Skip to main content

The UN's new "State of World Population" report

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) recently released its 2012 "State of World Population" report. Consistent with decades of evidence, it reaffirms and emphasizes that family planning-- the ability of a family to control the number and timing of the children it has-- is fundamental to the economic vitality, development, and stability of a society.

Narrowly conceived, "family planning" is control over pregnancy-- i.e., access to and use of effective contraceptives. As the report notes, however, family planning is only one of a "broad range of services [that] must be provided to ensure sexual and reproductive health":

  • primary care as well as antenatal care, safe delivery and post-natal care;
  • prevention and appropriate treatment of infertility;
  • management of the consequences of unsafe abortion;
  • treatment of reproductive tract infections;
  • prevention, care and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS;
  • information, education and counseling on human sexuality and reproductive health;
  • prevention and surveillance of violence against women and care for survivors of violence; and
  • other actions to eliminate traditional harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation/cutting.

A key but tricky variable in enhancing a society's sexual and reproductive health is gender equality. It is difficult to have effective family planning, etc., without some movement toward gender equality within a given society, yet emerging gender equality is more likely to occur with improved family planning. It is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem: gender equality and sexual/reproductive health positively reinforce one another, but which comes first? 

The answer of the international family planning movement appears to be family planning, led by governments and international organizations. They have the resources to improve the quality of the "services" listed above; the material benefits those services provide then lead to cultural changes regarding gender. 

The debate in the United States operates on a slightly different plane. Perhaps because the U.S. is such a wealthy country and gender equality is in a relatively advanced stage, American public discourse focuses on the ideological implications on things like contraceptive mandates and its threat to political and religious freedoms. 

In poor, economically underdeveloped countries where gender inequality is high, issues of sexual and reproductive health are thrown into stark relief. Rush Limbaugh can advise Sandra Fluke to pay for her own contraceptives, thank you very much, but in many societies achieving the most basic benefits of family planning is impossible without the assistance and intervention of governments and international organizations.

In reality, the overall wealth and progressiveness of the United States can mask the real and serious family planning problems that exist for many American women and families. In addition, it can cause us to evaluate the family planning needs of developing countries in a wholly unrealistic way. 

If you want a quick, readable, and eye-opening basic education in family planning, I recommend this report. I also recommend Michelle Goldberg's insightful and enjoyable book on international family planning, The Means of Reproduction One of the many virtues of Goldberg's book is that, in addition to examining the experience of developing countries, she also examines the varying successes and challenges of several European countries. If more Americans read works like these, we might have different policies regarding family planning-- internationally and domestically.

Links:

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) report (November 14, 2012): The State of World Population 2012

At Amazon.com: The Means of Reproduction, by Michelle Goldberg

Article in The Guardian (November 14, 2012): Family planning must be development priority, says UNFPA report 

Article in the New York Daily News (November 14, 2012): Contraception could save world $5.7 billion, says UN report

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, Pres