On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, by a vote of 216–211, the House adopted the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2004–2005 (H.R.1950). This pro-life amendment struck out language intended to gut the Kemp-Kasten amendment in order to refund, and increase funding for, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) — despite UNFPA’s persistent support of China forced abortion program.
Todd Akin Speaks
During the floor debate, my groundbreaking research in China in 1979–1980 was brought up by Republican Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri. Akin recalled in 1980 that Mosher “had gone to China and was absolutely amazed at what he saw in their delivery rooms, the fact that women were being forced to have abortions. Those were the better-equipped delivery rooms. The other delivery rooms had buckets full of water, and the unwanted children were simply drowned.”
Akin continued, “Now, China has had this policy for some time. The question is whether or not we want to coerce our taxpayer dollars, first of all, to go and, second of all, to kill these children. Well, the end of the story was that [Mosher] talked about this publicly. It upset Stanford because they had so many Chinese students. Stanford told [Mosher] to be quiet. He refused to be quiet, and he lost his job. But the damage was done. The American people found out about coerced abortions.”
In response, Congressman Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania exploded that “Steven Mosher was kicked out of Stanford in the 1980s for academic fraud and misappropriation of university funds.”
But the gentleman from Pennsylvania is misinformed.
Funding for my research in China came from the Social Science Research Council, National Science Foundation, and from the Hoover Institute, not Stanford. No funds were misappropriated. The Hoover Institute was satisfied with my research and findings. China and, by extension, Stanford, was not.
Accusations
As far as “academic fraud” is concerned, not even Stanford went that far in its attacks on me. They simply refused to grant me a degree, because I refused to remain silent about China’s one-child policy. China’s Communist government accused me of everything under the sun, from “spying” to writing articles “attacking China.” But even they did not accuse me of fraud.
Congressman Greenwood forgot to check his facts about me. He also forgot to check his facts about China’s one-child policy. During the debate, he claimed that “Every one of us agrees not a penny of this money should go for abortions, and it [funding for UNFPA] does not [go for abortions].”
But UNFPA does support abortion in refugee camps with manual vacuum abortion devices, and with morning-after pills. In addition, one of UNFPA’s principal partners is the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world’s largest abortion provider. And as U.S Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed out, based on solid evidence, UNFPA is helping China to do coercive abortions “more effectively” — with funding and technical and surgical support.1
Family Planning Success?
Greenwood also claimed that “Everyone agrees that the policy of coerced abortion is an abomination.” Everyone, that is, but the UNFPA, which regards coercive abortion in China as a success: “For all the bad press, China has achieved the impossible .… The country has solved its population problem,” a prominent UNFPA official in Beijing claimed. “China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favor.”2
Greenwood also seems to have forgotten that UNFPA has supported China’s coercive population program for decades. Nafis Sadik, UNFPA’s former Executive Director from 1987–2000, stated that “I have had the honor of being associated with China’s reproductive health and family planning programme for more than two decades, I was instrumental in initiating UNFPA’s cooperation with China in 1979 .… I also feel proud that UNFPA made the wise decision to resist external pressures and continued its fruitful cooperation with China.”3
Indeed, the very intent of Kemp-Kasten also seems to have slipped Greenwood’s mind. Greenwood claims to oppose forced abortion. But Kemp-Kasten prohibits U.S. funding of organizations that support coercive abortion in any way, directly or indirectly.
The Crowley amendment that Greenwood defended would have done away with all this, as the Bush administration noted: “[The Amendment] includes a certification that could imply that UNFPA funds may be used for indirect financial or material support to programs supporting coercive abortion. It is inconsistent with the Administration’s family planning policy, and the President will veto the bill if it is presented to him with such a provision.”4
Thanks to many, including Congressman Greenwood who forgot to vote, the Crowley amendment went down to defeat.
Steven W. Mosher
Endnotes
1 http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/UNFPA/unfpadecision.pdf; “Analysis of Determination that Kemp-Kasten Amendment Precludes Further Funding to UNFPA under Pub. L. 107–115,” Attachment to letter from Colin Powell, The Secretary of State to Sen. Patrick L. Leahy, Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on Appropriations, July 21, 2002.
2 Time-Asia, August 29, 2001, http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,068514,00.html; 10/11/99 Agence France-Presse.
3 Nafis Sadik, UNFPA Executive Director 1987–200, accepting the “International Cooperation Honorary Prize,” from the Chinese Government on January 12, 2002; official State Family Planning Commission of china web site, January 12, 2002; http://www.sfpc.gov.en/EN/enews20020114-2.htm.
4 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy: HR 1950 — Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2004–2005, July 15, 2003.
