USAID Undercuts U.S. Global HIV/AIDS Initiative,Pop. Controllers & Sex-ed and Condom Pushers WIN

Population Research Institute ^ | 09.24.03 | Steve Mosher

[Coleus]

USAID Undercuts U.S. Global HIV/AIDS Initiative

 

This May, President Bush signed into law the Global HIV/AIDS bill (HR 1298). Over the course of the next few years, $15 billion will be spent on new programs designed to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to provide life-extending care to millions infected with the disease. The law mandates that 55% of the overall funding will go for basic medical
treatment. Even more importantly, 33% of the overall prevention funding must go to abstinence programs. No money would go to groups that advocate the legalization of prostitution. Oversight of the U.N. Global Fund (GF) would be required. Genuine faith-based groups, like Catholic healthcare facilities and hospitals throughout Africa, could not be denied funding because they are morally opposed to condoms. A new AIDS coordinator, outside of the USAID bureaucracy, would run the program.

It was a step away from the failed AIDS policies of the past, which have arguably fueled the spread of the disease.

Today, all of this has changed however. Due largely to aggressive population control lobbying, none of this money will go to new programs. Last week, the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (S1426) effectively nullified each and every one of the new provisions in the Global AIDS bill, new provisions that are intended to make the U.S. effort to combat HIV/AIDS truly effective. The $15 billion has been redirected towards the USAID Child Survival Account which, despite its attractive name, funds population control programs and family planning clinics.

Nullified in the Appropriations bill is the cap on the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund, which wisely restricted the U.S. contribution to this global boondoggle to one-third of the overall Global Fund budget. One of the partners of this fund is the UNFPA, a group that supports forced abortion in China.
 
Nullified are salary caps for lavishly compensated Global Fund executives, along with the General Accounting Office oversight of expenditures required in the original legislation.
 
Nullified is a provision in the Global AIDS Relief law designed to prevent funds from going to states that sponsor terrorism.
 
Nullified is the 10% cap on administrative expenses. At present, approximately fifty percent of GF HIV/AIDS money goes to red tape, at the expense of life-saving programs in the field.
 
Nullified are the required reports to Congress.
 
Nullified are the crucial conscience exemptions for faith-based grantees who don't want to promote condoms.
 
Nullified are the prohibitions against funding for groups that promote the legalization of prostitution.
 
Nullified is the 55% amount for medical treatment or prevention.
 
All the money is now free to go to USAID's favored family planning groups, which have so spectacularly failed to halt, and may actually be fueling, the AIDS epidemic that is ravaging Africa.

The solution is clear: All new HIV/AIDS money must be moved away from USAID's Child Survival account and back into the hands of the new AIDS Coordinator.

The Global AIDS Initiative must not be hijacked. Too many lives are at stake.

[Coleus]

Way to go Republican Senator Frist and Sen. Mitch McConnel R-KY who sponsored this Bill, we just love your great leadership with this and the appointments of all those pro-life judges, keep up the good work, NOT.  President Bush, Please don't sign the bill.  Time will tell.

US AIDS Program Shocker - $15 Billion Grabbed by Population Controllers and Sex-Ed and Condom Pushers

S1426

USAID on FR

 

[Coleus]

`

[Polycarp]

Related threads:

"Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS: Prophylactics or Family Values?" April 19, 2000 L'Osservatore Romano

"America Magazine Spreads Disinformation About Church's Position On Condom Use" The Wanderer, September 28, 2000 (Church's position on condoms/AIDS in above linked L'Osservatore Romano article was grossly misrepresented by America Magazine)

Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, just send me a FReepmail. Please realize that some of my "ping" posts are long.)

[joesnuffy]

Thats ok...the Vets coming home from the war will be coming home to VA hospitals
whose medical budgets are woefully underfunded....
But we got plenty for AIDs for Africa and AID for Arafat

[neverdem]

Did this bill get passed by the whole Senate? I don't see the House going along in conference.

[Coleus]

Yea, I don't what's going on here in the USA, I thought with a Republican president and congress more money would be appropriated to the Veterans. My uncle, who was a WWII Marine vet., shot in Iwo Jima, couldn't gain admission to the VA when he was dying from colon cancer and Parkinson's. I recently went to a communion breakfast by the Knights of Columbus where the proceeds went to a Veterans residence facility because they NEED the money. It's a shame.

Also, a report just came out where the Gulf War Veterans are, I think, 40% MORE likely to come down with ALS (Lou Gherig's)than the average person coupled with the Gulf War/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, I think the Govt. has a lot of explaining to do.

But the subject of the post here is still outrageous where we have an underground where they can sway the US Senate and most likely the US president! And that the abortionists win again. I really thought the president was going to be more pro life.

[Coleus]

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.1426:

There is no information of a vote, I am relying on the information given to me by anti population-control and pro-life agencies as the links in the first post show.

[Coleus]

Propaganda Campaign Attempts to regain US Funding for Overseas Abortion
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3502348

[SAMWolf]

I thought a Republican President and Congress would be less into expanding BS Social Programs.

