Tribunal de Apelações do Texas permite excluir Planned Parenthood

Nos EUA, hoje, fazem-se apelos  contra a politica abortista e organizações como a Planned Parenthood. Enquanto isso, no Brasil, o governo federal de Lula e Dilma Rousseff, sustenta a BENFAM, filial brasileira da PP, e a comissão tripartite para a saúde das mulheres privilegiando as estruturas sócio-politicas abortistas para implantar definitivamente o aborto até os nove meses da gestação no país através de artifícios, agora no Congresso Nacional, com o Novo Código Penal. Veja:     

Projeto do Novo Código Penal: aborto, desinformação e impedimentos legislativos

09/05/2012 — Celso Galli Coimbra

http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/projeto-do-novo-codigo-penal-aborto-desinformacao-e-impedimentos-legislativos/

Por Celso Galli Coimbra

Projeto do Novo Código Penal: aborto, desinformação e impedimentos legislativos

 

 “Em 09 de março de 2012, foi publicada a notícia de que a Comissão de Juristas nomeada pelo Senado para elaborar o anteprojeto de lei do Novo Código Penal está ampliando as regras para o aborto legal.  Se formos examinar o conteúdo desta suposta “ampliação” veremos que é mais uma pegadinha jurídica em torno desta questão, pois o que está de fato sendo proposto é a total liberação do aborto [1].”

 

Cristiane Rozicki

—

Tribunal de Apelações do Texas permite excluir Planned Parenthood

Notícias relacionadas

 

• UPDATE 2-Juiz suspende proibição Texas em Planned Parenthood financiamento

Mon, 30 abr 2012

• Texas não pode excluir a Planned Parenthood de programa de saúde: juiz

Mon, 30 abr 2012

• Análise: procuradores-gerais de Estado: o poder republicano de Nova

Tue, 24 abr 2012

 

Tópicos relacionados

• EUA »

Por Corrie MacLaggan

AUSTIN, Texas | ter 01 maio de 2012 02:59 BRT

(Reuters) – Um tribunal de apelações determinou na terça-feira que o estado do Texas pode excluir a Planned Parenthood de um programa estadual de saúde para mulheres de baixa renda, porque a organização realiza abortos.

A decisão por 5 Circuito dos EUA Jerry Smith juiz reverteu uma decisão de primeira instância segunda-feira em favor da organização de planejamento familiar. A decisão de emergência na terça-feira significa que o Estado é livre – por agora – para impor uma nova regra proibindo Planned Parenthood do Programa de Saúde da Mulher, autoridades do Texas, disse. O tribunal solicitou uma resposta da Planned Parenthood na tarde de terça-feira.

“Neste ponto, a Planned Parenthood não é um fornecedor elegível no Programa de Saúde da Mulher”, Stephanie Goodman, porta-voz para a Saúde e Serviços Humanos do Texas Comissão, disse na terça-feira.

Programa de Saúde da Mulher, que faz parte do programa federal Medicaid de estado, fornece rastreamento para o câncer, controle de natalidade e outros serviços de saúde a mais de 100.000 mulheres de baixa renda.

Não vale a pena para o aborto ou permitir que provedores de aborto para participar do programa. A regra novo estado proíbe o dinheiro do programa de afiliados vai de provedores de aborto. A lei estadual que incluiu proibição de filiais desde o início do programa em 2007, mas o Estado não aplicá-la.

Planned Parenthood, disse na terça-feira que vai continuar vendo os pacientes que estão inscritos no programa. Não está claro se suas clínicas seriam reembolsados pelo governo para que os cuidados.

“Não queremos causar confusão ou mais medo do que o estado já causou mulheres do Texas,” Sarah Trigo, presidente-executivo interino da Planned Parenthood em Austin, disse em um e-mail.

Um porta-voz do governador do Texas, Rick Perry disse que o Estado vai defender a lei do Texas.

“Texas tem uma longa história de proteger a vida (do feto),” porta-voz Catherine Frazier disse em um comunicado.

Na segunda-feira, EUA juiz Lee Yeakel bloqueado temporariamente a regra do Estado, citando “o potencial para a perda imediata de acesso aos serviços médicos necessários por vários milhares de mulheres do Texas.”

Planned Parenthood tinha dito que o Yeakel saúde de 40.000 mulheres seriam interrompidos a menos que ele bloqueou a regra.

Mas os advogados do estado disse planejada missão Parenthood era contrária a uma meta do programa de reduzir o aborto e que o programa iria acabar se Planned Parenthood permanece nele.

