US blocks $34m aid package for family planning agency
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Bush administration has decided to withhold $34m (£22m) set aside for international family-planning aid amid intense pressure from the far right not to fund organisations that offer abortion.
Officials said the about-turn followed considerable lobbying from conservative activists urging President Bush to show his anti-abortion credentials by permanently denying money to the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF).
The fund helps countries deal with reproductive and sexual health, family planning and population strategy but conservatives claim that the UNPF promotes abortion and tolerates forced sterilisations in China.
The decision, due to be announced formally by the State Department last night, was condemned by women's groups and organisations promoting sexual and reproductive health.
Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, a pro-choice group based in Washington, said: "It is really unconscionable that this money should be withheld from the UNPF. The organisation does a better job than any at reducing abortions and providing family planning. They are pandering to the religious right."
Officials said the US would divert the money to its own child health programmes run by the US Agency for International Development. But this is unlikely to protect the administration from criticism over the decision considered so delicate that the White House did not inform in advance even allies such as the Pro-life Caucus.
Nita Lowey, a Democratic congresswoman, called the decision "an absolute outrage. Apparently no price is too high for this administration when it comes to political pay-offs." As a member of the House appropriations foreign operations subcommittee that oversees the programme, she said: "I will fight tooth and nail to ensure [the UNPF] gets funding."
Lawmakers had raised the sum to $34m after President Bush proposed $25m for the organisation, slightly more than the previous year.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, said he was disappointed. "I think UNPF does very essential work and we have made it clear that it does not go around encouraging abortions. It gives good advice to women on reproductive health and does good work around the world, including in China," he said. "[The UN will] try and see if other donors will step up and make up the difference because the work we are doing is absolutely essential and we do not want women, particularly poor women, to suffer."
Sterling Scruggs, the agency's communications director, said: "We are very sad and shocked. We are not involved in coercion in China or anywhere else in the world."
Within days of coming to office last year, the White House announced that Mr Bush was blocking US funds to family-planning groups that offer abortion and abortion counselling. The policy, put in place by the Reagan administration but reversed by Bill Clinton, is known as the Mexico City policy.
Last year, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said the UN agency "provides critical population assistance to developing countries".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments