Advocates Want Contraceptives Services Pushed Even if Real Healthcare is Cut

The 2012 London Summit on Family Planning, to be held on July 11, is intended to “mobilize global policy” to assure that 120 million women and girls are afforded family planning, contraceptives and other information. Sponsors of the event want more money put to these services for poor women around the world. But it seems likely funding this new program will take money away from actual healthcare services already offered, especially in a day when economies are failing worldwide.

Claiming, “It has been proven that family planning saves lives, improves health, strengthens communities, and stimulates economic growth,” the London Summit intends to get its funding from the international community in any way it can.

One thing seems certain, it is painfully obvious that these people think of pregnancy as an affliction, something that needs to be stamped out. Also interesting is the focus on the poor in a eugenics-like push to eliminate the lower classes of peoples by encouraging fewer pregnancies.

The event is largely sponsored by Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is co-sponsored by United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) along with dozens of other international groups.

So, what about funding these new, massive and expensive programs? Timothy Herman of Lifenews thinks the cash will come from already established healthcare programs which in and of itself will harm the very peoples this conference thinks it is helping.

For one, Herman notes that, “USAID is budgeted to cut maternal and child health funding by $28 million from 2012 to 2013, including reductions to nutrition programs while budget requests for family planning have increased.”

He goes on, saying:

The London Family Planning Summit creates preferential treatment for contraception groups, above programs providing basic health care, education, infrastructure, economic programs – measures that lift women and communities out of poverty.

Poor families are already having programs that used to serve them cut, but with this new program in the offing those cuts will likely get deeper. The money will have to come from somewhere, after all, and most countries are already strapped for cash.

Additionally, even as it plays up the contraceptives angle, one of the conference sponsor’s goals is also to “remove and reduce barriers to family planning,” and by this we all understand them to mean they want abortion services to be more widely available and that government should pay for it.

Who will monitor these programs? Groups that already have a reputation for pushing abortion, violating peoples rights, and attacking religion.

Monitoring of these contraception programs will be assigned to groups like the Summit’s partners, with a history of population control, promoting abortion and abuses. For example, Planned Parenthood faces charges of fraud, sex–selection abortions, assisting suspected child sex traffickers, and violating statutory rape laws.

Before the conference even starts its in bad company.

**UPDATE**

Abortion advocates tried to have a well-known pro-lifer ejected from the London Conference today, despite that she was properly registered and credentiled. Radicals Try to Eject Pro-Lifer From Family Planning Summit

NBC Claims Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Is A Depressed Drunk
Dept. of Homeland Sec. Again Calls Patriotic Americans 'Potential Terrorists'
  • Guest

    Family planning reduces health care costs, especially in third-world countries. Preventing unintended pregnancies alone will not only reduce health care costs for the woman, but fewer children means lower healthcare costs as well.

    • DERP! DERP!

    • GarandFan

      Uh, pardon me, but in “3rd World Countries” isn’t having a lot of kids the same as increasing family income and providing for the care of the elderly parents they’re too old to work?

      Or are you providing them with Social Security and Medicare as well?

      • Guest

        lol – the wing nuts are more wingy and nutty these days. Watching ol jim_m stumble around the last few days has been amusing, and now his trusty sidekick GarandFan has now picked up the wing nut banner.

        No, the US won’t be providing them with Social Security and Medicare.

        Do you have an adult point to make or are you going to ask more childish questions?

        • GarandFan

          LOL! Full of shit as usual, and totally avoided the point again.

          • Guest

            You didn’t have a point. You just sniped like a child.

            What happened to the adult conservatives? The few left standing are just the whiners.

          • jim_m

            Maybe you could stop stumbling around yourself and answer my questions mr chicken.

          • Guest

            Seriously? you’re now resorting to grade school tactics, calling somebody “chicken”…. lol.

            No really, I am laughing out loud.

            You’ve hit bottom Jim. Time to buy a clue.

          • jim_m

            I’m not the one hiding from RM.

            And you are running away from the question that both GarandFan and I have asked: how do you intend to support the vast welfare state on declining population?

            Or you could just call us racists like you usually do. Yawn.

          • retired.military

            Hey Mr Chickenshit

            What about the bet? Too afraid? Is that cackling I hear from you?

          • DERP! DERP!
            DERP! DERP!

          • GarandFan

            What’s the matter Mr Bullshit? Can’t answer the question. It was very simple. Considering your simple mind, it should have been easy.

            Next insult? I’m still waiting for your favorite – RACIST!

          • DERP! DERP!
            DERP!

        • jim_m

          Since a declining population will not be able to support the vast social safety net how do you propose sustaining it?

