Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120360985
label
Population
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120360985
contentType
document
title
Population
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120360985
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg2-042-012-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
75e04b14fc3145b9
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
4299
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Population
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
7
1
3
Briefing Paper
on
Population
July 1992
I. The Problem
The 1990's represent the most critical decade in the
history of population growth since it is what we do in the
very near term, including the U.S. government's response,
which will largely determine whether world population
stabilizes at slightly less than double the current 5.4
billion or eventually triples. (For many of the world's
poorest countries, this latter scenario implies a six-fold
increase in population over the next century.) The two
scenarios have important implications for broad U.S.
national interests, including efforts to alleviate world
poverty, promote peaceful democratic change, and protect the
global environment.
Of the 25 largest countries which account for over 80
percent of world population growth, the United States is
virtually the only country without a national population
policy. Because of high U.S. consumption levels, continued
U.S. population growth has substantial impact on the global
environment. Because of inadequate birth control
information and services, half of all pregnancies in the
United States are unplanned.
II. History
Fortunately, after some 25 years of experience in
domestic and international family planning programs we now
know how to bring about the transition to smaller families
quickly and cost-effectively. The problems are not
essentially technical, they are political. Although it is
generally recognized that many factors can indirectly
influence family size omost particularly the role and
status of women, better health care and the availability of
economic opportunities for the poor Orecent experience
demonstrates that good quality subsidized family planning
programs, by themselves, can produce very rapid changes in
reproductive behavior. This is because they give low-income
women and their partners in the United States, as well as
overseas, the same reproductive choices that have been
available to middle and upper-income women since the 1960's
revolution in birth control technology.
Over the last 25 years, almost 30 developing countries
have reduced average family size by half or more In most
parts of the world, young women today say they only want two
or three children. This is true even in very poor
countries, like Bangladesh, where the status of women is
very low. In response to concerns about population growth,
and growing grassroots demand for smaller families, over 120
governments now subsidize family planning services.
III. Recent Developments
The major political obstacles to early world population
stabilization are no longer in the developing world, but
rather in Washington, D.C., where Presidents Reagan and Bush
have sacrificed long-standing U.S. leadership on population
and family planning efforts to domestic abortion politics.
In August 1984, at the International Conference on
Population in Mexico City, an American delegation led by
anti-abortion activist James Buckley announced, in essence,
that the U.S. government no longer considered population
growth an important world problem, and that the U.S.
government found abortion so abhorrent that Americans would
no longer support family planning programs in which abortion
played any part.
Repeated attempts by the Reagan and Bush
administrations to abolish categorical funding for domestic
and international family planning programs have been foiled
by Congress. But since 1980, funding for the domestic
family planning program (Title X of the Public Health
Services Act) has declined by two-thirds in inflation-
adjusted dollars. Funding for international family planning
programs through the foreign aid program is, in real dollar
terms, below levels provided 20 years ago.
Moreover, family planning programs have been seriously
hampered by additional abortion restrictions, such as the
"gag rule," and important organizations targeted by the
anti-abortion rights lobby have been defunded. In December
1984, the Reagan administration ended 17 years of U.S.
support for the International Planned Parenthood Federation
(IPPF), the largest non-governmental organization in the
world after the Red Cross. IPPF refused to defund its
national affiliates involved in abortion services or
counseling as required by the administration's new Mexico
City policy. In early 1986, the Reagan administration also
withdrew $36 million in U.S. support for the United Nations
Population Fund, allegedly over the Fund's support of family
planning projects in the People's Republic of China. In
November 1989, President Bush vetoed the entire $14 billion
foreign aid appropriation over a $15 million congressional
earmark for the U.N. Population Fund.
IV. Major Predictable Events
The House of Representatives has already passed a
foreign aid appropriation for fiscal year 1993, which
contains a $20 million earmark for the U.N. Population Fund
and an $80 million increase in the line item budget for U.S.
population assistance. The Senate Appropriations Committee
is expected to include identical provisions in its version
of the bill, to be marked-up in September. In addition,
Senator Lautenberg will offer an amendment in committee to
reverse the Mexico City policy. Similar provisions have
passed both the Senate and the House in recent years. It is
thus probable that President Bush will again this fall face
the prospect of vetoing another foreign aid bill over
provisions relating to international population programs.
