"They’ve pushed policies that increase abortion in the past."

"They," here, refers to "pro-life leaders" and this was argued by a pro-choice liberal blogger who's gone around this horn with me personally twice: first on someone else's blog in February 2004, and then four months later, this blogger seemed to ignore all I'd just pointed out by repeating his defense of UNFPA getting more millions to do not much good in China.

A slightly modified case was being made this time—successfully—that population Research Institute (PRI) had put forth unsubstantiated accounts of the state of abortion and gender selection in China as related to the UNFPA's policing/monitoring of the problem over several years.

I replied that I didn't support PRI’s account (it was proven to be full of holes in some instances). But in answer to the selective quoting done by both the UNFPA and those supporting them, I re-highlighted points I'd highlighted in early 2004, which were either ignored or forgotten completely in this subsequent repeat of the argument.

I was informed that I was just "pull[ing quotes]" to support my conclusions: yet he did that very thing in his June 2004 post. To counterbalance the biased blogging, not to try to pull wool over anyone's eyes, the quotes I'd chosen were the ones that many pro-choice people have ignored or forgotten, intentionally or otherwise.

There are actually three government reports on the subject.

1. The US Department of State’s "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2000, China, Released February 2001 by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, did say that it was too early to make final or complete assessments. While everyone seems to know and often quote the several references to the Chinese government's having "made it a principle to ban coercion at any level," allow me to highlight--for the counterbalance--what you never heard from the MSM about other parts of this report:

"Central government policy formally prohibits the use of force to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization; however, intense pressure to meet family planning targets set by the Government has resulted in documented instances in which family planning officials have used coercion, including forced abortion and sterilization, to meet government, goals...

"According to a senior family planning official, 10 million persons are sterilized each year and not all voluntarily...

"Corruption related to family planning fines is a widespread problem. In 1999 the press reported that one city in Henan Province had punished 879 Party members and government officials for corruption in family planning...

"According to one credible report in 1998, there have been instances in which women in reeducation-through-labor camps found to be pregnant while serving sentences were forced to submit to abortions (see Section 1.f.)....

"According to the State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) 1996 Family Planning Manual, over 24 million fines were assessed between 1985 and 1993 for children born outside family planning rules. In Quanzhou, Fujian Province, the fine for violating birth quotas is three times a couple's annual salary, to be paid over a 12 to 13 year period. In Shanghai the fine is also three times the combined annual salary of the parents...According to Guizhou provincial family planning regulations published in July 1998, families who exceed birth quotas are to be fined two to five times the per capita annual income of residents of their local area. The regulations also stipulate that government employees in Guizhou who have too many children face the loss of their jobs. In many provinces, penalties for excess births in an area also can be levied against local officials and the mother's work unit, thus creating multiple sources of pressure. In Guizhou, for example, regulations state that officials in an area in which birth targets are not met cannot be promoted in that year. Unpaid fines sometimes have resulted in confiscation or destruction of homes and personal property by local authorities. In June 1999 Anhui Province promulgated amended family planning rules that stated that each couple 'is encouraged' to have only one child, that second births are 'strictly controlled,' and that 'unplanned births are forbidden.'...In addition the rules state that 'unplanned pregnancies must be aborted immediately.' [emphasis mine]

"Some counties [in UNFPA's 4-year pilot project begun in 1998 to stop such coercion in 32 counties] have made appreciable progress in implementing the program, while others have made relatively little..."

2. Then came the later report: the "Report of the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independent Assessment Team, by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Released May 29, 2002" that I'd highlighted the February before.

It is worthwhile for those using this May 29, 2002 State Department Letter in order to prove UNFPA’s efficacy to read it again. What it actually said is quite different than what is being claimed it said. It said, verbatim,

“We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. First Recommendation: We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA. [that means “no further money”] Second Finding: We find that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population programs of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] retain coercive elements in law and in practice. [meaning, “all of PRC’s programs still have some coercion”] Second Recommendation: We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.” …Third Recommendation: We therefore recommend that appropriate resources be allocated to monitor and evaluate PRC population control programs…[meaning, “not to fund their activities”]…UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively. China’s control of its own population ranks high on the PRC’s list of issues of national security concern. China’s population control programs, therefore, should be high on the U.S. list of national security concerns.” [emphases mine]

The May 29, 2002 report also said,

“In sum, based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices. However, from our perspective, UNFPA’s Beijing office lacks adequate resources to monitor and evaluate this important issue satisfactorily.” [emphasis mine]

Not exactly an absolution or clean bill of operation for UNFPA, or at least, their primary, Beijing office.

