November 26, 2012
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) want birth control pills to be sold over-the-counter (OTC) because it would make the goal of contraceptive “more achievable”.
According to the ACOG report: “Unintended pregnancy remains a major public health problem in the United States. Over the past 20 years, the overall rate of unintended pregnancy has not changed and remains unacceptably high, accounting for approximately 50% of all pregnancies. The economic burden of unintended pregnancy has been recently estimated to cost taxpayers $11.1 billion dollars each year.”
The FHI360, a non-profit organization collaborating with “governments, civil society organizations, the private sector and universities” believes in using the philosophy of sustainability to “improve lives” and find ways to find “solutions for human development.”
Their stance on making the birth control pill OTC is that “unintended pregnancy is still a major public health problem” and making contraceptives easier to obtain would prevent these unintended pregnancies. “It removes all types of barriers.”
Eugenicists are concerned about the ability US citizens to procreate as evidenced in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention new report that states there is a palatable decline in abortions according to surveillance data.
The CDC report recounts: “Despite these multiple influences, given that unintended pregnancy precedes nearly all abortions, efforts to reduce the incidence of abortion need to focus on helping women avoid pregnancies that they do not desire. Providing women and men with the knowledge and resources necessary to make decisions about their sexual behavior and use of contraception can help them avoid unintended pregnancies.”
The UN Committee on Human Rights recently criticized the Irish government’s abortion laws, referencing the death of Savita Halappanavar as proof of the nation’s questionable values. Halappanavar is being used as an excuse for the depopulation agenda through coercive abortions and access to contraceptives with the claim that female mortality is their primary directive.
According to the UN Population Fund (UNPF) Annual Report, family planning (i.e. population control) is a human right and therefore under jurisdiction of the UN to be dispensed throughout the world. Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, director if the UNPF explains: “Family planning has a positive multiplier effect on development. Not only does the ability for a couple to choose when and how many children to have help lift nations out of poverty, but it is also one of the most effective means of empowering women. Women who use contraception are generally healthier, better educated, more empowered in their households and communities and more economically productive. Women’s increased labor-force participation boosts nations’ economies.”
The UNPF report stated that by 2020, 3 million fewer babies would be born if their efforts to control pregnancies through contraceptives were successful. As outlined in the UN Millennium Development Goal 5, access to contraceptive supplies must be utilized to prevent all “unwanted pregnancies”. The Global Program to Enhance Reproductive Health Commodity Security document reveals the UN’s plan to coerce sovereign governments to “ensure access to a reliable supply of contraceptives, condoms, medicine and equipment for family planning, prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and maternal health.”
The UNPF report also states that over population has a drastically negative cost to the world’s economy – evidenced in the %5.7 billion that could be saved should less people be alive to necessitate the costs of living; as well as the significant drop in poverty levels and need for medical care. Therefore by providing the 222 million women around the world with contraceptive services, there would be less babies being born after a generation or two; wherein significant population reduction would be obvious.
Champion eugenicist Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), believes she can prevent 40% of people who would otherwise have been born, there by justifying family planning as a scheme to make women healthier who have “families are more successful and their communities are more prosperous.”
The BMGF hosted The London Family Planning Summit (LFPS) back in July where they purveyed their depopulation and eugenics agenda in the name of women’s rights.
The BMGF assert that by 2050 “the global population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people” and this is unacceptable to them. By applying pressure to social programs and resources, the BMGF want to use family planning as an investment for all national governments globally.
Delegates at the LFPS will team up with non-governmental organizations like The White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood (WRA) wherein they have pledged to make sure policies and political leaders are properly swayed in the direction of support their campaign.
Melinda Gates has created a propaganda cartoon where the campaign to sterilize millions of women with Depo-Preovera is celebrated. She also remarked at a TEDxChange conference that Depo-Provera is best because its enables women to receive a shot behind their husbands back. Gates says: “Unfortunately this year a billion couples will have sex with one another . . .” and Gates’ only contention is that sterilization by way of contraception would “give them the right to decide” whether or not to have a child.
Eugenicists like Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva suggest that “after-birth abortion” be proposed as a form of “contraception” that would allow babies to be killed after they are born.
In a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Giubilini and Minerva support previous arguments for infanticide regardless of whether or not the baby were given a short lifespan due to a medical prognosis. Simply by being born the baby is regarded as an “unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”