Government's Involvement in Family Planning - Essay Example

Government Regulated Family Planning Introduction It was during the 1960s that public interest in family planning and population control emerged as social issues warranting the attention of international governments and experts (Seltzer, 2002, p. 9). The International Conference on Family Planning Programs met in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1965 (p. 9). Representatives of 36 countries attended the conference in Switzerland, while another organization, the First Pan-American Assembly on Population met that same year in Cali, Columbia, attended by 80 participants of various nations (p. 9). The message delivered to the public by the participants of these meetings was one encouraging responsible family planning, and encouraging parents not to exceed their own family resources in the number of children they had; and not to exceed the social resources and infrastructures of their communities could sustain (p.9). The emphasis on the ability of parents to control the number of children they had was made possible by birth control products in the form of the “the pill,” and intrauterine device (IUD) available to women for use in family planning (p. 10). The goals of these organizations were, first, to bring under control the increasing populations, especially in third world countries, where the increase in population numbers were placing burdens and demands on the social infrastructures that were proving impossible to meet (p.10). Secondly, to allow women the opportunity for control over their health and well being by providing them with choices as to when they wanted to bear children, and to hopefully reduce the number of abortions, legal and otherwise, that put women’s health at risk (p. 10). The opportunity for birth control and family planning was deemed to be a human right, and it was on this premise that family planning organizations and governments advocated birth control and family planning programs be made accessible to all couples and women (p. 10). United States and Family Planning Since the 1960s, the movement in the United States towards family planning has been one focused on the improved health and standard of living for women and children (Seltzer, 2002, p. 9-10). “The National Survey on Family Growth reported that between 1967 and 1970 44 percent of births to married women were unplanned and 15 percent were unwanted (U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future 1972). Three decades later, the picture has improved, but not to the extent that many anticipated. In 1995, married women reported that nearly a third of their live births were mistimed and 9 percent were unwanted. Approximately 30 percent of pregnancies in the United States are terminated by induced abortion (McFarlane and Meier, 2001, p. 1).” So long as induced abortion continues to be as high as 30 percent, the conclusion must be that family planning initiatives in the United States over the past three decades have failed to improve either choices women make about when they choose to reproduce, or women’s health. Induced abortion puts women’s health at risk, and while feminists and pro-abortion groups might argue that women in fact have the right to abortion – which is not the argument here in a pro or con sense – the fact remains that family planning initiatives that include alternatives to, and would prevent women having to resort to induced abortions, have not been successful when the abortion rate stands at 30 percent of all pregnancies occurring in the United States. This is indicative of the fact that it is time to re-examine the direction of family planning efforts in the United States. Large amounts of money are funneled into family planning programs annually, and unless the organizations that receive those funds are prepared to address the problems associated with the programs’ failure to be more effective, lawmakers should consider halting funding to these entities. This is not to say that family planning should be abandoned – although in the United States it is conceivable to suggest that as much progress has been achieved in family planning through education and awareness of birth control methods and choices for women as has been accomplished through family planning programs. The point being that the statistics cited by the National Survey on Family Growth are indicative of the need for a renewed focus and studies to be conducted on the effectiveness of family planning initiatives. This is not to suggest that family planning be abandoned, but that its efforts be evaluated and redirected towards greater success that would be measured by a reduction in the reported number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of induced abortions. China On March 3, 1978, China adopted a new Constitution that included Article 53, putting into effect their first law regulating China’s population (Dunn, Han, Orleans and Sharpe, 1979, p. 3). At that time, it was the goal of China’s government to reduce China’s population growth rate to 1 percent. Even with more than a decade of family planning initiatives behind it, the modern world was taken aback by China’s aggressive position, and authors Dunn, Han, Orleans and Sharpe (1979) wondered if China was simply being enthusiastic about family planning, since a population increase of just one percent would indeed mean a widespread and aggressive family program initiative (p. 3). In 1978, China’s posturing in regard to