On April 18, 1996, the Population Research Institute (PRI)
published a report detailing the involvement of the International
Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in promoting and performing
abortion throughout the developing world.
Since the release of the original report, PRI has discovered
numerous additional documents explicitly describing IPPF’s
efforts to encourage the legalization and performance of abortions,
particularly in the developing world.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) is the largest and most influential family planning organization in the world. Since it was founded in Bombay in 1952, the IPPF has grown from the nine original national affiliates to 140 family planning associations (FPAs), and exerts unparalleled influence on national policymaking regarding population issues. In the last 25 years alone, IPPF has expended the equivalent of more than two billion U.S. dollars (mostly provided by the governments of developed countries) in pursuit of its goals.1
The original IPPF mission was “The initiation and support of family planning services throughout the world.” Over the last fifteen years, the IPPF has become increasingly unwilling to be perceived as a pure “population control” organization, and has thus recently emphasized such principles as “responsible parenthood” and the “health of families and young people.”2
Despite this apparent moderation of its stance, no other organization has done more to spread abortion throughout the world than the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Not satisfied to rest on its laurels, the IPPF has forcefully and repeatedly stated its intention to assist in the legalization of abortion in every country of the world, regardless of the means used, and has also voiced its willingness to set up and equip abortion centers and provide the expertise required to perform abortions on a massive scale.
This report uses IPPF and other documents to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that IPPF fully intends to aggressively agitate for the legalization of abortion in every country of the world, regardless of local customs, laws, beliefs or attitudes.
For more than three decades, the International Planned Parenthood Federation has lobbied worldwide for the liberalization and eventual repeal of all laws that place any restrictions whatever on access to abortion. This stance is reflected in all of its major policy statements, as described below.
IPPF’s Vision 2000 Strategic Plan
The most definitive statement of IPPF’s total commitment to the worldwide legalization of abortion is contained in its 1992 Strategic Plan – Vision 2000, which was unanimously approved by its 140 member family planning associations (FPAs), each of which operates in a separate nation.
In its Vision 2000 document, which is considered to be the “marching orders” for all member FPAs, the IPPF repeatedly and unambiguously calls for legalization of abortion in countries where the procedure is currently unlawful;
[IPPF and its member associations] … GIVE special emphasis to maternal and child health and notably to the elimination of unsafe abortion, through information, advocacy and access to family planning and safe abortion services.
Activities: FPAs … Where appropriate, include information on
the rights of women to access to safe abortion … Analyse, and
advocate for changes in, restrictive national laws, policies,
practices and traditions … Collaborate with other national
organizations in promoting sexual and reproductive health services
in an effort to bring pressure on governments to remove barriers to
access [to abortion] … To eliminate the high incidence of unsafe
abortion, and increase the right of access to safe, legal abortion
… Actively campaign to reduce levels of unsafe abortion and to
improve access to safe abortion services where permitted … Provide
information and technical expertise to assist FPAs in activities
related to reducing unsafe abortions and improving access to safe
abortion services … Where legislation is restrictive analyse,
interpret and provide information on provisions in the law regarding
safe abortions, and campaign for policy and legislative change to
remove restrictions against safe abortions. Where legislation
permits abortion, inform women of their legal rights to safe
abortions, provide confidential information and counselling on how
to obtain a safe abortion; provide access to safe abortion services;
continually improve access to these services; and condemn incidents
of any political, administrative or social barriers curtailing this
right. Whenever possible, enter into a dialogue with political,
religious, and cultural opinion leaders to liberalize their
attitudes towards safe abortion.
Objective 4: Examine the current health care provision for the treatment of incomplete abortions and actively work to ensure that adequate and humane services are in place. Activities: International/Regional: Keep up to date with new technologies for the provision of safe abortion and work to ensure that individuals who perform abortions receive the appropriate training and equipment to carry them out safely” [emphasis added].