Texas notificou o governo federal no ano passado da sua intenção de começar a impor a proibição, efetivamente excluindo Planned Parenthood do programa.

A administração do presidente Barack Obama disse que não irá renovar o financiamento para o programa Texas porque o estado estava violando a lei federal, restringindo a liberdade de escolher os fornecedores.

O estado está processando sobre essa decisão. O governo federal paga 90 por cento dos $ 33 milhões do programa-a-ano.

Planned Parenthood tem estado sob cerco em vários estados por oponentes do aborto. No ano passado, incluindo os estados de Wisconsin, North Carolina, Tennessee e Indiana, além de Texas, mudou-se para bloquear a Planned Parenthood de receber dinheiro do contribuinte.

(Reportagem de Corrie MacLaggan; edição por Greg McCune e Bill Trott )

EUA

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-usa-abortion-texas-idUSBRE8400T320120501http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-usa-abortion-texas-idUSBRE8400T320120501

—

O generocídio acontece nos EUA. Video de Bound4Life apresenta centros da Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), a maior organização abortista do mundo.

  

“A Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), a maior organização abortista do mundo, publicou seu relatório financeiro de julho de 2004 a junho de 2005, onde mostra que sua arrecadação total chega a quase 900 milhões de dólares. O relatório evita referir-se à quantidade de mulheres falecidas em suas clínicas como conseqüência dos abortos praticados legalmente, e falsamente oferecidos como “seguros”.”

 

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: aborto é principal causador do câncer de mama. Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-aborto-e-principal-causador-do-cancer-de-mama/

 

What Planned Parenthood Really Does

http://americanrtl.org/news/what-planned-parenthood-really-does

———

Novo Vídeo disfarçado mostra generocídio nos EUA (vídeo)

Postado por Susan Michelle Tyrrell em 20 de junho de 2012

 

Não deixe que os acenos do Sul o enganem, porque no fundo no coração do Sul, onde eles gostam de seus belles no sul, eles estão felizes em ajudá-lo a abortar, se você quer um namorado em vez de seu bebê.

 

Em um vídeo deslumbrante, quinto de Live Action, mais uma vez vemos que o desejo de ter um aborto sexo-seletivo é absolutamente certo e vem sem julgamento, tanto para a Federação Nacional do Aborto “A Woman ‘s Choice” centro em Raleigh, NC e da Planned Parenthood em Chapel Hill, NC

 

No vídeo, a atriz pede não só se ela puder abortar seu bebê se for uma menina, já que ela e seu marido querem um menino, mas também se ela e seu marido continuarem recebendo “azar” e tem mais meninas, eles podem abortar os seguintes também?

 

Absolutamente, os centros de aborto asseguram essa escolha. Porque eles não estão lá para julgar. Deus me perdoe, poderíamos colocar uma razão sobre porque a morte com base no sexo poderia ser julgada.

 

Dê uma olhada no vídeo abaixo, e lembre-se disso, quando nos abstemos de todo o julgamento, como nao julgar um abortamento coletivo de bebês lançados à morte. Como Live Action revelou mais uma vez, todo o nosso povo nas clinicas da nação estão dispostos a ajudar as mulheres a matar bebês com cinco meses de idade, porque eles são do sexo feminino, pois, dizem eles, ninguem realmente têm direito de julgar as mulheres por sua razão de abortar.

 

Quando o governo vai fazer um julgamento que a vida é mais preciosa do que a opinião humana?

 

Para assinar a petição e ajudar a sua voz  a ser ouvida no presente, ir ao http://protectourgirls.com/  Você também pode ver os outros vídeos disfarçados aqui e saiba mais sobre esse problema em nossa nação.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z0pdhjl2XDY

 

New undercover video shows more gendercide in our nation (video)

Posted by Susan Michelle Tyrrell on June 20, 2012

Don’t let the Southern accents fool you because deep in the heart of the South where they like their Southern belles, they are happy to help you abort them if you want a beau instead.

In a stunning fifth video from Live Action, yet again we see that wanting to have a sex-selective abortion is absolutely okay and comes without judgment, both for the National Abortion Federation “A Woman’s Choice” center in Raleigh, NC and Planned Parenthood in Chapel Hill, NC

In the video, the actress asks not only if she can abortion her baby if it’s a girl, since she and her husband want a boy, but also if she and her husband keep getting “unlucky” and have more girls, can they abort them too?