That report went on:

“During our meetings with local State Family Planning Commission (SFPC), Ministry of Health officials and magistrates, while admitting that coercive practices had taken place in the past, they denied that coercive abortions, involuntary sterilization, or indeed any other coercive practices were taking place in their jurisdictions. As previously noted, they denied that the social compensation fees (or "society raising children fees") were coercive or that they were a significant source of revenue for the counties… The fact remains, however, that on the books these fees for the first "out of plan" child are often set at two to three times the couple’s annual salary for the previous year, a level which for many must be so punitive as to be, in our view, coercive.”

The findings did say that the abuses reported in this particular finding took place outside the 32 counties in which UNFPA operates, yet pro-choice advocates dismissed the fact that “UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively.” If it is unable to monitor its own 32 counties, the fact-finders didn’t have enough data to prove one way or the other that it was doing its job right. For that reason, UNFPA didn’t deserve any more funding until it can do so, and that is what the report meant. I honestly don’t believe anyone wants our taxpayer money to fund any program that can’t monitor its own worth and effectiveness. I certainly don’t.

Lastly, devil’s advocacy must state the obvious: “no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated” clearly does not rule out “but it looked the other way,” or even “was unaware of” or “was unable to monitor”, nor is it the same as “did the best it could with the gross limitations of the Chinese obstructionist officials” or whatever. And this has just been paraphrased by Kelly Ryan, deputy assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, in that AP report issued June 22, 2005.

3. The third government report, the 2002 Human Rights Report-China, Released March 31, 2003, contains findings that do indeed point to failures by UNFPA in their own 32 counties. Keep in mind: that first report in 2000 stated that in 1998 the UNFPA had begun a 4-year pilot project in those counties to stop the coercion. At the point of this third report, this pilot has almost run its full, four-year course now, regardless of the 2002 law just enacted in China and discussed below:

“The Government's human rights record throughout the year remained poor, and the Government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses…The Government continued to implement its coercive policy of restricting the number of children a family could have. ..Violence against women (including imposition of a birth limitation policy coercive in nature that resulted in instances of forced abortion and forced sterilization), prostitution, discrimination against women, abuse of children, and discrimination against persons with disabilities and minorities all were problems…The Government codified its comprehensive birth planning policies, which include coercive elements intended to limit births. [emphases mine]

“The new Population and Family Planning Law, the country's first formal law on this subject, entered into force on September 1, 2002…The law grants married couples the right to have a single child and allows eligible couples to apply for permission to have a second child if they meet conditions stipulated in local and provincial regulations…The law requires couples who have an unapproved child to pay a 'social compensation fee'…The country's population control policy relied on education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning workers who reminded the parents of their potential liability to pay the social compensation fees. The fees were assessed at widely varying levels and were generally extremely high, sometimes equaling several years' wages for an average worker. Additional disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another to do so included the withholding of social services, higher tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion opportunity for 1 or more years, expulsion from the Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of property. Government employees were particularly vulnerable to loss of employment when they had a child without permission. In many provinces, penalties for excess births in an area also can be levied against local officials and the mother's work unit, creating multiple sources of pressure. These Draconian penalties sometimes left expecting mothers with little choice but to undergo abortion or sterilization.” [emphases mine]

The report goes on:

“Senior officials stated repeatedly that the Government ‘made it a principle to ban coercion at any level,’ and the [Chinese government’s] State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) has issued circulars nationwide prohibiting birth planning officials from coercing women to undergo abortions or sterilization against their will. However, the Government does not consider social compensation fees and other administrative punishments to be coercive.