controlling its population growth rate had followed failed economic programs, and China used its population growth rate to explain or blame for its failed economic initiatives (p.4). Twice before, in the 1952 and again in the early 1960s, China had issued statements on population control, and these were, again, following failed economic reforms and China made little effort to act on its population control rhetoric. Today, of course, we know that China was very serious about its stated goals. While China’s official rhetoric focused on the well being of the family, women, and the people in terms of women’s health, education, and feeding its already large population; there was, too, the initiative on the part of the Chinese government under Mao Tse Tung to move China ahead as an industrial national and leader in industry, which would serve its Communist philosophies well (p. 5). However, it served the government and their Communist philosophies equally well to invoke population control measures on a population that was increasing by 15 million people annually (p.6), especially since then, as now, 80 percent of China’s population lived in rural areas (Potter and Sharpe, 1994, p.35). What would not have served China’s government well then, or now, would be a large rural population that united in force against the government. There were, of course, realistic and valid concerns about feeding a population t hat increased by a magnitude of 15 million people per year, but if 80 percent of that population were rural, and conceivably some remotely so, and were for the large part subsistent families; then it was the 20 urban dwelling population about whom the government was most concerned about feeding, the industrial work force. The size and mindset of the rural population posed a greater threat to China’s government than did famine. As early as 1922, researchers have attempted to conduct formal studies and collect accurate data with which to analyze and to understand the living conditions of China’s rural population (Mallory and Wrigley, 1926, p. 7). In a 1922 study conducted by the China International Famine Relief Commission, under the guidance of economist Professor C. G. Dittmer, it was reported by the Commissions that: “. . . after a detailed examination of the budgets of about 200 families near Peking reaches the conclusion that a family of five can live in comparative comfort, according to the local standards, on an income of $100 a year, Chinese currency. This would provide sufficient simple food, a house that would at least afford shelter from the elements, two suits of clothing for each person, enough fuel for cooking and a surplus of $5 for miscellaneous expenses. However, he goes on to say that the Chinese families examined by him all lived within their incomes, even though they received no more than $50 a year, and that those earning $70 a year were able to save money (p. 8). Several years later Professor J. B. Tayler conducted a study much the same as had been conducted by Professor Dittmer, and arrived at similar conclusions, which varied by the years during which the respective studies were conducted pertaining to the annual cost of sustainable income (p. 9). Authors Mallory and Wrigley point out that: “The figures have shown that a large proportion of the incomes are below the poverty line; and to give the actual expenditure on which a family is known to have survived does not necessarily mean that its members have received sufficient food or clothing to keep them in health (p. 9).” Although the authors did not, in 1926, discuss whether or not the rural families studies actually suffered poor health as a result of their subsistent living, they analyzed the economic factors that led to “famine,” and the natural causes that led to famine. They analyzed, too, the political causes in relation to famine in China. On the political relationship to famine, the authors wrote: “China, although so often spoken of as a pacifist country, has seen as much if not more civil strife than any Western power . . . Chinese pacifism is a beautiful ideal which has never, so far as the facts show, been taken down from its theoretical plane and applied to the concrete requirements of daily existence. Chinese provinces have rebelled time and time again against the central authority. The histories are full of accounts of these numberless insurrections and the expeditions sent to quell them (p. 64).” While the studies conducted on famine in China revealed important insights, they did not indicate that China’s rural population was in fact experiencing a famine. Additionally, in 1979, authors Dunn, Han, Orleans and Sharpe wrote: “Arguments relating to national interests, for example, seldom carry any weight when they are directed at peasants whose personal well-being is much more likely to be secured through a larger rather than a smaller family and through male rather than female offspring (Dunn, Han, Orleans and Sharpe, 1979, p. 21).” In 1978, when the Communist Chinese government implemented its new Constitution and Article 53, it is not a stretch to suggest that they were more interested in the security of their Communist regime and its economic agenda than they were concerned about women’s health or famine. Their intent to regulate their country’s population under Article 53 and to control its population growth, especially in the rural areas, made sense in terms of government security, since historically the rural areas had rebelled against central