          Since economic growth is largely attributed to population growth how do you propose having a growing economy with negative economic growth? Since the left’s agenda is to reduce global population you cannot sustain it through immigration as all countries will be in decline.

          Your ideal is global poverty. There is no escaping the truth.

          • Guest

            Who said anything about negative economic growth?

            Family planing means — uhm, “planning”.

            It doesn’t mean not having children, it means planning for the number of children you want to have.

            Your spew is just the usual nonsense from you.You have degraded into a first class idiot, jim — as exemplified by the few remaining idiots who follow you around trolling along with you.

          • jim_m

            The left has always been about reducing population. Idiots like 0bama’s science czar, Holdren, are on record advocating reducing global population.

            I’m just asking you to understand he logical consequences of your policies. Obviously, that is beyond your capacity.

          • retired.military

            Mr Chickenshit

            See my comments in the thread about 10000 gun owners.

            The most endangered thing in America is an unborn child.

          • DERP! DERP!
            DERP! DERP!
            DERP!

        • DERP! DERP!

      • herddog505

        This was certainly true in parts of the South in the not-so-distant past. A buddy of mine in the National Guard came from a family of tobacco farmers; they told him point-blank when he was a boy that they’d had him to work tobacco. It wasn’t that they didn’t love their children, you understand, but rather that children had a… um… rather practical role in their lives.

        • GarandFan

          Thanks to ‘family planning’, countries are becoming more ‘sophisticated’. If you happen to be a female embryo, life is tough. And short. Just ask the Chinese.

          • jim_m

            The left complains of some fictional war on women by the right and they talk about restricting abortion rights. However, the left’s real war on women is seeing the mass slaughter of baby girls in the womb by the millions in China and India.

    • jim_m

      Family planning reduces health care costs, especially in third-world countries.

      Finally, an admission from the left that the whole of 0bama’s strategy is to turn the US into a third world nation.

      • Guest

        Yeah, cause only wild-eyed thinkers would consider incorporating family planning into their nation’s agenda.

        Which is the exact opposite of reality.

        Is it opposite day? Did we chase all the conservatives away, leaving only Wadney’s troll brigade to defend the honor and glory of right wing lunacy?

        • herddog505

          When did it become the government’s role to determine or even influence the “family” decisions that people make?

          • You beat me to it. This is just another form of welfare: the poor unfortunates will be provided condoms and such, and never learn to take some responsibility for themselves.

          • Guest

            Families can have as many children as they want.

            They should be presented with options that let them plan when to have children. Planning is a good thing. Seriously, it is.

            And… conservatives complaining that funding is being cut — oh my, that’s priceless.

          • jim_m

            Actually, Mr racist, out of wedlock births are lowest in third world countries and highest in the west. What you are really against is the growth of non-white families in third world countries.

            When Eastern Europe came out of the poverty of the Soviet Block, illegitimacy skyrocketed. Most third world countries are marked by far stricter moral taboos against illegitimacy and so their rates are significantly lower.

          • retired.military

            Although I loathe abortion too bad your mother didnt plan better when she had you.

          • DERP! DERP!
            DERP! DERP!
            DERP! DERP!
            DERP!

          • herddog505

            When the government is involved with “family planning” as part of “their nation’s agenda”, I think it’s questionable to assert that families are – or always will be – free to have as many children as they want.

            And, once again, why the hell is the government getting involved in something that is – or ought to be – between a man and woman? My wife and I don’t need Uncle Sugar to “help” us decide whether or not we want to have children, and I’m not aware of anybody else who does.

        • retired.military

          Since most abortions are done on African American women the “family planning” practised by democrats is most assuredly racist by their standards. After all if a high % of African Americans go to jail it is racism, If they arent getting welfare when they apply, it is racism…

        • DERP! DERP!
          DERP! DERP!
          DERP! DERP!

    • retired.military

      We need to talk about more important things.

      Like free condoms for all.

      After all they prevent unwanted pregnacies and help improve women’s health by preventing STDs.

      The Obama administration is guilty of practising sexual discrimination.

      Free condoms for all

      Free condoms for all

  • lasveraneras

    It’s funny that this “Summit” is held in Europe. The Europeans (along with Japan, Russia, and Iran) are facing demographic collapse if current trends, as expected, continue for a couple of generations. All of these countries (if there are exceptions, a correction is welcome) have fertility rates below population replacement levels. The Japanese population is already shrinking. For example, given that the Hungarian population rate is less than 1 child per female (!), the country is likely to see a Roma (Gypsy) majority population before the end of the century. Perhaps, rather than meddling in the affairs of their favorite guinea pigs, the so-called “third world,” the global ruling elite should take a closer look at their own affairs first.