For current status, contact Sharon Camp, Population Crisis
Committee (202) 659-1833.
Over the next several months, Congress will consider
more than a half dozen bills dealing in whole or in part
with domestic family planning or abortion issues. They
include: The Freedom of Choice Act, to codify Roe V. Wade;
the re-authorization for domestic Title X family planning
programs, which will include a reversal of the "gag rule;"
the re-authorization for NIH which deals with the
controversial fetal tissue research issue; the Labor/HHS
appropriation which will involve a Medicaid abortion fight
and may become another vehicle for gag rule provisions; and
abortion provisions in the Defense, District of Colombia and
State/Justice/Commerce (Legal Aid) appropriations.
President Bush has vetoed or threatened to veto all these
bills. Veto override efforts are expected to fail. For
current status, contact Bill Hamilton, Planned Parenthood
(202) 785-3351.
V. Key Issues
1. Funding for International Population Programs:
A broad coalition of public interest groups is urging
Congress to earmark $650 million for population
assistance in FY 1993. The increase represents the
appropriate U. S. share of additional funds needed from
donor countries to provide family planning services to
the estimated 125 million couples whom surveys indicate
want help to have smaller families, but have no access to
modern contraception. The Bush administration has
requested last year's level of $250 million, not
including possible allocations from other accounts, but
has also again asked Congress to eliminate any specific
earmark for population programs.
2. Funding for Domestic (Title X) Family Planning and
Contraceptive Research:
Family planning organizations believe an appropriation of
$320 million is needed to restore programs to their pre-
1980 levels of coverage, double the current $155 million.
The administration opposes increased funding and seeks to
roll categorical family planning programs into a block
health grant to the states. Family planning advocates
also seek $200 million for the Center for Population
Research at the National Institute for Child Health and
Human Development.
3. The Mexico City Policy:
Family planning groups seek to overturn the Reagan era
3
policy which makes overseas family planning groups
ineligible for U.S. government assistance if they use
their own funds to provide abortion services, counseling,
or referrals. The Bush administration threatens to veto
any legislation overturning the Mexico City policy or
refunding the U.N. Population Fund.
4
4. U.S. Participation in the United Nations Population
Fund:
The U.S. government last contributed to the Fund in 1985,
providing $36 million of a $46 million contribution
mandated by Congress. The Bush administration claims
that the Fund supports a program of coercive abortion in
China. Ironically the Bush administration supports Most-
Favored-Nation Status for China, despite Congressional
concerns about a variety of other human rights abuses.
5. Domestic Abortion Restrictions:
Through a series of legislative initiatives (see list
above under Major Predictable Events) pro-choice
supporters in Congress are seeking to ensure continued
access to safe abortion for American women and to modify
specific restrictions on federal funding for abortion.
The President appears unwilling to seek compromise on any
of these legislative initiatives.
6. FDA Ban on the French Mini-Abortion Pill:
Advocates of the new French mini-abortion pill have
received considerable publicity for their challenge to
the FDA's controversial ban on importation of the pill
for personal use under medical supervision .oa decision
taken under pressure from anti-abortion leaders in
Congress. The pill's French manufacturer says the firm
has not sought marketing approval in the United States in
large part because of the U.S. Government's restrictive
stand on abortion. Over 100,000 French and British women
have used the mini-abortion pill. The Chinese will soon
have an almost identical product on the market, and other
products and approvals are in the pipeline around the
world.
VI. Administration Policy
As a congressman in the late 1960s, George Bush was one
of the principal sponsors of legislation establishing
domestic and international family planning programs. He
continued to be supportive until the early 1980's, when
intense lobbying of the White House by anti-abortion groups
precipitated the first of a series of public battles over
population and family planning programs. Although members
of the Bush administration occasionally hint that small
changes in Reagan era policies might be possible, anti-
abortion groups have effectively blocked any compromise.
