The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) does not appear satisfied with the speed at which its goals are being attained world-wide, judging by the recommendations for action suggested in its latest publication, “The Human Right to Family Planning,” (November, 1983).
Perhaps the most disturbing statement in their report is the recommendation that “family planning” associations “should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavourable law as an excuse for inaction.” “Action outside the law, and even in violation of its,” the recommendation states, “is part of the process of stimulating change.” Interesting enough, the reports’ authors place this statement under the heading, “Legal support for the right to family planning.”
The report points out that the “legal right to family planning…might prohibit interference with one’s freedom of choice by others, such as one’s spouse, a church or government.” In addition, it suggests that the law might protect “the freedom of choice of some groups such as legal minors.” In other words, the goal is for total and absolute freedom of the individual in such matters.
The fact that IPPF is concerned with the rights of minors is not news; their standing policy is merely confirmed and strengthened in this document. Adolescents (the 10-19 age group) are to be given the same rights as adults of access to “fertility regulation information and services.”
Fertility regulation
In the section dealing with young people’s rights, the report consistently refers to “fertility regulation,” instead of “family planning.” No doubt even IPPF sees the absurdity of trying to imply that adolescents are primarily concerned with planning their families (they are, after all, talking about an age group that includes those under the age of consent for matrimony). The term “fertility regulation” implies the individual’s right to a certain behaviour without having to worry about the natural consequences of that behaviour.
Marriage is not considered a prerequisite for obtaining fertility regulation services by the IPPF. Neither is age. However, the report’s authors do note that “public opinion is hostile to the provision of services to adolescents.” They cite both “social disapproval of out-of-wedlock pregnancies” and tolerance of sexual promiscuity of young men as factors which “impinge on the sexual behaviour of young people…”
IPPF counselors are warned not to make “moral judgments” on adolescent sexual behaviour, and affiliates are urged to “make efforts to change the attitudes of opinion leaders at policy-making, community, family and service delivery levels” to eradicate barriers to “services” for adolescents.
On such barrier is the parental consent that is necessary for minors wanting contraceptives. IPPF sees this as discrimination against girls, because female contraceptives require medical supervision while boys can buy condoms over the drug store counter. The right of adolescents to privacy and confidentiality is paramount to the IPPF view. In other words, parents should not mind their kids’ business.
Exactly what can be included as “fertility regulation?” Contraception methods are not discussed or evaluated. The one reference to cases where “religious adherence” gives “a preference for periodic abstinence” may imply tacit recognition of the use of Natural Family Planning.
“Nevertheless,” the report continues, “IPPF has a responsibility to provide information on more effective alternatives.”
IPPF here reiterates its long-held views that NFP is unreliable – a contention that is consistently disproved by the work of Mother Teresa, to give just one example. Mother Teresa and her sisters have taught NFP successfully to thousands of couples I the Third World. Opposition to NFP comes, in part, from those who cannot believe that such a simple, non-hazardous way of spacing children is effective, and in part, from those who do not want any interference with the “spontaneity” of their “lovemaking.”
The report’s authors acknowledge the fact that some contraceptive methods are hazardous to health. However, concern is expressed only in the context that “unmarried minors” should be protected if “long-term effects of these methods on fertility are not yet know with certainty.” Presumably, adult women are not at risk from long-term effects. Counselors are urged to ensure that people make “a personal, informed choice of methods,” yet pro-contraceptive supporters usually dismiss as irrelevant or inaccurate the information that some contraceptive methods are abortifacient (that is, some methods do not prevent conception, they abort.)
Abortion, bit by bit
Abortion is included as “a method of fertility regulation.” The report urges a “flexible approach” be adopted if it is prohibited by law or lack of accessibility “while frankly acknowledging that this is a violation of the right of access” (our emphasis). The need for a “flexible” (or, perhaps, a covert) approach is rationalized as follows:
…if pursuit of the right of access to abortion is in danger of threatening other parts of the family planning programme, particularly in its early states, by bringing it under attack and endangering its continuity, it would be preferable to keep the overall gains in balance. In such situations FPAs (Family Planning Associations) may have to adopt a gradual approach to promoting full choice of fertility regulation methods but should be prepared to acknowledge that this is a temporary expedient.
The “gradual approach” is the strategy adopted by the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. This IPPF affiliate consistently declares that it works to “promote contraception and education and thereby reduces the need for abortion.” (quoted from a May 15, 1985, letter to parliamentarians signed by David Moores, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada.) Nevertheless, the Federation endorses a right to abortion. This was recently confirmed by Margaret Fern, executive director of Planned Parenthood Saskatchewan.
