UNICEF Proposes to End Child Poverty by Abortion

Roots of This Tendency Began in 1960s

| 891 hits

ROME, SEPT. 19, 2001 (Zenit.org).- Last week´s attack on New York delayed the U.N. children´s summit, originally scheduled to begin today. But it won´t put off indefinitely the battles that are sure to surface at the summit.

The summit´s preparatory document already has ignited scandal and controversy.

Some passages of the text, instead of concentrating on the objective of saving millions of innocent human lives, are being turned into claims for free abortion and the diffusion of contraceptives among adolescents, without parental consent.

These two proposals have been defended particularly by the governments of the European Union and Latin America -- in most cases, in flagrant violation of their own national constitutions, which recognize the right to life.

Two delegations asked that the proposals be rejected on the grounds they are not part of the summit´s objective. Indeed, the Holy See and the United States have resolved to concentrate on concrete aid to help children around the world.

In addition, 17 Muslim countries have declared their total opposition to measures that deprive parents of their authority over their children.

UNICEF, which started as the United Nations International Children´s Emergency Fund but later dropped "international" and "emergency" from its name, was created in 1946 for the specific purpose of helping the child victims of the war in Europe and China.

Beginning in the 1960s, UNICEF adopted Malthusian theories, promoting contraceptives, sterilization and other birth-reduction programs.

In May 1966, the then executive director, Henry R. Labouisse, submitted a report entitled "Possible Role of UNICEF in Family Planning" to the Executive Council.

The debate caused division in the council. The Swedish, Indian and Pakistani delegations approved the idea that UNICEF participate in population-control programs. Delegations of Catholic countries were opposed. The African nations, with the exception of Nigeria, also responded with a clear "no," stating that the programs were racist.

Hilaire Willot, head of the Belgian delegation, criticized the program to control births in India because, he said, "incentives were offered to accept abortions and sterilizations," which he thoroughly opposed.

The proposal was put on hold, and participation in family-planning programs was instead decided on a case-by-case basis.

Subsequently, as also happened in the World Health Organization, these types of proposals were accepted with a stratagem: The program to reduce the number of births was renamed "reproductive health" of mothers and children.

In 1970, Labouisse himself recommended that the Executive Council "authorize UNICEF to include the diffusion of contraceptives in government aid programs." The recommendation was accepted despite much opposition.

The representative of the French delegation said, "It was necessary at least to guarantee the free will of families." However, Labouisse replied that this "was a program of governments, and not of UNICEF."

In 1966, UNICEF spent $700,000 in family planning programs. In 1971 this rose to $2.4 million; and in 1973, $4.2 million, in 30 countries.

Over the years, cooperation has increased between UNICEF and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world´s most powerful promoter of abortion and contraception.

In 1978, Johns Hopkins University published "Population Reports," an in-depth look of all the population control projects that UNICEF had been involved in.

Between 1987 and 1990, UNICEF participated substantially in family planning programs in Nepal, Malawi, Jamaica, Burundi, Kenya, Cape Verde, Tanzania and China.

In the 1987 International Conference to Improve the Health of Women and Children Through Family Planning, UNICEF openly supported abortion as "a legal service, of good quality and accessible to all women."

In 1992 UNICEF pressured to have abortion legalized in countries where it was illegal.

The Vatican permanent observer at the United Nations, Archbishop Renato Martino, had already denounced these practices as early as April 16, 1990. The next day he declared before UNICEF´s Executive Council that the group had become a promoter of abortion.

UNICEF´s repeated involvement in birth-reduction programs led the Holy See in 1996 to withdraw its symbolic annual contribution, which had encouraged Catholics to give generously. The decision was made after UNICEF confirmed that it had distributed abortifacient substances in Rwanda and Zaire.

Archbishop Martino noted that, instead of allocating funds to help children, UNICEF was using them to put an end to human lives.

In particular, the Holy See denounced:

--UNICEF´s publication of a manual which recommends the distribution of abortifacient products for refugees.

--UNICEF´s pressure on some countries to legalize abortion.

--UNICEF´s participation in programs for the distribution of contraceptives.

While UNICEF denied some of the Vatican´s accusations, the U.N. agency´s annual report that year included family planning and abortion as "one of the most effective means to combat poverty."

The differences between UNICEF and the Holy See have not been resolved. Moreover, they have increased because of the radical positions taken by current UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy.

As a New York state senator, Bellamy gained attention as one of the most radical promoters of abortion. In September 1999, under the Clinton administration, she was reconfirmed for a second term as executive director. That term lasts until April 2005.