The Mauritius Conference
Many of the IPPF’s international and regional conference summaries also explicitly describe the organization’s philosophy and strategies regarding the legalization of abortion.
For example, in the summary of its 1994 Mauritius Conference, the IPPF states its general belief that “Safe abortion is a medical procedure that can save lives and protect health: It is unethical to withhold it.” Dr. Richard Turkson, Legal Counsel for IPPF’s Africa Region, very clearly outlines the organization’s overall strategy in the same document: “Legal reform [of abortion laws] will have to take the form of a gradual expansion in the scope of permissible abortions until the exceptions become the general rule and vice versa.”
In a section entitled “Safer Abortion: What FPAs Can Do,” the Mauritius Conference summary issues guidelines on how member organizations can agitate for abortion law liberalization, and once abortion is legal, participate in the performance of the procedures:
Where abortion is illegal, all family planning organizations could; … Take up “test cases” to pressurize for more liberal interpretation of some legislation … Liase with sympathetic legal professionals to develop clear guidelines for health workers on the ways in which the law can be interpreted … “Where abortion services are not legally restricted, all FPAs could: … Play a role in preparing the ground for the use of newer abortion techniques and … provide training in safe abortion techniques.
The Mauritius Conference report includes an extremely detailed 12-page long country-by-country “Action Plan,” which shows precisely where the IPPF’s involvement in abortion advocacy will take place in the developing countries of Africa.
These activities range from organized agitation for abortion legalization to the equipping of abortion clinics and the training of medical personnel to perform abortions.
The IPPF’s activities are certainly not restricted to Africa, however; it periodically holds similar conferences in Asia, Oceania, and Latin America as well.
Appendix A includes some extracts from the Mauritius Conference report that describe IPPF’s specific strategy in promoting and enabling abortion.3
Other Examples of IPPF’s Abortion Advocacy
Vision 2000 and the Mauritius Conference summary are certainly not isolated statements of the IPPF’s political support for abortion legalization. Calls for “reform,” “repeal,” and “legalization” of abortion laws, and participation in the widespread implementation of abortion services themselves, permeate all of the IPPF’s publications.
As one of many scores of examples, the IPPF Medical Bulletin has stated that:
Where access to safe abortion services is restricted, FPAs should maintain a positive dialogue and work constructively with other NGOs or groups devoted to reducing unsafe abortions, reforming the law or other specialized activities related to this issue. Where safe and responsible abortion services are available, FPAs have an obligation to defend such services against unjustified criticism and restriction. FPAs should assist health professionals to implement safe abortion services, where appropriate, according to contemporary interpretations of the law, and to facilitate women’s unrestricted access to these services.
Where Services Are Legally Restricted: Through liaison with sympathetic legal professionals, develop clear guidelines for health workers on the ways in which the law can be interpreted positively to provide a safe abortion, where a clause in the legislation may permit a safe abortion to be performed under certain circumstances. Those laws with an exclusionary clause dependent on health may require [sic] to be interpreted more broadly than those where the exclusionary clause depends on saving the life of the woman. Liaise with sympathetic legal professionals who would represent health personnel and/or clients who are facing penalties for carrying out/undertaking a safe abortion. Take up “test-cases” to pressurize for more liberal interpretation of some legislation.4
IPPF published several position papers as adjuncts to its Vision 2000 Strategic Plan. Each of these papers took a strong position in favor of abortion advocacy. The “Vision 2000: Moving Forward After Cairo and Beijing” paper contained typical pro-abortion language under a heading entitled “Actions for NGOs/FPAs:” “Monitor the legal status of abortion and advocate for abortion law reform and repeal of any punitive measures.”5
IPPF’s “Neutrality” on Abortion
Although the IPPF claims to be “neutral” on abortion, the evidence shows that not only the parent organization, but all of its affiliates as well, are in practice expected to think and act as abortion advocacy groups.
