Obsession for Contraception and Abortion at The United Nations Population Fund By Edwin Benson

Obsession for Contraception and Abortion at The United Nations Population Fund

By Edwin Benson

The United Nations Population Fund is mounting a worldwide campaign to promote abortion and contraception, and they want you to pay for it. Their 2019 Report asks for $264 billion. The United States pays twenty-two percent of the expenses of the U.N. Combine those two numbers, and the U.S. share is a shade over $58 billion. That money ultimately comes from your federal taxes.

The UNFPA

The U.N. established the Fund in 1969 as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. Even though it adopted its current name in 1987, it still uses its previous acronym – UNFPA.

A quick look at the UNFPA web site quickly reveals the feminist orientation of the organization. The first line on the page is “Ensuring rights and choices for all.” Lavishly illustrated, few men appear on its pages. After all, the feminist ideology denies any decision-making role to would-be fathers.

To commemorate its fiftieth anniversary in 2019, UNFPA devoted part of its web activities to a page called “Icons & Activists: 50 Years of People Making Change.” The background is a picture of shouting women raising their fists in a revolutionary gesture. Scrolling down reveals the statement, “For 50 years, the world’s icons and activists have made changes touching the lives of millions of women and girls. Today, people are more likely than ever to enjoy reproductive rights and choices. It is an extraordinary achievement, an inspiration to us all.”

Two “icons” are Margaret Sanger and Cecile Richards – the founder and recent president, respectively, of abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Other familiar names include Melinda Gates, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Atwood, and Christiane Amanpour – all of them strongly pro-abortion.

The “Unmet Need”

Much of the money that UNFPA requests would go toward ending “the unmet need or family planning.” According to the report, “There are 232 million women in developing countries who want to prevent their pregnancies but are not using modern contraceptives.” The figure is not documented, and readers are apparently supposed to accept it blindly.

As expected, the report contains no language that refers to any moral dimension regarding human reproduction. The “do your own thing” mentality that prevailed at the time of UNFPA’s founding in 1969 still prevails.

The report does claim “substantial progress” in the use of “modern” methods. “The number of women using modern methods of contraception has almost doubled from 470 million in 1990 to 840 million in 2018.” UNFPA wants to extend contraception to all within ten years at a cost of $12.00 per recipient – or a total cost of $68.5 billion.

We are then glibly informed that “net savings are likely to be realized. With reduced requirements for maternal health care and delivery, child health care, education and other services, the savings will be many times larger than the expenditure on family planning.”

All of the analysis is economical as if having a child is a purely monetary consideration. Left unsaid are the methods that it will use to convince women of their “unmet need.” Children are still a blessing in many parts of the “developing world.”

Ending Maternal Deaths

UNPLA also has the laudable goal of ending “preventable maternal deaths.” Unfortunately, some paths to this goal have nothing to do with protecting babies.

Table 4 in the report lists twenty-nine interventions that UNFPA says should be universally available. Many items refer to better pre-natal medical and nutritional care. However, the second and third items are “safe abortion services” and “post-abortion case management.” Further down the list comes “removal of retained products of conception.” This removal means making sure that all parts of the child are removed after the ghastly procedure of abortion.

How Did We Get to This Point?

The UNFPA 2019 report dismisses any sense that the protection of life is a fundamental moral issue. Any Christian understanding of the sanctity of life has no friends at UNFPA’s headquarters at 605 Third Avenue in New York City or in the United Nations’ glass tower a few blocks away.

The pursuit of a Godless peace is futile and fruitless. Without God’s help, the plight of humanity will only worsen. Utopic schemes, like that proposed by the UNFPA, are typical of those of bureaucrats who ignore the moral issues that can provide solutions.