There have also been attempts to draft strong Presidential
statements on world population issues, with disappointing
results. The administration's official line expresses mild
support for family planning as a family health measure and
as a means of reducing reliance on abortion for birth
control.
5
VII. Questions and Answers
1.
Q.
In recent years, the United States government has
provided over 40 percent of foreign aid for family
planning worldwide. Doesn't this prove the Bush
administration strongly supports international
population and family planning efforts?
A. No. Congress, not the Bush administration deserves
the credit for current levels of U.S. population
assistance. Congress has had to "force feed" the
administration to ensure continued support for these
programs. Congress has annually earmarked population
program funds, usually over the administration's
objections. The administration has consistently sought
to reduce the budget for U.S. population aid.
2. Q. The U.S. government does more than its share. Isn't
it time other donor governments did their share?
A. A number of other countries are already doing more
than the United States, relative to their size and
wealth. Norway gives over $10 per person to world
population efforts, compared to just over $1 per person
from the United States. Canada, Denmark, Finland, the
Netherlands, and Sweden also give more per capita. The
United States used to be near the top of this list.
3. Q. Since abortion is illegal in most countries which
receive U.S. foreign aid, how can the administration's
Mexico City policy be a real problem? Some 300 foreign
organizations have willingly accepted the abortion
restrictions as a condition of U.S. assistance. We
need to separate abortion from family planning.
A. Over 67 countries eligible for U.S. foreign aid allow
abortion for medical or other conditions not permitted
under the Mexico City policy. Most family planning
groups would like the policy overturned, including
those who have complied, in order to keep the doors of
their family planning clinics open. Family planning
services for millions of very poor women are at stake.
Five of the most important agencies took the government
to court in a failed attempt to block the policy's
implementation.
4. Q. Has the administration's policy had any real impact?
There is no evidence that the policy has reduced the
number of abortions around the world, only that it has
made abortion more dangerous. The policy has
undermined the quality of health care for women,
including medical treatment for women with botched
illegal abortions and post-abortion contraceptive
6
counseling. By defunding important family planning
agencies, the Reagan and Bush administrations have also
slowed the spread of family planning services
worldwide. Given the rising world demand for
smaller families, the net result has surely been more
not less abortions.
5. Q. Doesn't China's population program rely on coerced
abortion and sterilization to enforce a one-child
policy? Isn't the administration justified in
defunding the U.N. population program for continuing to
support such abuses?
A. The United Nations Population Fund supports projects
in about 140 countries, including China, which is an
important member of the United Nations. The fund does
not support abortion services or coercive practices in
any country. Its projects in China are designed to
expand maternal and child health care in 300 of China's
poorest countries and to support the local manufacture
of safer, more effective western-style contraceptives.
These efforts are reducing reliance on abortion.
U.S. concerns about human rights abuses in China are
best dealt with directly in the context of U.S.-China
relations, not by denying U.S. support to United
Nations population programs around the world.
6. Q. Why should Americans spend money on family planning
services overseas, when we have so many pressing needs
at home?
A. Few global problems affect American interests as
broadly as uncontrolled world population growth.
Virtually all of the developing countries in which the
United States has some vital economic, environmental,
or security interest suffer from unmanageable
population pressures: e.g., Mexico, Panama, Brazil,
Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the
Philippines. Population growth undermines efforts to
alleviate world poverty and expand international
markets for U.S. products. It increases dependence on
U.S. humanitarian aid and contributes to rising
pressures on U.S. borders from political and economic
refugees. Perhaps most importantly, human population
growth aggravates a wide range of environmental
problems, such as deforestation, global climate change,
the loss of plant and animal species, soil erosion,
water scarcity, and air and water pollution. A
doubling of world population over the next 50 to 100
years will make it difficult to solve most of these
problems even with major efforts at conservation. A
tripling of human population othe probable result of
currently inadequate efforts to deal with rapid
population growth Owould be an environmental disaster.
7