Dr. Fred Sai, former President of International Planned Parenthood Federation, hinted darkly that Family Planning Associations that do not vigorously support abortion legalization may not be welcome as members of IPPF;
I made a strong plea for IPPF to take another look at its stand on abortion and revise its position in line with the realities of women’s reproductive health in the 1990s. Two years on, I can happily say that progress is being made within the Federation … Now in the 1990s IPPF must be at the forefront of these [abortion] rights, and those who are not prepared to stand by this in practice as well as in theory must ask themselves whether they still belong to the IPPF family … Now for the first time, the IPPF Strategic Plan [Vision 2000], unanimously adopted at the Members’ Assembly in Delhi last October, outlines activities at both the Secretariat and FPA level to further IPPF’s explicit goal of eliminating unsafe abortion and increasing the right of access to safe, legal abortion.6
The IPPF, Forced Abortion and the Mexico City Policy
The IPPF also demonstrated its absolute and unwavering commitment to abortion, voluntary or otherwise, when it opted to give up United States funding in 1985 rather than comply with the Mexico City Policy, which stated that the U.S. would not continue to fund organizations which were involved in any way with population programs promoting abortion.
The IPPF was warned that, unless it certified that it would no longer promote or perform abortions, it would lose all monetary support from the U.S. government. The IPPF refused to give any such assurances.
IPPF’s attitude was reflected in the remarks of Daniel Weintraub, Vice-President for international programs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), a member of the IPPF. Speaking to a Planned Parenthood legislative conference held in Madison, Wisconsin, on March 12, 1985, Weintraub stated:
I know that there are some people in our own country … who sincerely believe that we should compromise, we should accept the Administration’s [Mexico City] policy. And the argument goes that “after all abortion in our international programs is only a small percentage of our entire program. Strategically we would be better off to try to save family planning by giving up abortion.” Well, I tell you that these people are wrong … One of the principles of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is that reproductive freedom is indivisible. You either have it or you don’t.
Because of its intransigence on the abortion question, IPPF lost its funding. Its attitude has not changed.
IPPF repeatedly insists that it is not involved with, nor does it support, coercive “family planning” programs. For example, it alleges in its “Statement on Unsafe Abortion and Reproductive Health” that “IPPF unequivocally rejects the use of coercive abortions and abortions for reasons of sex selection.”4
However, evidence shows that IPPF has supported the Chinese coercive one-child policy from its inception in 1979. Madam Peng Yu, Vice Minister of the State Family Planning Commission of China, revealed that the International Planned Parenthood Federation is one of the “major international agencies that have been extending cooperation to China.”7 After nearly two decades of involvement in China, it is reasonable to conclude that IPPF is not only thoroughly familiar with, but wholeheartedly supports, Beijing’s coercive family planning program, a program that includes forced contraception and sterilization, compulsory abortion, widespread sex-selection abortions, and the notorious “dying rooms” for less-than-perfect newborn babies.
Sex and Abortions for Ten-Year Old Girls
IPPF’s efforts to universalize abortion includes not only adults, but young children. In a 1994 book entitled Understanding Adolescents, the IPPF defines “adolescent” as children between the ages of 10 and 19. Such adolescents, the IPPF claims, “have the majority of the same rights as other clients where it concerns health and sexuality: The right to choose whether or not they want to have a sexually active life; to information, to contraception, to safe abortion, and to protection against diseases; to confidentiality, and to be able to trust those who offer them help.”
The IPPF’s Unique Capabilities
In the early 1970s, Malcolm Potts, onetime IPPF Medical Director, came to the realization that it was impossible to initiate a family planning program whose purpose is to limit population without widespread abortion. He also realized that the IPPF was (as it remains today) in a unique position to promote abortion all over the world:
Abortion and contraception are inextricably intertwined in their use.
As the idea of family limitation spreads through a community there
appears to be a rise in the incidence of induced abortion at the point
where the community begins to initiate the use of contraceptives …
Abortion is the horse that pulls contraceptive practice into the
community. When abortion is omitted, then family planning programmes
often lose direction.