“Corruption related to social compensation fees was a widespread problem. In response, State Council Decree 357 established during the year that collected ‘social compensation fees’ must be submitted directly to the National Treasury, rather than retained by local birth planning authorities. During the year, SFPC officials reported that they responded to more than 10,000 complaints against local officials.” [emphases mine]

Do you get the feeling you’ve read this before? The corruption and coercive practices noted in the first report occurring between 1997 and 2000 are still being reported in 2002. And to go from one city in Henan Province punishing 879 officials for corruption in 1999, to having 10,000 corruption complaints in 2002 means it’s either being reported more accurately or it’s getting worse under UNFPA’s watch. But it’s not being stopped substantially.

Here are some other telling but déjà vu quotes:

“Existing regulations requiring sterilization in certain cases, or mandatory abortion, are not contradicted by the new [2002 Population and Family Planning] law…

“Central Government policy formally prohibits the use of physical coercion to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization. However, intense pressure to meet birth limitation targets set by government regulations has resulted in instances in which local birth planning officials reportedly have used physical coercion to meet government goals. Because it is illegal, the use of physical coercion was difficult to document, even for government authorities. Still, it was believed that some isolated incidences may persist, even as the frequency of such cases was believed to be declining.”

Thankfully, some good news. Still, “local birth planning officials” are the ones UNFPA supposedly is/was “work[ing] closely with:”

“From 1998 through 2002, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) conducted a 4-year pilot project in 32 counties…The SFPC worked closely with the UNFPA to prepare informational materials and to provide training for officials and the general public in the project counties. However, these counties retained the birth limitation policy, including the requirement that couples employ effective birth control methods, and enforced it through other means, such as social compensation fees.[ emphasis mine]

“Laws and regulations forbid the termination of pregnancies based on the sex of the fetus, but because of the intersection of birth limitations with the traditional preference for male children, particularly in rural areas, many families used ultrasound technology to identify female fetuses and terminate pregnancies (see Section 5). The use of ultrasound for this purpose is prohibited specifically by the Population Law and by the Maternal and Child Health Care Law, both of which mandate punishment of medical practitioners who violate the provision. According to the SFPC, a few doctors have been charged under these laws. However, enforcement of this provision has been rare.”

Again, it sounds like a broken record.

Enforcement of this provision, like many of the other provisions, has been rare. It is the Chinese officials’ job to enforce. But why don’t liberal UNFPA supporters inform their readers of all those findings? While it clearly isn’t the UNFPA’s responsibility to force China officials to do anything, they certainly are required to successfully monitor and report to the U.N. when human rights violations of forced abortions and coercion occur. In 2002, the UNFPA was found to be “unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively” after four years of being responsible for that, and they again were found unable to limit the coercive policies a year later.

Yet to support their case, the media and UNFPA supporters also look to the September 2003 delegation to China of “religious” leaders who support abortion, including the incongruously-named “Catholics for Choice,” and to a report by UNFPA’s own managing board. Neither is exactly a neutral entity, one on the issue of abortion and the second on the issue of its own performance.

While I wholeheartedly agreed that PRI was faulty and misleading in some of its research, reporting, bias, use of prejudiced sources and possibly some of its conclusions (which is why I stopped quoting them or relying solely on only-prolife sources and instead try to find neutral sources), many pro-choice/UNFPA advocates sadly remain guilty of the very things of which they accuse PRI.

UNFPA supporters also defend them by saying this about the situation to which UNFPA had “given their seal of approval”,

"...things are not perfect in China - not even in the 32 counties the UNFPA operates in. However, demanding perfection is illogical, because that's not how things improve in the real world."

Firstly, I never demanded perfection, but after 4 or 5 years and several tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, I think it not unreasonable to expect major improvement and accountability.

Secondly, that line works for them when they want to support something, but (and I don't subscribe to this, just making the point) one could say the exact same thing about the situation that, though first reported a year ago, cropped up in the blogosphere again regarding the atrocities of worker abuses in Saipan. While I agreed that if that was true of Saipan then it is abhorrent and U.S. politicians had better not only shut their mouths but issue retractions and actions to end such horrific practice, I also objected to the transparent double standard regarding “excuses made” for the pro-abortion, pro-coercion UNFPA.