In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Mr. Bush, This Is Pro-Life?

kristof

ZINDER, Niger

When I walked into the maternity hospital here, I wished that President Bush were with me.

A 37-year-old woman was lying on a stretcher, groaning from labor pains and wracked by convulsions. She was losing her eyesight and seemed about to slip into a coma from eclampsia, a complication of pregnancy that kills 50,000 women a year in the developing world. Beneath her, cockroaches skittered across the floor.

“We’re just calling for her husband,” said Dr. Obende Kayode, an obstetrician. “When he provides the drugs and surgical materials, we can do the operation,” a Caesarean section.

Dr. Kayode explained that before any surgery can begin, the patient or family members must pay $42 for a surgical kit with bandages, surgical thread and antibiotics.

In this case, the woman – a mother of six named Ramatou Issoufou – was lucky. Her husband was able to round up the sum quickly, without having to sell any goats. Moreover, this maternity hospital had been equipped by the U.N. Population Fund – and that’s why I wished Mr. Bush were with me. Last month, Mr. Bush again withheld all U.S. funds from the U.N. Population Fund.

The Population Fund promotes modern contraception, which is practiced by only 4 percent of women in Niger, and safe childbirth. But it has the money to assist only a few areas of Niger, and Mrs. Issoufou was blessed to live in one of them.

Nurses wheeled her into the operating theater, scrubbed her belly and administered a spinal anesthetic. Then Dr. Kayode cut open her abdomen and reached inside to pull out a healthy 6-pound, 6-ounce boy.

After removing the placenta, Dr. Kayode stitched up Mrs. Issoufou. Her convulsions passed, and it was clear that she and the baby would survive. For all the criticism heaped on the U.N., these were two more lives saved by the U.N. Population Fund – no thanks to the Bush administration.

Even when they don’t die, mothers often suffer horrific childbirth injuries. In the town of Gouré, a 20-year-old woman named Fathi Ali was lying listlessly on a cot, leaking urine. After she was in labor for three days, her mother and her aunt had put her on a camel and led her 40 miles across the desert to a clinic – but midway in the journey the baby was stillborn and she suffered a fistula, an internal injury that leaves her incontinent.

Village women are the least powerful people on earth. That’s why more than 500,000 women die every year worldwide in pregnancy – and why we in the West should focus more aid on preventing such deaths in poor countries.

Mr. Bush and other conservatives have blocked funds for the U.N. Population Fund because they’re concerned about its involvement in China. They’re right to be appalled by forced sterilizations and abortions in China, and they have the best of intentions. But they’re wrong to blame the Population Fund, which has been pushing China to ease the coercion – and in any case the solution isn’t to let African women die. (Two American women have started a wonderful grass-roots organization that seeks to make up for the Bush cuts with private donations; its website is www.34millionfriends.org.)

After watching Dr. Kayode save the life of Mrs. Issoufou and her baby, I was ready to drop out of journalism and sign up for medical school. But places like Niger need not just doctors, but resources.

Pregnant women die constantly here because they can’t afford treatment costing just a few dollars. Sometimes the doctors and nurses reach into their own pockets to help a patient, but they can’t do so every time.

“It depends on the mood,” Dr. Kayode said. “If the [staff] feel they can’t pay out again, then you just wait and watch. And sometimes she dies.”

A few days earlier, a pregnant woman had arrived with a dangerously high blood pressure of 250 over 130; it was her 12th pregnancy. Dr. Kayode prescribed a medicine called Clonidine for the hypertension, but she did not have the $13 to buy it. Nor could she afford $42 for a Caesarean that she needed.

During childbirth, right here in this hospital, she hemorrhaged and bled to death.

Somewhere in the world, a pregnant woman dies like that about once a minute, often leaving a handful of orphans behind. Call me naïve, but I think that if Mr. Bush came here and saw women dying as a consequence of his confused policy, he would relent. This can’t be what he wants – or what America stands for.

It is quite possibly not ok that I just posted that whole article, since it’s Times-Selected. Hopefully the New York Times won’t sue me. I think Kristof’s message is important enough that it needs to be reproduced far and wide.