… Predictably, the inter governmental agencies, such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the World Health Organisation, are in an especially weak position to promote abortion services, although they command many of the available resources. Therefore, a particular responsibility falls on the non-governmental agencies; the Population Council and especially the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Fortunately, the resources needed to extend realistic abortion services into the poor, or at least into the urban, slums of the world are modest.8
Leading IPPF spokesmen have lately adopted the tactic of avoiding mention of abortion altogether, except to advocate the “elimination of unsafe abortion.” While this phraseology sounds reasonable to all parties in the abortion debate, it must be stressed that it is merely IPPF code language for the legalization of abortion.
This point is emphasized by the IPPF’s “Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights” which was adopted during an IPPF Members’ Assembly in Manila, Philippines, 10-13 November, 1995. The Charter reads:
Delegates to the triennial Members’ Assembly also adopted a
strong policy on unsafe abortion which calls on FPAs to advocate
women’s rights of access to safe, legal abortion when an unwanted
pregnancy has occurred … FPAs are urged to: make known the negative
consequences of unsafe abortions for women; work to ensure that
treatment for the complications of unsafe abortion is available
through health services; analyze the legal status of abortion in their
country and work to maximize the availability of safe abortion
services under the existing laws; and campaign for the removal of
legal, policy, and other restrictions on women’s rights of access to
safe abortion services.9
Dr. Halfdan Mahler, then Secretary-General of the IPPF, had earlier adopted the “unsafe vs. legal” theme at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt, 5-13 September, 1994:
IPPF’s fourth challenge and one that has been particularly contentious for this Conference is the elimination of unsafe abortion. IPPF has made a powerful and bold commitment to speak out on this major threat to the health and lives of women … The only way to fight wanted and unnecessary abortion is to provide all women everywhere with quality reproductive health care including contraception and, if indispensable, safe abortion. At a recent IPPF conference [the above-mentioned Mauritius Conference], delegations from 20 African countries agreed in a final declaration to “act now to end the tragic and needless suffering from unsafe abortion,” by strengthening family planning programmes, working to liberalize restrictive [abortion] laws, and ending “the conspiracy of silence that has kept the full extent of unsafe abortion out of the public eye and the public conscience for decades.
It is critical to note that, when IPPF calls for the elimination of unsafe abortion, it does not mean more vigorous prosecution of illegal abortionists; it means simply legalizing abortion, as stated in Vision 2000.
“Neutrality” on Abortion
The IPPF also claims that it maintains a “neutral” position on abortion, which is curious in light of the fact that it agitates for abortion legalization all over the world.
Dr. Fred Sai, immediate past President of IPPF, recently verbalized this peculiar brand of abortion doublethink when he claimed that IPPF is “neutral” on abortion, but that it also fights to legalize and implement it: “On abortion, we are neutral … If the local FPA has to fight its government on the issue of abortion, we will support them in that fight. If the countries legalize abortion, we will help them train people to do it properly.”10
Statements Encouraging Illegal Activities
The International Planned Parenthood Federation has repeatedly demonstrated that it considers its “principles” and its “conscience” to a be far more compelling guide than inconvenient local laws or customs.
The IPPF has stated that “[Family Planning] Associations should operate right up to the edge of what is legal and sometimes even beyond where the law is uncertain or out of tune with public opinion. While a government gains short term respect by being respectable, a voluntary body may gain long term respect by being responsibly disreputable.”11
Malcolm Potts, a former Medical Director of the IPPF, has claimed that “There are some laws that can and should be broken … restrictive abortion laws … are as obsolete and irrelevant to the contemporary world as the New York State statute which makes it a crime to have a deck of cards in an apartment within a one-mile radius of an armory.”12 In its document entitled The Human Right to Family Planning, the IPPF states that “Family Planning Associations … should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for inaction: Action outside the law, and even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change.”13
In another widely-distributed document, IPPF boasted that “Many IPPF/WHR [Western Hemisphere Region] members introduced family planning services in their countries, often at a time when family planning was illegal or had no legal status.”14
IPPF’s Illegal Activities
The IPPF does not merely talk about breaking the law, it is engaged in massive ongoing violations.