authority. However, the extent to which Article 53 addressed population control, limiting the number of children per household, was inconsistent with the family planning initiatives being conducted elsewhere around the world wherein the feminist element contended that family planning was a human right, and that women deserved to have control over their reproductive choices. This is why when the rest of the world was concerned about population growth because of its impact on women’s health, choices, and the social infrastructures of developing nations, they were willing to support the notion of family planning, they nonetheless condemned China’s strict regulation of population control under Article 53. Today, China’s population control efforts are referred to by some s “draconian (Mosher, 2001, p. 45),” and the result of the formal legal restrictions placed on the number of children that couples have been allowed to have has resulted in some horrible and unthinkable human rights violations. For years following China’s one-child per couple law, the world community was horrified by rumors of female infanticide (p. 45). As previously pointed out by authors Dunn, Han, Orleans and Sharpe, male children would be of greater benefit to rural subsistent families than would be female children (Dunn, Han, et al, 1979, p. 21). By 1985, in response to its own government’s desire to address female infanticide, and in response to world organization’s cries of human rights violations; China “relaxed the one-child policy throughout rural China (Mosher, 2001, p. 45).” Today, China has a “de facto two-child policy (p. 45),” although the government mandated waiting period of four to six years between the birth of the first and the second child continues to be enforced (p. 45). In 1999, after having withheld funds in 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives passed “An amendment to authorize $25 million for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) was approved on a 221-198 vote. That will be reduced by an amount equal to any money the agency spends in China, which is accused of performing forced abortions to enforce its policy restricting couples to one child (Carter, 1999, p. 13).” The United States should not fund, by way of the United Nations or any other organization, any part of China’s or any other nation’s forced family planning programs. However, pro-abortionist and family planning agencies hailed the resumed funding as move in the right direction. “’It was a defeat, but the real losers are the poor women of China,” said Mr. Smith after the vote. ‘They beat us by claiming to be anti-abortion. It was deceptive (p. 13).’” On July 22, 2002, “The Bush administration said yesterday that it will not pay the $34 million Congress has earmarked for U.N. family planning programs overseas, a population control initiative that conservative groups say tolerates abortion and forces sterilization in China (Washington Times, 2002, p. A03).” While the administration’s decision opened debate on both sides of the aisle as to the nature of the funding, the UNFPA issued a statement saying, “We have always been staunch supporters of international human rights. . . particularly women’s rights (p. A03).” However, any funding towards family planning in China, where there are legal restrictions placed on the right to choose, is indeed a violation of human rights. Leslie Chang, of the Wall Street Journal, after having visited and toured China in 2001, suggests that, “. . . the Beijing regime has abandoned its earlier practice of setting birth quotas for provinces and counties (Mosher, 2001, p. 45).” However, Chang’s perspective, if not her understanding, seems to be somewhat off target. “In fact the State Family Planning Commission, in its December 19, 2000, white paper on population, announced a new population cap of 1.6 billion people by 2050. It also asserted that the one-child policy, which limits urban couples to one child and farmers to two if the first is a girl, would remain in place. To be sure, the paper was at pains to emphasize that these targets and quotas will be achieved by ‘education’ and ‘persuasion,’ but this has been the constant refrain of the Chinese government for the last 20 years (p. 45).” As regards China, the family planning initiatives that caught on during the 1960s, which were hailed as progressive steps towards allowing women greater freedoms and control over their own bodies, and which was intended to promote improved health and standards of living for women and children as a result of family planning; in fact diminished the freedoms of choice and contributed little if anything to improved health or living conditions for women and children in China. China’s enforced family planning practices and laws have stood in violation of human rights for the past 20 years, resulting in female infanticide and infant abandonment, and the practice and the laws that enforce the practice should be abandoned. Third World Nations There is no suggestion here that family planning initiatives be abandoned, as studies support the need for aggressive family planning initiatives in third world nations, especially Africa, where cultural traditions and lack of education have contributed to the widespread incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS. Few people are not aware of the pandemic AIDS crisis going on in African nations today, and efforts in that direction and international aid and money should be provided family planning