40 thoughts on Mr. Bush, This Is Pro-Life?

  1. I got an e-mail from a news service called BosNewsLife a couple of weeks ago asking me to remove an article someone had posted in full in my site’s forums (or to buy a subscription). Apparently they have a person who scours the web looking for the “BosNewLife” dateline. I don’t know what the Times does, but they probably won’t bother with anybody outside of the Instapundit league. There was some discussion of this issue at Jane Galt a couple of years ago.

  2. I only wish that seeing this firsthand would change his minda, but sadly he feels the need to pander to his religious base which gives me little hope. Those poor families. Unacceptable policy.

  3. US contribution denied to UNFPA: $34 million. In charitable terms, that’s nothing. They got more than that in diapers for Katrina. Start a private charity, build a website and watch the $ roll in. Target it to the clinics in Africa and leave the controversial Chinese folks out of it, and you can collect ten times that amount in private funds.

  4. Note to a nut: I don’t know if you know this, but you can subscribe to the New York Times for free, yet for some reason they have locked up their op-ed contributors under “Times Select”. At the site truthout.org, they sometimes have the liberal columnists like Dowd and Rich.

  5. So wait — Bush gets no credit for freeing 50 million people, but somebody in Niger gets eclampsia, and that’s his fault (and, judging by the comments of Leslie and Catherine, the fault of devout Christians in general)?

  6. As though only one person has been affected by nixing American dollars from the U.N. Population Fund. Sloppy reading, Jeff.

    And were any of those 50 million people women? Sort-of-freed women, better than nothing, etc.

  7. His policy on international family planning/repro health funding was actually the first thing that outraged me about the Bush admin.

    From what I hear (some from people on the ground) is that the administration’s policies have generally made family planning/repro health work cumbersome, and in some cases ineffective and/or cruel.

    Thanks for posting this. I’ve missed free access to Kristof’s work.

  8. His policy on international family planning/repro health funding was actually the first thing that outraged me about the Bush admin.

    Ditto. If only I’d known it could get this bad.

  9. US contribution denied to UNFPA: $34 million. In charitable terms, that’s nothing. Tlhey got more than that in diapers for Katrina. Start a private charity, build a website and watch the $ roll in.

    Already done. 34 Million Friends of UNFPA has been in existence since 2002.

  10. Lauren,

    Oh, I know. For a long time I felt like watching the Bush admin was this odd roller-coaster process – every time I turned on the news I thought “oh, please, don’t let it get worse.” And then they would low-ball my already low expectations of them. It became demoralizing… I spent some time in Central America around that time and one of the best things about the trip was not hearing the words “George Bush.”

  11. Does anyone wonder why the press didn’t push stories like this during the Clinton administration? I’m guessing it’s not because no Nigerian women suffered pregnancy complications for eight years.

    Also, in the wake of the Oil for Food programs, I think we need a lot more than just blind faith before we can trust the UN with the management of any program through which any significant amount of money passes. If billions of dollars for starving Iraqis ended up furnishing Saddam’s palaces, why should we think that funds for Nigerian women aren’t going to end up lining the pockets of local thugs?

    As has been mentioned above, it seems that this is one area in which liberals are open to embracing a private sector solution. As Robert suggested above, let the “Friends of UNFPA” fill the gap, and everyone’s happy.

  12. Does anyone wonder why the press didn’t push stories like this during the Clinton administration? I’m guessing it’s not because no Nigerian women suffered pregnancy complications for eight years.

    Are we ignoring the Bush administration’s hand in needless suffering around the world, or it is Clinton-hatin’ time?

    As has been mentioned above, it seems that this is one area in which liberals are open to embracing a private sector solution.

    Sure, which would be all fun and good if a) people knew there was a private need in the first place, and b) could be counted upon to contribute consistently and generously. And then you have people like me who want to contribute to a thousand charities but simply cannot.

    Face it: This is about the Bush administration’s problems with maybe, perhaps, possibly contributing funds to abortion. Check and see what he did in his first day in office waybackwhen in 2000.