The IPPF has been promoting and enabling illegal abortion in the Philippines for at least twenty years, and has been providing large numbers of abortion machines to numerous developing countries, including Bangladesh, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, and India.
The following extract from a Hastings Center Report article shows how the IPPF assists groups in circumventing the laws of developing countries, while systematically covering up such activities:
The International Planned Parenthood Federation of London (IPPF) has been the most outspoken advocate of legal abortion services in the developing countries … As a central body it receives funds from international donors, including AID [the United States Agency for International Development], and passes money and supplies along to the local associations … The IPPF’s stated position is that abortion should be legally available to those who desire it and that local associations, when possible, should assist in providing the necessary services …
In the Philippines, where abortion is both illegal and explicitly against official population policy, the IPPF provided 200 “menstrual regulation” [first trimester abortion] kits for demonstration purposes … Further controversy arose when the FPOP [the IPPF affiliate, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines] distributed “menstrual regulation” kits to local doctors. Although the government had laws specifically prohibiting the importation of abortive devices, these kits were brought into the country as “medical instruments” to obtain “sample tissue for examination.” These examples show the potential of the IPPF and its collaborating organizations for circumventing national laws and policies …
One of IPPF’s largest projects, totalling about $62,000, was in Bangladesh, where 5,000 vacuum aspiration kits were provided to the local family planning association. These kits have also been supplied to Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, and India. Although most of these projects have been relatively small – usually under $30,000 – the IPPF has not provided details of its activities in its published reports, even in its main report to donor agencies. One reason, apart from the illegal and controversial nature of these activities, may be that the federation is under constant scrutiny from the U.S. government to insure that it is not violating the Helms Amendment.15
The Definition of “Menstrual Regulation”
“Menstrual regulation” (MR) or “menstrual extraction” (ME) are synonyms for an abortion procedure that is especially suited to circumventing the abortion laws of developing countries, because the abortions are performed so early that the “evidence” which results is either destroyed during the procedure or easily disposed of.
The IPPF Family Planning Handbook for Doctors describes the MR/ME procedure:
Menstrual regulation is commonly defined as evacuation of the uterus in a woman who has missed her menstrual period by 14 days or less, who previously had regular periods and who has been at risk of conception. It may be performed before proof of pregnancy … It can be used for: (1) diagnostic or therapeutic curettage; (2) the treatment of incomplete abortion; (3) uterine evacuation to ensure that no early pregnancy is present at the time of tubal ligation if this is done in the second half of the menstrual cycle; and (4) uterine evacuation in cases of suspected pregnancy.
In some countries, menstrual regulation has proved remarkably popular, and individual practitioners sometimes perform several thousand operations a year. In certain countries menstrual regulation is legal, even when therapeutic abortion is illegal, as in many Latin American countries, where prosecution for abortion requires proof that a pregnancy was terminated …16
The IPPF Medical Bulletin further defines MR/ME as a method of abortion:
Endometrial aspiration using a hand-held vacuum syringe is a cheap, safe and effective technology for very early termination of pregnancy, that can be taught to a variety of health personnel … endometrial aspiration is being used in come countries when a woman misses her period by a maximum of 14 days but pregnancy is not confirmed. In these cases, the technique is usually called menstrual regulation …4
Recall that the IPPF has supplied thousands of vacuum aspiration abortion machines purportedly for “collecting tissue samples” or “finishing incomplete abortions,” but which can just as easily be used for early suction abortions.