[Coleus]

Compassionate Conservatism = tons of social programs and foreign aid and 7 pro abortion judges appointed to the federal judiciary in NJ.

[SAMWolf]

Too many ex-Clinton people still running things too. This "new tone" sucks, I want them to fight, not let the Libs write the programs and them pass them.

[fatima]

Coleus,Bump.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Barnacle]

Memo: US to AIDS Prone Population of the Africa (APPA),

Dear APPA,

Do not stick things where they don’t belong.




PS, Enclosed please find $15,000,000,000 confiscated from American Taxpayers.

[Barnacle]

I hear today that Bush doesn’t read newspapers or listen to any other media.

It’s time he start logging on to Free Republic.

[Coleus]

He should, he may learn what's going on in the county and what it means to be a conservative also, he will know what some republicans think of him both good and bad. I know the Secret Service knows all about the FR from all the freeps we do in DC and elsewhere.

[Coleus]

The UNFPA has lost another $25 million because of its continued support of China's one-child policy. This year's decision came on Sept. 30, the two-year anniversary of PRI's undercover investigation of UNFPA's county program in Sihui, Guangdong Province. On that day in 2001, investigator Josephine Guy courageously entered the Chinese Office of Family Planning and obtained photographs proving UNFPA complicity in China's forced abortion policy.  Later that day, Miss Guy interviewed women whose homes were destroyed because they became pregnant.

The 2003 money will be reprogrammed to life-saving basic health care, a move that pro-abortion lawmakers are expected to try and block. Stay tuned.

But for now, President Bush deserves our thanks. Please take a moment to write a letter of thanks to: President George W. Bush, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.

Steven Mosher
President

PRI Weekly Briefing
1 October 2003
Vol. 5/ No. 29

Secretary Powell Cuts $25 Million More from UNFPA

Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell cut another $25 million from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for 2003. Last year (2002), Secretary Powell determined that UNFPA was helping the government of Red China to carry out its population program of forced abortion more effectively, in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment which prohibits U.S. funds from going to groups that support or participate in then management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Powell's determination followed three international investigations of UNFPA operations in China, all of which found evidence of coercion in UNFPA county programs. UNFPA continues to deny these charges, and to expand its support of China's one-child policy.

The 2003 funding cut happened to fall on the same day that PRI investigators located the desk of the UN administrator of the UNFPA county program in Sihui in 2001. That desk, which PRI investigator Josephine Guy photographed, was in the same office as the Chinese officials who enforce the one-child policy in that UNFPA program. A short distance from that desk, in a county where UNFPA told Congress coercion had ended, Miss Guy obtained over two dozen testimonies from witnesses and victims who said that coercion was as bad today in this UNFPA program as ever in the history of the one-child policy. Miss Guy obtained taped statements from several people who were imprisoned, fined heavily and had their homes destroyed - about a mile from the Office of Family Planning - for attempting to hide the "illegal" pregnancy of a victim of China's
one-child policy.

Like last year, the $25 million will be transferred into the Child Survival account at USAID, where it is hoped that it will be spent on basic life-saving aid like child rehydration, immunization and attended births. Unfortunately, House and Senate pro-abortion lawmakers (Rep. Kolbe and Sen. Leahy) may attempt to put a hold on the $25 million so USAID will not able to spend it on saving lives.

The real winners of this decision not to fund UNFPA for 2003 are the women of the world, who are emboldened by the U.S. decision to not fund groups that collaborate with coercive and inhumane population controllers.

 

PRI Weekly Briefing
10 October 2003
Vol. 5/ No. 30

The Two Sides of the Culture of Death

One of USAID's stated goals is to "stabilize world population and protect human health through programs in . . . family planning and reproductive health." Population stabilization comes in the form of family planning programs designed to lower birthrates and population in accord with U.N. targets. Americans have been assured that these family planning programs comply with the Mexico City policy so that no USAID family planning funds
are used for abortion.

In April of 2002, USAID announced that it was awarding nearly $162 million to Family Health International (FHI) and its partners over the next five years. This award followed a 1997 five-year grant to FHI for $148 million. Ostensibly, the grants have been provided to help fight the global AIDS pandemic. USAID HIV/AIDS funds are not subject to the Mexico City policy.

FHI's stated mission is "to improve lives worldwide through research, education, and services in family health." Although FHI sponsors myriad programs, it is clear that sex education and contraception distribution are key elements of their strategy "to improve lives." What about abortion?

In any organization, people are policy. And FHI has some real characters working for it.  Willard Cates and David Grimes, to be exact, who are part of the senior management in FHI's corporate structure. While working in the CDC Center for Health Promotion and Education, Grimes also worked at the notorious abortion-only Midtown Hospital of Atlanta. Midtown became notorious while Grimes was moonlighting there because 14 babies were born after failed abortions. The "hospital" was subsequently closed down by court order.

