizes poor women and men, according to the Guardian newspaper. This news comes as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation prepares to co-host a family planning summit with the British government in London this July.

Melinda Gates recently dismissed the link between contraception programs and population control in a speech launching her new initiative. Titled “No Controversy,” her campaign intends to “change the global conversation around family planning” by discounting its association with abortion, coercion and immorality, and focusing on universal access.

Around the same time, India’s supreme court heard evidence of coercive mass sterilizations in filthy conditions.

Men and women are rounded up into makeshift rural camps to be sterilized, many left in pain with little or no care. Some women, sterilized while pregnant, suffered miscarriages. Some were bribed with less than $8 and a sari, others threatened with losing their ration cards. Some died from botched operations.

Uneducated men and women did not discover the true purpose of the operations until too late. In a region targeted by the UK government, a 35-year old wife of a poor laborer, pregnant with twins, bled to death.

Clinics received bonuses for doing more than 30 operations a day. Non-governmental workers were paid for each person they convinced to be operated on. One surgeon working in a school building committed 53 operations in 2 hours with unqualified staff, no running water or means to clean the equipment.

“Obsession” with reaching the United Nations Millennium Development Goals pushed India to institute coercive sterilizations, reported the Global Post in 2010.

“There’s a great hurry to again set targets from above to be followed by everyone. And that’s again creating problems,” said A.R. Nanda, India’s former health secretary.

“When you create an incentive system, it privileges one solution over the other and encourages them to cut corners,” said Abhijit Das, the head of Healthwatch Forum.

“And we’ve had very bad experiences with that in the past.”

Sterilization is the most common method of family planning used by India’s Reproductive and Child Health Program Phase II, begun in 2005 with UK funding.

Reports in 2006, 2007 and 2009 by the Indian government warned of problems with the program, noted The Guardian. Yet in 2010 the UK’s Department for International Development recommended continued support. One key reason was to address climate change. Reducing the number of humans would lower greenhouse gases. It conceded there are “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in population control programs.

Despite the warnings, the UK placed no conditions on its funding.

The UK and Gates Foundation summit aims to collect “unprecedented political commitment and resources . . . to meet the family planning needs of women in the world’s poorest countries by 2020,” stated the Department for International Development, the agency that funded India’s sterilization program.

India’s fertility rate is 2.62. Pressures to lower fertility and reduce the size of families coincide with a worsening gender imbalance of more boys than girls in the country.

Wendy Wright is interim director of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”

Marriage: Much More Than Legal Benefits

By David Fowler

Debates are often won and lost based on how the key terms are defined. In the cultural war, the California Supreme Court just threw down the gauntlet with their recent redefinition of marriage. Advocates of real marriage need not fear, but they must understand how to respond.

Those who want to reduce marriage to the least common denominator want to appeal to our sympathies. So, they begin the debate by urging us to look at marriage as simply a status to which the law provides certain benefits. From there it is easy to play on our sense of “fairness” by arguing that it’s not fair for some to get those benefits and not others.

But for this kind of logic to work, it is necessary to reduce marriage to nothing more than love between committed adults. Defined this way everyone can have the “benefits of marriage” and life is “fair.” But, while love and commitment are important for marriage, they are not enough to constitute a marriage.

To consider the legal benefits of marriage and who gets them before defining marriage is to put the proverbial cart before the horse. It is not the legal benefits given by society that make something a marriage. Rather, it is the nature of marriage that motivates society to give it certain legal benefits.

A Unique Relationship

The point is that marriage is not a relationship that society created in order to give some people benefits and deny them to others. Rather, “marriage” is the name that societies worldwide have given to a unique relationship between men and women that provides particular benefits to society.

By analogy, there are many geometric shapes. The word “square” represents one type of shape and “circle” another, but because each is what it is by definition, we cannot make circles that look like squares or vice versa. Likewise, there are many different relationships, even very important ones, but they are not marriages.

In other words, marriage is a real thing, not just a word. And marriage is important not because it has been given certain benefits.

Specifically, what makes the committed relationship between a man and woman different and of such importance to a healthy future society is its natural procreative potential and the unique roles each sex adds to the nurturing of the children they may raise.

To define other relationships as marriage so that everyone gets the same legal benefits is akin to redefining what a college diploma means so everyone can get a better paying job.

The California Supreme Court started its analysis in the wrong place and naturally ended in the wrong place. When marriage is reduced, its unique place in society is diminished. Doing so ultimately undermines the welfare of children and society itself.

David Fowler is President of the Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) who article first appeared in The Tennessean on May 27, 2008 and was posted on the FACT weblog on May 9, 2012.

Study: 500k U.S. Babies Born Premature Every Year

A new study from the March of Dimes found that babies born in wealthier countries typically stay in the womb longer, although the rate in the U.S. is higher than other countries of similar economic status (Source: “Too many babies being born too soon,” Columbus Dispatch, May 3, 2012).

According to the March of Dimes report “Born Too Soon,” more than 12 percent of live births in the United States each year are premature. That is 5 percentage points higher than Russia, China and Canada and comparable to Kenya, Thailand and India.

Among the reasons for the U.S.’s relatively high rate of premature births are women having children later in life, planned Caesarean sections and a lack of access to family planning and adequate prenatal care.

One Ohio example of an effort to reduce premature births is the Better Births Outcomes Collaborative, which gives high-risk Central Ohio women progesterone shots to prevent premature birth or miscarriage.

Source: Ohio Health Policy Review, May 7, 2012