Malcolm Potts explained nearly thirty years ago how the IPPF drove a wedge for abortion on demand into the cultures of countless developing countries. Notice that Potts also acknowledges that MR/ME is indeed an abortion procedure, and that it is a simple and convenient method of performing illegal abortions that are difficult to prosecute:
Using the name “menstrual regulation” alters the name of the game … It is not practical to write about abortion in a Bangladesh newspaper in a straightforward way, but it has proved acceptable to hold a much-publicized conference on menstrual regulation in Dacca … It is not prudent to have even a whispered discussion of the role of abortion in family planning in the Philippines; but it generates immediate and widespread interest to discuss menstrual regulation … Menstrual regulation is probably safer than any other pregnancy termination procedure … there will be no proof of pregnancy unless the tissue removed from the uterus is subjected to microscopic examination. The point is of crucial importance in countries where abortion is illegal.8
Using MR to Undermine the Law
The International Planned Parenthood Federation frequently boasts about how it or other population control organizations use MR to undermine the laws of developing nations. This is usually done, as mentioned above, in the name of reducing “unsafe abortions.” IPPF says that
Unsafe abortion is of considerable concern in some regions, but the actions FPAs are able to undertake are constrained by existing laws and lack of facilities. Where abortion is illegal, many FPAs carry out advocacy work and undertake research on the problem to back their advocacy activities. Discussions are held with influential people, religious and community leaders and policy makers. Some FPAs offer services for the management of post-abortion complications, or provide post-abortion counselling and contraceptive services. Some are able to offer menstrual regulation. Where abortion is legal, some FPAs provide safe abortion services.17
IPPF explains how FPAs may use MR to circumvent the law in Latin America;
However, in other juridic systems, like those used in the greater part
of South America, the proof of pregnancy is a prerequisite in order to
establish a cause for abortion. In this situation, it would be much
easier to defend the practice of menstrual regulation as a legal
procedure for women that ask for help shortly after observing a late
period and before pregnancy can be clinically proven. It should be
mentioned that there have not appeared in any part of the world cases
of MR that have given rise to legislation in this area and the
proponents must depend upon legal assistance in proportion to the
absence of cases establishing
Menstrual regulation plays a large part of IPPF’s plans for the future. Predicts the organization: “No doubt vacuum abortion early in pregnancy will be used on an increasingly large scale. Hand-held menstrual regulation equipment will continue to be very important.”19
The IPPF’s Medical Bulletin explains that “In countries where abortion is legal, FPAs should be encouraged to ensure its provision as part of health and fertility regulation services … In countries where the legal status of abortion is unclear or restricted, some FPAs have demonstrated that a close examination of the law can reveal a margin of flexibility in its interpretation.”20
There are numerous examples of how IPPF uses MR to undermine the laws of developing countries. A few of these are noted below.
Bangladesh. Despite the fact that abortion is illegal in Bangladesh, IPPF acknowledges that “About 22 percent of abortions are now being performed in the MR centres by the trained providers.”
Kenya. Abortion is illegal in Kenya as well, but IPPF approved of the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) machines, first to complete illegal abortions, and then to perform abortions. In an IPPF publication, Khama Rogo wrote “Let us not wait for the law to change, let us do what we can even before the law changes.”
Indonesia. Abortion is also illegal in Indonesia,
but, according to IPPF, “The Indonesian Planned Parenthood
Association (IPPA) has introduced menstrual regulation (MR) services.
Although initially only used in cases of contraceptive failure, MR is
now being offered for wider indications.” IPPA now runs 15
clinics in Indonesia that perform thousands of MR abortions annually
in defiance of the law.21
IPPF affiliates have found that MR provides the “margin of flexibility” they need to stretch the meaning of local and national laws against abortion far beyond their original intent, as shown above. The objective, of course, is to soften individual consciences and render all anti-abortion laws unenforceable in preparation for a widespread push for abortion legalization.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation has been deeply involved in the promotion and performance of abortion on a massive scale in scores of developing countries for at least thirty years. It has spent billions of dollars to promote every type of family planning, and explicitly states that family planning programs must include the provision of abortion.
