Laying Foundations For Abortion Policy

by Jean M. Guilfoyle

“Thou shalt not kill.”

“The United States does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs and will no longer contribute to those of which it is a part. Accordingly, when dealing with nations which support abortion with funds not provided by the U.S. government, the United States will contribute to such nations through segregated accounts which cannot be used for abortion. Moreover, the United States will no longer contribute to separate non-governmental organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”1

Here are two commandments. The first, given to us by Divine Word nearly 4,000 years ago, has no loopholes. The second, a part of U.S. foreign policy since August of 1984, consists almost entirely of loopholes.

What is “active” promotion of abortion? How does one define a “non-governmental organization” that is disqualified by its abortion activities? And, for that matter, what is an abortion?

The so-called “Mexico City Policy,” quoted above, has been interpreted as outlawing “active” abortion referrals while still permitting those deemed to be “passive.” A “passive” referral is distinguished from an active one in that it involves “responding to a question regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained … provided the question is asked by a woman who is pregnant and has already decided to have an abortion.”2

One thing — and little else — is clear. Employees of U.S. government-funded population programs are prohibited from referring a woman to an abortionist if (a) she is not pregnant, (b) the abortion is unsafe and illegal, or (c) she does not want one. Presumably, the pregnant woman herself must initiate the question, although it is not clear how the subject might be brought up. Must she specifically say she is considering an abortion, or will “l didn’t really want to get pregnant” do the trick?

The intended disqualification of non-governmental organizations that “promote abortion as a method of family planning” is no less vague. It leaves open the possibility that advocacy of eugenic abortion, abortion in cases of rape and incest, and various kinds of “mental health” exceptions might fall outside the context of family planning.

The United States Agency for International Development’s (A.I.D.) interpretation of this clause holds that “an individual acting on his/her own and not as part of an organization may be involved in abortion-related activities, such as lobbying for the legalization of abortion, provided that the organization for which he/she works neither endorses nor provides financial support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the individual does not improperly represent the organization.”3 In other words, do it. But do it on your own time.

Defining abortion is even more difficult. A preponderance of evidence suggests that many “contraceptives” work to prevent implantation, and not to prevent conception. The Mexico City Policy is entirely silent on the abortifacient question.

These are not merely technical but fundamental questions. Another fundamental issue is the extent to which “motivational” programs intended to change attitudes and beliefs about fertility create a climate in which the legalization of abortion becomes a consideration.

A series of studies on “fertility determinants,” published by the Population Council between 1984 and 1988 under a grant from the U.S. A.I.D., examined cultural and socio-economic factors that support various attitudes toward birth control with an emphasis on policy changes that might have an indirect impact on population growth.4

One such report concluded that providing contraceptives to married couples is far less effective in the long run than promoting the concept of the “unwanted” child. The report, titled “The Proximate Determinants of Fertility in High Fertility Countries” (September 1988), advised that “the meaningful approach to fertility reduction will be to discourage favorable attitudes towards large families and attempt the idealization of small to medium family size. This approach,” it added, “will be more effective in lowering the demand for children than the offer of contraception within marriage.” Nonetheless, it stated, once these changes in attitudes have been achieved, “contraception for family limitation will be the realistic approach to attainment of the small family.”

Another report in the series, written by Robert A. LeVine and published in September of 1984, noted that maternal behavior has been studied “primarily as it relates to infant and child mortality.” But the writer argued that “links between maternal behavior and fertility, on the other hand, may be more complex and are certainly not as well understood.” He explained that his contribution to the series was to apply studies of maternal behavior to fertility in five countries, in an attempt to provide information that might suggest new ways to change fertility patterns.5

The report disclosed that patterns of maternal behavior are heavily validated by local moral codes, religious and medical beliefs, and culturally organized ‘common sense.’ But, LeVine noted, a “basic premise of the research” was that significant “adaptive changes in maternal behavior” can come about rather quickly — “sometimes within a generation, sometimes in two or more generations.”

The “fertility determinant” series was intended to present information upon which policies might be based, and not to specifically recommend any particular policy approach. Nonetheless, some of its findings strongly suggest that any serious attempt to impose population control on high-fertility societies might require an organized and deliberate attempt to undermine religious institutions, to transform local economies, and to develop patterns of consumption that compete with child-rearing.