  13. Sure, which would be all fun and good if a) people knew there was a private need in the first place

    So, spread the word. I’m sure this Friends of UNFPA would welcome a BlogAd from you or something like that.

    b) could be counted upon to contribute consistently and generously.

    In actual dollars, Americans are the most generous in the world in terms of private donations. If this is the cause you want to push, do more to get the word out there. If it’s so important to you, and you trust the UN with the managemet of your money, maybe consider giving up that donation to EMILY’s List next election cycle.

    This is about the Bush administration’s problems with maybe, perhaps, possibly contributing funds to abortion.

    Or, perhaps it’s the American people’s problems with same. The majority of Americans don’t want their tax dollars paying for abortions. Money is fungible, so there’s no way to tell where it’s going after it goes into the big UN pot.

  14. By the way, here’s some of what’s going on in China athat UNFPA claims not countenance:

    The UNFPA argues that it must cooperate with the Chinese government to help improve the reproductive health of Chinese women and children. But as published, China’s newly promulgated State Family Planning Law is a violation of human rights as outlined by the U.N. Charter, UNDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and the Cairo Declaration, to all of which China is a signatory. Each of these documents clearly states that family planning should be the responsibility of individuals.

    Family planning, in the true sense of the term, should be encouraged the way that family planning is universally accepted throughout the international community. Its concept, defined in the World Population Plan of Action as adopted at the United Nations Bucharest Session, is: “All couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so.” In contrast, family planning enforced in China is actually “State-Controlled Mechanized Reproduction of Children”: “Individuals” and “husbands and wives” are replaced with “the state,” and “family planning” becomes “the state decides how many children a family may have, and at spacing in accordance with economic development.”

    Yeah, I’m shocked that the Bush administration isn’t jumping up and down to indirectly fund this. What was that again about being “pro-choice”?

  15. Yeah, I’m shocked that the Bush administration isn’t jumping up and down to indirectly fund this. What was that again about being “pro-choice”?

    Interestingly, the Bush Administration’s own investigation team found no connection between the UNFPA and China’s coercive anti-choice (yes, forced abortion is anti-choice) policies. The UNFPA actively opposes forced abortion in China, as does every other pro-choice group. But Bush cut funds anyway, because of pressure from “pro-life” groups.

  16. Jon, you don’t quote the NRO on family planning unless you want a truly misguided review of family planning policy. Especially regarding China.

    And by the “family planning should be the responsibility of individuals” standard, it’s clear Mr. Bush is in violation himself.

    So, this isn’t about Clinton and liberal media, it’s about this new conservative anti-UN line. I get it now.

  17. So, Jon C, the Bush administration can’t support UNFPA because some countries it works with have policies that aren’t acceptable. Funny how the Bush administration doesn’t seem to apply that standard to its relations with Saudi Arabia. And it certainly isn’t discouraging trade with China or China’s investments to pay for our national debt.

    Regardless, though, of the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, I hope those of who can afford it will support 34 Million Friends and another excellent organization Women for Women International

  18. Don’t you just love how Jon C. the Moving Target keeps on changing the subject?

    If by “Moving Target”, you mean “making various points that are going unrefuted”, then, yes, I’m a moving target.

    Lauren:

    Jon, you don’t quote the NRO on family planning unless you want a truly misguided review of family planning policy.

    The author of the piece is Harry Wu of the Laogai Research Foundation, a pro-human rights NGO that works to promote awareness of human rights abuses in China.

    AndiF:

    Funny how the Bush administration doesn’t seem to apply that standard to its relations with Saudi Arabia. And it certainly isn’t discouraging trade with China or China’s investments to pay for our national debt.

    You won’t see me defending the Bush administration over Saudi Arabia. Discouraging trade with China, however, would only be counterproductive and harm the growth of a pro-freedom Chinese middle class. But that is a whole ‘nother story I won’t get into.