The IPPF is in a unique position to assist in the repeal of abortion laws in developing countries. As an NGO, it can operate and interfere in the internal affairs of developing countries without provoking cries of neo-colonialism. In reality, of course, the vast majority of the IPPF’s funding is derived from the contributions of a handful of developed nations: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.22
Most importantly, the IPPF has firmly stated in its Vision 2000 strategic planning document and many other references that it intends to continue to promote and facilitate abortion through every one of its 140 national affiliates.
The IPPF holds as central principles that family planning is a human right and family planning must include abortion. By inference, therefore, the IPPF believes that abortion is a fundamental human right.
All financial contributions by developed countries to the IPPF will further one of its most cherished aims: The legalization of abortion in all developing countries.
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote D’Ivoire, Guinea (Conakry). [Problems]: “Restrictive [abortion] legislation …” [Strategies]: “Improve access and availability of safe abortion services …”
Ethiopia. [Problems]: “Abortion is restricted by law …” [Goals]: “To campaign for the abolition of restrictions on family planning services [including abortion] and the rights for women to use these services.” [Objectives]: “Remove all legal constraints and customary practices militating against women and increase their access to family planning services … Establish centres for safe abortion services.” [Activities]: “Lobby with lawyers and service providers for the abolition of restrictive laws affecting women’s and young people’s reproductive health.”
The Gambia. [Problems]: “Status of abortion law.” [Activities]: “Advocate for the provision of safe abortion services.
Kenya. [Goal]: “To improve family planning services, abortion and post-abortion services in order to reduce the rate of unsafe abortion.” [Strategies]: “Advocate for review of existing [abortion] laws … Improve family planning and abortion services … [Objectives]: “Achieve more liberal [abortion] legislation within five years … make MVA [Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion machines] services available in all district and provincial hospitals and 10 mission hospitals within three years.”
Mauritius. [Problems]: “The law on abortion is very restrictive.” [Goals]: “To decriminalize abortion through revision of existing laws.” [Objectives]: “By the year 2000 to … sensitize at least 75 percent of women’s groups to the risks of unsafe abortion and actions to advocate for legislative reform.”
Nigeria. [Problems]: “Restrictive [abortion] laws.” [Goals]: “To introduce a module on abortion into any community survey … to educate the public, including policy-makers, opinion leaders, traditional and religious leaders, youth and women?s organizations on the advantages of family planning and safe abortion in appropriate circumstances.”
Tanzania. [Problems]: “Very restrictive abortion
law.” [Goal]: “To reduce maternal mortality and morbidity
associated with complications of unsafe abortion through the promotion
of reproductive health information and services, efficient treatment
of abortion complications, post-abortion counselling and contraceptive
services, and safe abortion practice.” [Strategies]: “To lay
the foundations for the provision of access to safe abortion practice
through the use of the most favourable interpretation of the existing
law and constitution for the benefit of the woman, as well as work for
the eventual decriminalization of abortion.” [Objectives]:
“To have in place laws that permit for the provision of safe
Uganda. [Problems]: “Restrictive [abortion] law, which also inhibits research and discussion of the problem.” [Strategies]: Advocacy for [abortion] law and policy change.
