START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Looming Sequester Likely to Impact Funding for International Family Planning


Health & Wellness  (tags: death, ethics, freedoms, 'HUMANRIGHTS!', africa, asia, children, HumanRights, humanrights, politics, unitednations, usa, world, society, women, sadness, safety, rights, health, culture, americans, children, child, family, freedoms, warning, safety, risks )

JL
- 545 days ago - populationinstitute.org
Cutting $30 million from international family planning funding would mean that: 1,560,000 fewer women and couples would receive contraceptive services and supplies; 450,000 more unintended pregnancies, including 210,000 more unplanned births, wou



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (275)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 9:40 am

Looming Sequester Likely to Impact Funding for International Family Planning

Unless Congress acts to head them off, automatic budget cuts will go into effect on March 1 as a result of sequestration. The much-debated sequester would cut $85.3 billion from this year's budget and $1.2 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years. These cuts would have a major impact on all discretionary spending. According to Secretary of State Kerry the proposed cuts would eliminate $400 million from USAID's global health funding. Included in this cut would be an estimated $30 million reduction in international family planning assistance.

Cutting $30 million from international family planning funding would mean that:

1,560,000 fewer women and couples would receive contraceptive services and supplies;
450,000 more unintended pregnancies, including 210,000 more unplanned births, would occur;
210,000 more abortions would take place (of which 150,000 would be unsafe); and
1,200 more maternal deaths would result.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/15/kerry_warns_of_serious_sequestration_cuts_for_state_and_usaid
 

Dave C. (213)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 10:37 am
Not good......the counter on the website is just scary
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 12:09 pm
So true Dave!You cannot currently send a star to Dave because you have done so within the last week.
 

Carol D. (108)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 2:39 pm
more world population more starving people not good !

noted Thanks
 

Angelika R. (146)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 5:16 pm
Wait and see-it is not the 1st March yet- obviously your congresspeople are in no hurry either enjoying their time out currently.-when they SHOULD stick their heads together and get on their asses to work this out!
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 5:16 pm
You are welcome Carol. You cannot currently send a star to Carol because you have done so within the last week.
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 7:03 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Angelika because you have done so within the last week.
 

Billie C. (2)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 7:19 pm
it's a 2.7 percent cut. local an state governments have had to cut much more. it's time the fed has to look at things that aren't working and cut them.
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday February 21, 2013, 7:27 pm
However this is an effective program that is working--and costs less than the planes the pentagon doesn't want that don't that Congress insisted on funding Billie.
 

Patricia H. (468)
Friday February 22, 2013, 3:24 am
noted
 

Ruth Ann W. (207)
Friday February 22, 2013, 4:01 am
Will these same people who would cut the funding feed, clothe, educate these children yet to be born to parents who cannot provide? Medical care? Will they cover those costs? Richard Nixon, yes, RICHARD NIXON, said for every ONE DOLLAR we spend NOW on family planning we save ONE HUNDRED dollars in having to rescue/save them later. ROI is huge. Someone needs to remind some folks of that piece of information.
 

John Coleman (18)
Friday February 22, 2013, 1:42 pm
Good place to cut totally unnecessary wasteful spending. One line item to delete permanently.
 

Birgit W. (144)
Friday February 22, 2013, 2:16 pm
Noted
 

JL A. (275)
Friday February 22, 2013, 2:21 pm
Thank you Ruth for noting this is a proven cost-effective program that even Richard Nixon lauded as being necessary, cost effective spending--apparently John failed to read up on any of the relevant facts and data for forming his opinion on this issue.
 

John Coleman (18)
Friday February 22, 2013, 3:41 pm
J.L.A: First, I question any program that pays for someone's sexcapades with other people's dollars period! Second, to pay for those programs for people overseas is a total waste of our taxpayers' dollars since it isn't this country's responsibility to pay for the irresponsibility of those in other countries. Pony up your own money if that is an important thing for you but it isn't for me. Nixon supporting it makes zero difference to me since he did a lot domestically and in some foreign actions that were totally bad moves but then he was a "progressive" in many respects as well. EPA and a whole host of bad agencies and programs came about on his watch.
 

JL A. (275)
Friday February 22, 2013, 3:49 pm
Apparently some do not understand the dollar diplomacy of this type of aid program avoiding so many other costs to a country that are why they are cost-effective.
 

John Coleman (18)
Friday February 22, 2013, 4:34 pm
Sorry but these are not expenses that are the responsibility of the US or its citizens but the responsibility of those countries that receive this "gift" of our money and those countries' populations. It also doesn't avoid the concurrent problem of high STD rates in those areas and high HIV rates which we are also wasting our money on. NO "REDISTRIBUTION" OF OUR ASSETS FOR THESE WASTED PROGRAMS!
 

JL A. (275)
Friday February 22, 2013, 4:54 pm
Sorry, it is exponentially cheaper than other cost would be to the country in the full context of the costs of foreign relations--cutting this would require at least five times this amount for any alternate approach with similar benefits to US interests--cheap and cost effective and any other approach is fiscally irresponsible and intends to waste taxpayer dollars
 

JL A. (275)
Friday February 22, 2013, 5:06 pm
For those interested in how to assess foreign relations cost-effectiveness based on facts:
Assessing the Debates: Development, Diplomacy, and Defense as a Policy Framework
Paper Prepared for the AFRICOM Conference, University of Pittsburgh

By Lawrence J. Korb | March 20, 2009
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2009/03/20/5809/assessing-the-debates-development-diplomacy-and-defense-as-a-policy-framework/

The Kissinger Commission Report: Its Implications for the
Academic and Consulting Latin Americanist Geographer
Joseph L. Scarpaci
Department of Geography
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
http://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/clag/yearbook1986/joe.pdf

Even Fox News agrees:
Why Foreign Aid Is a Smart Investment

By Richard Parker

Published January 03, 2011

FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/03/foreign-assistance-smart-investment/#ixzz2LgDxNoW1

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/03/foreign-assistance-smart-investment/
 

John Coleman (18)
Friday February 22, 2013, 5:29 pm
Sorry but a lot of foreign aid is not beneficial and this expenditure is one. This is an optional activity on the part of those receiving the "aid" so no go in funding these type programs with tax dollars. if you "progressives' want to fund it from your funds fine and dandy but not my tax dollars. Not into that "redistribution" thing you all are. Doesn't matter if some at Fox News like the program or not since it isn't a worthy use of US taxpayers dollars especially when those tax dollars are tight, The US doesn't need to be the mommy and daddy to those countries that can't manage their own affairs in areas like this. When real national security interests mesh then the dollars may be well spent but not for abetting bad social conduct.
 

JL A. (275)
Friday February 22, 2013, 5:41 pm
Please cite credible sources that say this is not beneficial foreign aid or stop hijacking this thread--I gave you Fox, which gave some verifiable history--I do not support fiscally irresponsible positions like the above that have been documented to cost our country and taxpayers more based on such undocumented assertions.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 12:28 am
Without birth control, how do we feed the sudden increase in population!
 

JL A. (275)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 1:06 am
You cannot currently send a star to Zee because you have done so within the last week.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 11:27 pm
Nor can I send another star to you, J L A.

WOW, you are doing a fabulous job.


*************************************************** there I sent you a line of stars all shining for YOU.
 

JL A. (275)
Sunday February 24, 2013, 11:40 pm
Thanks Zee!
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.