    Jill:

    Interestingly, the Bush Administration’s own investigation team found no connection between the UNFPA and China’s coercive anti-choice (yes, forced abortion is anti-choice) policies

    I don’t know about the results of any investigation. Do you have a link for that? Whether or not it actively assists the Chinese government in carrying out its repressive policy, the UNFPA effectively gives those policies its tacit support. If it didn’t, you’d better believe that China would bounce them out of the country in a heartbeat. Ironically, that might actually be helpful to the UNFPA, since it would remove a major moral objection that many have to funding it.

  19. the administration’s policies have generally made family planning/repro health work cumbersome, and in some cases ineffective and/or cruel

    That’s pretty much the point, it seems — underfund it or hamper it, whenever there’s a slight possibility it violates the “abstinence-only/take your punishment from God” line.

  20. (Two American women have started a wonderful grass-roots organization that seeks to make up for the Bush cuts with private donations; its website is http://www.34millionfriends.org.)

    Best line of the whole piece: no whining, buck up and support it yourself… take your self-righteous anger about the situation and use it to motivate like-minded folks to remedy the problem.

    I believe it was an NPR exec who said women should be lining up to give Clinton hummers for what he did for women while Prez. So apparently that’s why he gets a pass. There is no doubt that no pregnant woman suffered in Niger because he fully funded every possible program to prevent it. Otherwise, feminists would have called for his head… right?

    Kristof writes for the NYT. Therefore, he’s an Nth-level panderer. Take left-wing cause, add right-wing administration, pick global cite(s) where said administration withholds largesse, shake well…

  21. Here’s a press release from Carolyn Maloney, where she mentions the State Department investigation.

    As for the situation under Clinton, feminists did give him hell when he screwed up. At the end of his term when he pushed “welfare reform” through, feminists were protesting outside the White House. But Clinton, by any standard, was far and away better than Bush when it came to family planning policies. And Clinton isn’t president any more; had I been writing this blog 6 years ago, I would go after Clinton when he did stupid things. But now I’m going after the guy in charge.

    Or, perhaps it’s the American people’s problems with same. The majority of Americans don’t want their tax dollars paying for abortions. Money is fungible, so there’s no way to tell where it’s going after it goes into the big UN pot.

    American money doesn’t pay for abortions, ever. It can’t, since an amendment in the 70s. So that’s absolutely not the issue.

    As for what this $34 million means, here it is:

    The UNFPA estimates that the $34 million loss will lead to two million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, and 77,000 infant and child deaths.

    How pro-life is that?

  22. It isn’t until comment 21 that one finds a rational, empathic response to the issues at hand. Don’t bother arguing with John C. He doesn’t think we’re human or deserve control over our own lives. In fact, this is just another argument for him, the import of which escapes him entirely.

    I sure hope no women in his life count on him personally. He’d be utterly useless in a tragic real-life situation.

  23. had I been writing this blog 6 years ago, I would go after Clinton when he did stupid things. But now I’m going after the guy in charge.

    Based on ideology alone, I have no reason to believe this is true. But it sounds good, gives off the impression of evenhandedness.

  24. American money doesn’t pay for abortions, ever. It can’t, since an amendment in the 70s. So that’s absolutely not the issue.

    The Hyde amendment (I think it is) is very nice window-dressing, but economically it doesn’t stop our $ from going to abortions. The only way to do that is not to give money to any organization that is connected to abortion. Money is fungible.

    Another commenter has the right idea; it doesn’t matter whether the UNFPA does what critics say it does or not (I suspect it doesn’t). We shouldn’t be giving them any money because we shouldn’t be giving any money to ANY UN organization. The UN is organized crime for the international set. They are bought and sold by mass murderers. Tip ’em into the Hudson, put our weight behind a democracies-only international body, and be done with it.

  25. Jill: I wish I were as trusting as you when it comes to the dispensing of tax dollars, but somehow I just can’t believe, amendment or no amendment, that money pouring into the UNFPA coffers wouldn’t find its way into the funding of at least some abortions. As I said, money is fungible. There are lots of neat accounting tricks you can pull to make money end up in all sorts of places it’s not suposed to go: Cf., the Oil for Food program, another UN debacle that I mentioned earlier in the thread. As to UNFPA doomsday predictions, of course they’re going to pull all sorts of heinous-sounding statistics out of their [hats]. They have an agenda to push.