Zambia. [Strategies]: “Set up modal abortion care centres in four major hospitals by the end of 1995 … By the end of 1997 set up similar centres in remaining provincial and major mission hospitals … by the year 2000 in district hospitals … Train all doctors in Obstetrics/Gynecology wards in major hospitals in the performing of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) techniques by the end of 1996 … By the end of 1998 safe abortion training will be incorporated into existing nursing, medical and clinical officer curricula … By the end of 1997 amend the law and policy guidelines on the Termination of Pregnancy Act [of] 1972 …”
IPPF Africa Regional Women’s Advisory Panel (RWAP). [Problems]: “Restrictive or inadequate abortion laws.” [Goals]: To reduce unsafe abortion through integration of abortion services into existing maternal and child health/family planning (MCH/FP) services throughout the Region … National Women’s Advisory Panels (NWAPs) to work for revision or liberalization of existing laws to ensure that safe abortion is legalized.” [Strategies]: “NWAPs should play a leading role in lobbying for review of the existing [abortion] law and its repeal where necessary …” [Objectives]: “Between 1995 and 1997, at least 10 countries of the Region should have reviewed, repealed and liberalized [abortion] laws and further reduced the incidence of unsafe abortion by at least 10 per cent.”
1 IPPF Income and Expenditure Account for the year ended 31 December 1991 and accompanying chart entitled “Growth of IPPF?s Income.” Amount is in adjusted 1995 U.S. dollars, corrected for an average five percent inflation.
2 IPPF Annual Report, 1989-1990.
3 International Planned Parenthood Federation, Africa Region. The Mauritius Conference: Unsafe Abortion and Post-Abortion Family Planning in Africa. London: IPPF, 1994. Pages 13-15 and 24 to 35.
4 “Statement on Unsafe Abortion and Reproductive Health.” IPPF Medical Bulletin, Volume 26, Number 1 (February 1992)
5 International Planned Parenthood Federation. “Vision 2000: Moving Forward After Cairo and Beijing.” London: IPPF, 1996, page 30.
6 Dr. Fred Sai, former president of IPPF. “Unsafe Abortion Must Be Tackled Now.” Planned Parenthood Challenges: Unsafe Abortion. 1993.
7 “An Interview with Peng Yu, Vice Minister of the State Family Planning Commission.” Integration, March 1994, page 32.
8 Malcolm Potts, Peter Diggory and John Peel. Abortion. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pages 230 to 232.
9 Internet news release entitled “IPPF Strengthens Stand on Reproductive Rights and Unsafe Abortion,” dated November 29, 1995, taken from IPPF?s home page at http://188.8.131.52/ippf on April 2, 1996.
10 “Encounter: Dr. Fred Sai, International Planned Parenthood Federation.” Sunday Inquirer Magazine, November 26, 1995, pages 3-5.
11 International Planned Parenthood Federation. “The Voluntary Sector in Population and Development.” London, 1979.
12 Malcolm Potts, M.D., former director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). “Population Growth and Abortion,” in Gerald I. Zatuchni, John J. Sciarra, and J. Joseph Speidel (editors). Pregnancy Termination: Procedures, Safety and New Developments. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1979, page 424.
13 International Planned Parenthood Federation. The Human Right to Family Planning. 1984, paragraph 106.
14 Undated IPPF/WHR pamphlet entitled “20 Questions About International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region.”
15 Donald Page Warwick. “Foreign Aid for Abortion.” The Hastings Center Report, Volume 10, Number 2, page 33, April 1980.
16 IPPF Family Planning Handbook for Doctors. Chapter 15, “Menstrual Regulation,” pages 241, 242, and 247-248, date not given, but post-1987.
17 International Planned Parenthood Federation. “Sexual and Reproductive Health: Family Planning Puts Promises Into Practice.” London: IPPF, 1995, page 25.
18 Translated from the Spanish. Federacion Internacional de Planificacion de la Familia [International Planned Parenthood Federation]. Regulacion Menstrual. London: IPPF, 1976, page 10.
19 “The Challenge of the 1990s: Induced Abortion.” IPPF Medical Bulletin, Volume 25, Number 1 (February 1991), page 2.
20 “[IPPF] International Medical Advisory Board Statement on Abortion.” IPPF Medical Bulletin, Volume 27, Number 4 (August 1993).
21 International Planned Parenthood Federation. Challenges: Unsafe Abortion. London: IPPF, 1993, pages 31 to 35.
22 “Support from Around the World,” International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region 1990 Annual Report.