Earlier this year, Cates and Grimes co-authored an article on the positive public health impact of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision and the legalization of abortion. One comment from that article helps explain their worldview. They wrote, "by enabling unmarried women of racial minorities to safely terminate unintended pregnancies, Roe v. Wade disproportionately benefited them." That is, minority woman were disproportionately benefited because they are having a lot more abortions than before Roe. Their view is clear: legalized abortion improves public health, not only in comparison to illegal abortion, but also when compared to letting children be born, especially minority children.

Over twenty years ago, Cates was the Chief of the Abortion Surveillance Branch at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In 1980, he proposed a new fee schedule for abortions in a Family Planning Perspectives article, "A Graduated Scale of Fees for Legal Abortion." Apparently, the practice of charging for abortions based on the estimated trimester in which the unborn child was destroyed did not meet his standard of fairness. Instead, he proposed that post-abortion measurements of the child be performed and a graduated fee scale based upon the child's size be implemented to determine the cost of abortions.

He proposed to base his fee on foot size. That's right.  He proposed that the size of the dead child's foot be measured and the mother be charged based on how long it was. The longer the foot, the higher the fee. This gruesome proposal was too much for some other abortionists. A fellow abortionist authored a rebuttal, which charged that, by having the charges for her abortion described in "fetal foot," the mother might suffer some psychological damage.

The Board of Directors of FHI is a veritable "Who's Who" of international abortion advocates, with deep ties to the abortion and contraception industries. These include Fred T. Sai of Ghana, the former President of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Pramilla Senanayake is the Assistant Director-General of the IPPF in London. Halida Hanum Akhter of Bangladesh is the Chair of the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), another USAID supported group promoting an ever-expanding list of contraceptive technologies and early stage abortifacients. The list goes on and on.

In family planning and HIV/AIDS programs funded by USAID the world over, FHI is involved in manual vacuum aspiration. This procedure is performed with a hand-held aspirator. In some clinics, abortions are performed under the guise of "post-abortion care."

Remember the names Cates and Grimes, and reconsider funding for FHI.

 

PRI Weekly Briefing
16 October 2003
Vol. 5 / No. 32

USAID-funded FHI Exploits Women
 
The Global AIDS bill (HR 1298) signed into law by President Bush this May prohibits federal funding for organizations that do not explicitly oppose the legalization of prostitution and sexual trafficking. The law, in part, reads: "No funds. may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking."(1)
 
FHI-which receives millions from U.S. taxpayers-is a vocal advocate for legalized prostitution as a form of HIV/AIDS "prevention." FHI's website reads: "Decriminalizing sex work and encouraging safer environments are important policy issues in HIV/AIDS prevention among female sex workers."(2)

A recently-published handbook, titled "HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care in Resource-Constrained Settings," reiterates FHI's support of prostitution: "Decriminalizing sex work and encouraging safer environments are important policy issues in prevention among female sex workers," states FHI. "Repression exacerbates the problem since sex workers are further marginalized from health services and prevention interventions in the attempt to evade legal restrictions on their work."(3)
 
Clearly FHI does not explicitly oppose prostitution, and should not be entitled to HIV/AIDS funding.
 
FHI is currently attempting to finesse the issue-and gain access to new HIV/AIDS money-by claiming that it does not promote prostitution. A recent letter to USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, tacked to the cover of its HIV/AIDS handbook, claims that "Family Health International does not and will not promote the legalization or decriminalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking."(4)
 
But this weak concession is insufficient. The law requires that organizations "explicitly oppose prostitution" in order to be entitled to receive HIV/AIDS funding, which this letter does not do.  And the attached handbook, which is being distributed to population control groups and gender ideologues throughout the world, contains pro-prostitution policy statements.

The claim that prostitution is an effective form of HIV prevention is not supported by scientific data. A peer-reviewed study found that the spread of HIV was more prevalent among legally recognized prostitutes who were provided condoms and HIV education than among unregistered prostitutes.(5) Prostitution, in fact, is one of the most significant factors driving the spread of HIV in Africa and Asia.

Another peer-reviewed study estimated that at least one quarter of cases of HIV infection in recently married men were acquired from extramarital partnerships.(6)
 
Prostitution should be rejected as a method of HIV/AIDS prevention. Programs that emphasize abstinence and being faithful should be funded instead.


ENDNOTES

1. On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, President Bush signed into law H.R. 1298, the "United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003" which authorizes assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
2. FHI, Topics, "Sex Workers," 2003; www.fhi.org.
3. FHI, "HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care in Resource-Constrained Settings,"
Pp.188-201, 2003;
http://www.fhi.org/en/HIVAIDS/Publications/manualsguidebooks/HIVAIDSPreventionCare.htm.

4. Ibid., Cover letter from FHI CEO, Albert J. Siemens, to USAID Administrator, Andrew Natsios, Sept. 25, 2003.
5. Christian Laurent et al, "Prevalence of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, and risk behaviors in unregistered sex workers in Dakar, Senegal,"  AIDS 2003; 17(12):1811-1816.
6. Judith R. Glynn et al, "HIV Risk in Relation to Marriage in Areas With High Prevalence of HIV Infection," JAIDS, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 2003; 33(4):526-535.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!