    Tata: I love you too, shmoopie.You may find this interesting.

  26. Based on ideology alone, I have no reason to believe this is true. But it sounds good, gives off the impression of evenhandedness.

    I’ve criticized Clinton here and on my old blog for the mess he made of welfare reform. I’ve said he really fucked up with Rwanda. I’ve criticized Hillary for her occassional sell-outs to the far right. I’m not a blind follower of the Democratic party. Hell, I’ve criticized Nick Kristoff in the past, and I love him. Do I criticize any of them as often as I criticize Bush? Of course not. First, Bush is currently in power, so he’s able to screw up bigger and better than any Democrat right now. And there’s also the issue that he’s a right-wing godbag fundie, and I’m very liberal. Naturally, we aren’t gonna see eye-to-eye. And I never said I’m evenhanded.

    That said, the argument “But you don’t criticize Clinton!” is a silly one no matter how you slice it.

    The Hyde amendment (I think it is) is very nice window-dressing, but economically it doesn’t stop our $ from going to abortions. The only way to do that is not to give money to any organization that is connected to abortion. Money is fungible.

    Well, yeah, and that’s what the Bush administration has done with the Global Gag Rule, which cuts funds to any organization that so much as mentions the word abortion. No organization can receive U.S. funds if they pay for abortions with their own non-U.S. money, if they counsel women about abortion as a legal option, or if they lobby their own governments for reproductive rights. It couldn’t apply in this country, because it violates the First Amendment.

    I have too much to say on this, so I’m turning this comment into another post. See above in a few minutes.

  27. The UN is organized crime for the international set. They are bought and sold by mass murderers.

    That may get you banned from this set. Speak truth to power, brother… Alas, deaf ears all around.

  28. And there’s also the issue that he’s a right-wing godbag fundie, and I’m very liberal.

    This is actually the main issue. Everything else is secondary.

  29. That may get you banned from this set. Speak truth to power, brother… Alas, deaf ears all around.

    Where have Lauren or I banned anyone for saying something like that? Please, Rob, do tell.

    This is actually the main issue. Everything else is secondary.

    Thank you for defining what the issue is for me. I’m glad you’re privvy to all my thoughts and beliefs, to the point where you are able to define what “the main issue” is, when not even I can do that. Kinda like how Bill Frist can diagnose a patient from 2,000 miles away using a webcam — you can show up at my blog, read a handful of posts, and tell me exactly what it is that I think and feel. Amazing, really.

    The greater issue, actually, is his position of power and what he does with it — that’s what allows me to focus on him (and, notably, I don’t even write about GWB all that much… scan the last month or two of posts and I think that’ll be clear enough). Yes, he does what he does because he’s a right-wing godbag fetus fetishist, but the difference between him and your average right-wing fetus fetishist is that when he makes idiotic decisions, they actually cause a whole lot of harm.

  30. Godbag? I don’t think I’ve heard that one before…please, enlighten me, so that I may use it in the future.

  31. “speak truth to power”?

    Last time I checked, two private citizens who happen to run a blog are hardly the status quo.

  32. Last time I checked, two private citizens who happen to run a blog are hardly the status quo

    You don’t realize the ominous power wielded by Lauren. Not only does she assign fascist homework to underprivileged members of minority groups, she does it while wearing the steel-toed boots of Feminazi oppression. She is The Power in all its thuggish glory.

    Jill, on the other hand, is just a tool.

  33. you can show up at my blog, read a handful of posts, and tell me exactly what it is that I think and feel. Amazing, really

    Not that amazing at all. I’ve read a number of your posts from the archives and I can reliably guess your take depending on the topic header. If you weren’t so consistently predictable, that wouldn’t be possible. Besides, what are you so upset about? I thought you’d be happy to be a walking liberal talking point. You wouldn’t have a blog otherwise, would you?

Comments are currently closed.