Trump Stops Funding UN Agency Accused Of Abetting Forced Abortions

[In China, a woman is arrested for being pregnant. | Circa 2013| Source: "VICE']
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0

Apparently, US-taxpayer dollars have been going toward a part of UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) that was recently discovered to be forcing abortions. Once Team Trump got word of this, they made the swift decision to cut off the money supply. This agency was mainly operating in Communist China while fronting as “family planning.” (Interesting…“planning.”)

[Feng Jianmei recovers after being abducted and having a forced abortion. Feng & her husband could not afford to pay the $6,000 fine for having more than one child—this was the result. | Circa June 2012 | Photo: Quirky China News/Rex Features]
“CNSNews” had the story on the State Department, which will no longer be funding the UNFPA “based on the fact that China’s family-planning policies still involve the use of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization, and UNFPA partners on family-planning activities with the Chinese-government agency responsible for these coercive policies.”

Team Trump stood firm in their decision, as to perpetuate funds would be illegal as per 1985’s Kemp-Kasten Amendment. The amendment stops federal funds from being allocated to “[any agency that] supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

This is the second time President Trump had to cut funding from a private pro-abortion entity. Some may recall the President bringing back the Mexico City Policy—an early, executive order. This policy prevents US tax dollars from being spent on abortion and/or abortion-related operations abroad.

However, it’s unknown as to how long the policy will stay enacted—depending on who’s in the White House. (It’s all about whether or not a president will tack on the aforementioned amendment to the UNFPA.) Presidents Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush kept it in tact. But Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama quashed it. During 2016’s fiscal year, the State Department hooked up the UNFPA with almost $68 million—our tax dollars.

[President Trump regally holding his executive order on the Mexico City Policy. | Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters]
The Associated Press weighed in on it:

“The UN fund will lose $32.5 million in funding from the 2017 budget, the State Department said, with funds shifted to similar programs at the US Agency for International Development. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the UN fund would also lose out on tens of millions of additional dollars it has typically received from the US in ‘non-core’ funds.”

The UNFPA wrote that it “regrets” the US no longer providing funds. The agency said the grounds for repeal stemmed from an “erroneous claim.” It further stated that “[it] refutes this claim, as all of its work promotes the human rights of individuals and couples to make their own decisions—free of coercion or discrimination.” However, their press statement did not possess a lot of proof in their favor—it seems there’s more solid evidence to their abetting murderous ethics.

Case in point: two, UNFPA directors are known for praising China’s tradition of a one-child system, which has been extended to two children. However, it’s notorious for ending in forced abortions. “China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family-planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years,” UNFPA Executive Director Nafis Sadik of Pakistan said in a 1991 interview. “China made some outstanding achievements in a very short time and fulfilled its commitment to the world,” she added. “The UNFPA is going to employ some of these [Chinese demographic] experts to work in other countries and popularize China’s experiences in population growth control and family planning.”

In 2001, like Sadik, Thoraya Obaid took over as the director and glorified China’s “family planning”—re: a 2001 report from their People’s Daily.

In this case, the glad handing and brown nosing went both ways. “As recently as December of 2010, the Vice-Minister of the communist dictatorship’s ‘National Population and Family Planning Commission’ thanked UNFPA for ‘its constant support to China’s population and family-planning undertakings during the past thirty years and more.’”

But back in 2012, Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher weighed in at a congressional hearing and provided some pretty strong allusions. “The UN Population Fund has been complicit in China’s one-child policy from the first, not merely turning a blind eye to abuses but facilitating them in various ways,” Mosher testified upon three years of looking into China’s operation. “This is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the UN Population Fund’s ‘model-county program,’ where UNFPA-trained officials oversee the enforcement of the one-child policy and where abuses are rampant.”

[Steven Mosher speaking on China’s two-child policy. | Source: ChurchMilitant.com]
On top of playing aloof, the UNFPA enabled China’s system by giving them various, technological hardware to facilitate their efforts. During G.W. Bush’s administration, he halted funds to UNFPA with foremer-Secretary of State Colin Powell saying, “UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”

The New American publisher John Birch Society supported Team Trump’s effort to monetarily constrict UNFPA from ultimately condoning murder. “Withdrawal of funding for the UN Population Fund is a good start, and this action helps to reflect the foundation that JBS members have spent many years building regarding getting the US out of the United Nations. Never have we been closer to seeing that fulfilled,” JBS Vice President for Communications Bill Hahn stated. “Now is the time to do more than end funding for one aspect of the UN. It’s time to completely withdraw.”

Comments

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0