Appearing before the parliamentary sub-committee on Equality Rights on June 13, Ms. Fern said this:
on the question of abortion…I intended certainly to include abortion or the right of access to abortion in terms of freedom of one’s own body in terms of reproductive health.
Ms. Fern asked that abortion be removed from the Criminal Code, and requested greater accessibility to abortion across Canada. She said that the result of removing abortion form the Criminal Code would be “free-standing clinics across Canada.” One may infer, then, that her organization approves of such clinics.
Appropriate education at all age levels is a major concern expressed by IPPF in “The Human Right to Family Planning.”
The kind of education proposed goes far beyond simple biological factors about sexuality and reproduction and information on contraceptive methods. The “right to family planning” is closely linked to human rights in general. For example:
Young people’s decisions about marriage and parenthood are directly affected by their access to other rights, particularly the rights to education and jobs. A specially vulnerable group of young people is out-of-school youth. The absence of opportunities for education and gainful employment often leads them to early marriage and parenthood.
The implication here, that young people marry and have children merely because there is nothing better to do (or because they know no better), is surely condescending and patronizing to youth world-wide.
“Family planning rights are tightly interwoven with women’s rights.” Unless women have a real choice in regard to childbearing, their ability to enjoy their other rights will be limited,” the report states. It continues, “Similarly, they are less likely to take advantage of their right to control their own fertility if they are denied opportunities to have meaningful alternative roles to continual childbearing.” Here again, the report’s authors exhibit the same condescending attitude to women as they do to young people.
Pressure
One method suggested by IPPF to achieve universal “family planning” rights is to bring pressure to bear on governments who have ratified international treaties and conventions. The convention most suitable for this purpose is the U.N. “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,” which has been by many countries – including Canada. (For background information of this Convention see The Interim May and July/August, 1985 issues.) In an appendix to the report, Rebecca Cook lists a number of strategies tat Planned Parenthood affiliates can use to pressure governments through Convention articles.
IPPF is aware that there is formidable opposition to its views of world population. A section of the report is devoted to “overcoming opposition.” The opposition groups are divided into six categories: those who oppose “family planning as a basic human rights,” those who attack the basic premise through opposition to one method or to a group of methods, those who oppose particular methods for safety reasons or for “religious reasons,” and those “actively or passively opposed” through ignorance or because of political expediency of ideology. The solution they propose is this:
Some of this opposition can be overcome by education or by finding common ground and forging links with various groups; some can be counteracted only by exposing and discrediting the group responsible. (our emphasis)
Pro-life groups are seen as particularly threatening to IPPF goals and are discussed after the groups mentioned above. The report says the following:
Some groups which opposed to abortion and to family planning have formed themselves into an international network and are aligning themselves with religious movements and building on the fertile ground of disquiet, in some societies, about the rapidity of social change. These groups call themselves “pro-life” and gain unjustified credibility by the use of this term.
IPPF and FPA should recognize that it is a mistake to enter into debates on questions of morality. The approach should be to insist on free and informed choice. The term ‘pro-life’ as a description of anti-abortionists should not be used by IPPF, as the Federation and its members also stand in favour of life.
An accurate description.
Interestingly enough, if you turn paragraph one around and rewrite it from the pro-abortion view (some groups which approve abortion…these groups call themselves ‘pro-choice,’…etc) you find an accurate description of IPPF itself. In the second paragraph IPPF acknowledges that it does not stand a chance of winning the abortion debate in terms of morality. IPPF never did have the oral high ground in this issue – and it knows it.
Official?
IPPF’s November, 1983, report is the result of the discussions of a “Working Group” made up of seven people, including Faye Wattleton, head of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In a formal forward, IPPF states that “it is recognized that on some of these issues, the Group has taken a position which is at variance with IPPF’s present policies and those of some of its member family planning associations.” It goes on to say “the views expressed…do not necessarily reflect the policies of the Federation.” Neither IPPF itself nor the working group define exactly which policies” are not reflected.
In spite of this official disclaimer for responsibility, the report is strongly recommended in an IPPF publicity brochure which states it is “of considerable interest and importance and underlines IPPF’s commitment to the promotion and exercise of family planning as a basic human right.”
The Interim contacted the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada and asked the director, Mrs. Wilson, if she was aware of the report. She told us that she knew of the report and pointed out that it was merely the product of a “working group.” It has not, she said, been formally presented to them for consideration as official policy. Mrs. Wilson said that Planned Parenthood Canada has no position at all on the report.