and education efforts in those countries. This, in conjunction with the fact that “The world’s population today is about three and a half billion, and the growth rate is just over 2 percent a year. In the developing countries, which have about two-thirds of the world’s people, the growth rate is on the order of 2.5 percent and perhaps is still increasing (Belson, 1969, p. 288).” With the greatest increases in population occurring in third world developing nations, it is essential to the overall economic and individual health and well being of the world’s citizens that we continue to strive for balance and improvement in our family planning initiatives. “In most African countries, over half the population is under the age of 15. Even if all those countries were to shift to having just two children, beginning tonight, their total populations would continue to grow for another two decades (Sai, 2004, p. 34).” This, in combination with the proliferation of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), there cannot be enough emphasis placed on the need for immediate funding and intervention in the form of family planning and programs to help educate and orient these young people to the choices they have regarding their health and reproduction. There is no suggestion here that we follow in China’s footsteps with laws and regulated and enforced family planning restrictions being placed on citizens of third world and developing nations. Rather, the suggestion is that the governments, indeed, the world, take responsibility for what is an obvious health crisis that can, at least in part, be addressed through education and the opportunity of choices that become available to men and women through family planning initiatives. “Because family planning and reproductive health programs are so important for both health and demographic reasons, it is essential that more, not fewer, resources be invested in this area. The numbers of women in the reproductive age groups are increasing, as are the proportions of those women who want to use contraception; today there are nearly 1billion women of reproductive age in the Third World (projected to rise to over 1.2 billion by 2010) (p. 288).” With these numbers in mind, the significance of the problems faced within these developing countries makes them not just problems for these nations, but problems that must be faced and assistance that must be provided by the world community. This is a health crisis that can and should be addressed with family planning measures, however it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the programs and initiatives we put into place and fund are adequately funded, and focused in the direction of their missions so as to ensure mission success. It would be an exercise in futility to fund programs that are poorly equipped to deal with the physical, psychological and economic factors of the countries in which such programs might be implemented. Every effort must be made to ensure the integrity in funding and mission of the family planning entities we fund, so that they are effective and successful in their efforts. Only then will we see the goals of the 1960s achieved; improved health and standards of living for women and children and families. References References Berelson, B. (Ed.). (1969). Family Planning Programs: An International Survey. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99887828 Bush Holds Funds on Family Planning. (2002, July 23). The Washington Times, p. A03. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000794654 Carter, T. (1999, July 21). House Funds Family Planning Agency at U.N. Wont Pay for Abortion in China. The Washington Times, p. 13. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001777410 Han, H. (1979). Chinese Approaches to Family Planning (L. A. Orleans, Ed.) (Dunn, R., Trans.). White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99452279 Hsiang-Yang, H. (1979). Questions and Answers on Information About Family Planning. In Chinese Approaches to Family Planning, Orleans, L. A. (Ed.) (pp. 125-194). White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99452400 Mallory, W. H. (1926). China: Land of Famine (G. M. Wrigley, Ed.). New York: American Geographical Society. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59422079 McFarlane, D. R., & Meier, K. J. (2001). The Politics of Fertility Control: Family Planning and Abortion Policies in the American States. New York: Chatham House Publishers. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=51315640 Mosher, S. W. (2001, March 12). In China, Family Planning Is Still Government Affair. Insight on the News, 17, 45. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000968787 Press, P. H., & Press, P. H. (1979). Literature and Art Propaganda: Source Materials on Family Planning. In Chinese Approaches to Family Planning, Orleans, L. A. (Ed.) (pp. 21-124). White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99452294 Sai, F. T. (2004, September/October). Population, Family Planning and the Future of Africa. World Watch, 17, 34+. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006961503 Seltzer, J. R. (2002). The Origins and Evolution of Family Planning Programs in Developing Countries. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103977810 Short, S. E., & Fengying, Z. (1998). Looking Locally at Chinas One-Child Policy. Studies in Family Planning, 29(4), 373. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001403297 Read More