UNFPA against abortion

UNFPA (called UN Population Fund, but formerly known as United Nations Fund for Population Activities) denies the allegation made by Reproductive bill objectors or pro-life groups that it supports abortion as a family planning method. Having attended the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo and several population conferences, as well as my being a staunch believer in the RH bill pending in Congress, I am aware of UNFPA’s position against abortion as a contraceptive measure.

The agency adheres to the ICPD Programme of Action, which states that “Governments should take appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning, and in all cases provide for the humane treatment and counseling of women who have had recourse to abortion” (Section 7.24).

Further, it declares, “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All Governments and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are urged to strengthen their commitment to women’s health, to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family planning services” (Section 8.25).

It is not UNFPA’s business to change the illegal or legal positions of countries on abortion, as that is the sovereign preserve of each country. But it condemns coercive abortion and abortion for sex selection.

UNFPA reports show that about 13 percent of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion. Its impact on women’s health, lives and well being should be addressed, as agreed at the ICPD. Post-abortion care should be provided, and where abortion is legal, it should be safe, as stated in the ICPD Programme of Action.

Reports also state that the high level of unmet need for quality family planning methods, especially among the poor results in a high rate of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. (In the Philippines, the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey show that one out of three pregnancies are unplanned.) “With these high unplanned pregnancies, many women would resort to unsafe abortion, thus increasing the risk of maternal death. One way that UNFPA addresses the problem to prevent abortion is to support governments’ efforts at implementing an effective reproductive health and family planning program.”

* * *

On another matter, UNFPA, through its executive director, wrote an official letter to the Chinese government, saying that it does not support limiting couples to have one child each. The letter said, “Advocating one child per couple . . . (is) contrary to the principles of free choice in the matter of family size as expressed in the ICPD Programme of Action . . . The Fund does not support any measures . . . which are not in line with the principles of the ICPD. Paragraph 7.12 states: ‘the principle of informed free choice is essential to the long-term success of family planning programmes.”

Several independent third parties, such as a May 2002 blue-ribbon commission sent by the US State Department, have documented UNFPA’s campaign against the one-child policy. It reported that UNFPA had informed Chinese authorities it found: “advocating one child per couple . . . contrary to the principles of free choice in the matter of family size as expressed in the ICPD’s Programme of Action.” –Domini M. Torrevillas (The Philippine Star)