One of these research papers, “Causes of Fertility Decline in South India” by John C. Caldwell, P. H. Reddy, and Pat Caldwell, found that these factors had been instrumental to a decline in birthrates in several southern regions of India.6

The published report acknowledges that there had been little demand for contraceptives or abortion before the onslaught of population control programs began. “There was no significant practice of contraception or abortion as a form of family planning,” it says. “The small demand for abortifacients was to hide the proof of sexual relations that should never have taken place.”7

“Changes in relationships within the family, in arrangements of marriages, in availability of jobs and education, and in the perception of the economic value of children all helped alter South Indian society during the past two decades,” the authors wrote. They advised that exposure to what was called “English ways” —— changes in language, secularization, and exposure to western entertainment — had a negative impact on the desire for large families. “Perhaps the most vivid example of the promotion of modern values is the cinema,” the report continued. “Most adult males have been going to the movies for two decades; by 1982, three-quarters of the total study area population had been to the cinema within the previous 12 months.”8

Additionally, the researchers found, “secularization has been invading such areas as perceptions of the cause and cure of illness…the duration of postnatal sexual abstinence and lactation, and the acceptance of fertility control.”9 And they advised that the decline of the traditional economy and the simultaneous rise of wage work has also changed perceptions about large families.10 “In the past, particularly for farmers, a large family could be beneficial,” the authors observe, but “now too many children can be an economic burden.”11

In conclusion, the report finds that all these changes have “moved the society toward family planning” — primarily sterilization. “Whatever uncertainties family members may have about sterilization is compensated for by the certainty of the family planning workers and the government that gains will come from limiting family size.”12

This combination of factors — secularization, new concepts of health care, the emerging view that children are a financial liability to their parents, and the government-imposed perception that “gains will come from limiting family size” — invariably lead to the idea that children are to be, at least in some circumstances, “unwanted.” Thus, with or without the legalization of abortion, social pressure and personal incentives to reject pregnancy become commonplace. And, before long, a movement to introduce legal abortion, or, in some cases, to provide the procedure illegally, will begin to flourish.

Another Population Council publication raises questions more directly related to the Mexico City policy’s assurance that “the United States will no longer contribute to separate non-governmental organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

The Population Council’s Studies in Family Planning, in its July-August 1990 issue, published an article on “Pregnancy Termination and the Law in Nigeria,” with a section bearing the subheading: “Case for Revision of Abortion Laws.”13

The publication argues that increased incidence of “clandestine abortions by unskilled practitioners,” and a changing socio-economic situation justify legalization of abortion. It explains: “Unwanted children who cannot be supported by their parents or even the larger extended family, which is gradually disintegrating, become … disgruntled and anti-social, and burdens to themselves, their parents and society.”14 Young, unmarried women who bear children, the article adds, may be “turned out of school” and thus are “hardly likely to grow up to become independent and contributing members of society.”15

The report concludes with a very explicit recommendation that the Nigerian Criminal Code and Penal Code be changed to include legal abortion, and even that abortion be incorporated in the government’s health and population policy, which would virtually assure government payments to abortion providers.

“Despite the controversy surrounding the issue of abortion, the practical realities of the situation demand a revision of the present laws on abortion, if only as a health measure to protect the lives and health of women who presently resort to backstreet abortionists,” it says.

The writer, identified as a “senior research fellow” at the University of Lagos, advises that “since medical practice and social attitudes have rendered abortions safe and more widely acceptable, the atmosphere of crime has been largely removed.” Therefore, she concludes, “abortion law may one day soon pass out of the realm of criminal law and into the realm of health or welfare law, concerned not with crime and punishment but with the allocation and distribution of health resources to meet health requirements.”

Studies in Family Planning is not a government-subsidized publication. But the Population Council was, at the time the article was published, the beneficiary of a $37 million A.I.D. grant for a five-year “contraceptive development” program.16 It also participates, with several other contractors, in a $38 million A.I.D.-funded “operations research” project, designed to find more acceptable means of bringing family planning services to special population subgroups and to institutionalize population control activities in development nations.17

ENDNOTES