Absolutely, the abortion centers assure her. Because they are not there to judge. Heaven forbid we might put a reason on why death based on sex could be judgmental.

Have a look at the video below, and remember this—when we refrain from all judgment we judge a bunch of babies into death. As Live Action has again shown, all over our nation people are willing to help women kill five month old pre-born babies because they are girls since, they say, they really have no right to judge the women for their reason.

When will the government make a judgment that life is more precious than human opinion?

To sign the petition and help your voice be heard in this, go to http://protectourgirls.com/ You can also see the other undercover videos here, and learn more about this problem in our nation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z0pdhjl2XDY

fonte

http://bound4life.com/blog/2012/06/20/new-undercover-video-shows-more-gendercide-in-our-nation-video/

—

The world at seven billion

 

Este artigo apresenta um resumo do desenvolvimento histórico da pregação politico ideológica de controle populacional sobre os países pobres. Exatamente como vive esta influencia o Brasil, na aprovação de leis inconstitucionais, a contar do governo Lula de 1º/jan/     2003 a 31/dez/2010, e seu reflexo e continuidade no governo Dilma e seus ministros, incluindo as decisões contra-legis do Supremo Tribunal Federal e julgamento eivado de incompetência do relator Marco Aurelio de Mello, no caso da ADPF/54, onde o ministro dispõe no relatório a favor da morte de pessoas deficientes, os anencefalos, relativizando o direito ‘a vida e desconsidera a Constituiçao Federal, e tambem os Códigos Civil e Penal brasileiros.  As iniciativas das potencias econômicas traduziram-se em grandes somas em dinheiro e financiamentos de governos, ex-colonias dos EUA e de aliados na Europa – África e Índia, Japão, Coréias e China -, para aplicação da esterilização forçada de homens e mulheres pobres, construção de clínicas de abortamento, emprego de contraceptivos e instalação de industrias. O financiamento também envolve a adoção de leis para a liberação do aborto ate os 9 meses de gestação e a educação da população, alem da entrada e fixação nos países de fundações e organizações com aparentes fins filantrópicos – mas cujos objetivos se concluem na redução de populações. Para tanto, é preciso que a morte provocada de uma pessoa, o aborto, seja visto pelas mulheres como ‘direito’ e ‘saude’. O controle populacional teve suas consequencias extremas, dividiu mais as classes pobres, corrompeu governos, e tambem a ciência e a mídia. Hoje, países como a índia e a China, por causa do aborto, tém aumento da mortalidade de mulheres e a crise demográfica: a população é constituida na sua maioria por homens.          

————-

 

27 October 2011 Last updated at 23:08 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

* Population control

 

As the world population reaches seven billion people, the BBC’s Mike Gallagher asks whether efforts to control population have been, as some critics claim, a form of authoritarian control over the world’s poorest citizens.

 

The temperature is some 30C. The humidity stifling, the noise unbearable. In a yard between two enormous tea-drying sheds, a number of dark-skinned women patiently sit, each accompanied by an unwieldy looking cloth sack. They are clad in colourful saris, but look tired and shabby. This is hardly surprising – they have spent most of the day in nearby plantation fields, picking tea that will net them around two cents a kilo – barely enough to feed their large families.

 

Vivek Baid thinks he knows how to help them. He runs the Mission for Population Control, a project in eastern India which aims to bring down high birth rates by encouraging local women to get sterilised after their second child.

 

As the world reaches an estimated seven billion people, people like Vivek say efforts to bring down the world’s population must continue if life on Earth is to be sustainable, and if poverty and even mass starvation are to be avoided.

 

There is no doubting their good intentions. Vivek, for instance, has spent his own money on the project, and is passionate about creating a brighter future for India.

 

But critics allege that campaigners like Vivek – a successful and wealthy male businessman – have tended to live very differentlives from those they seek to help, who are mainly poor women.

 

These critics argue that rich people have imposed population control on the poor for decades. And, they say, such coercive attempts to control the world’s population often backfired and were sometimes harmful.

 

Population scare

 

Most historians of modern population control trace its roots back to the Reverend Thomas Malthus, an English clergyman born in the 18th Century who believed that humans would always reproduce faster than Earth’s capacity to feed them.

 

Giving succour to the resulting desperate masses would only imperil everyone else, he said. So the brutal reality was that it was better to let them starve.

 

Continue reading the main story

‘Plenty is changed into scarcity’

 

From Thomas Malthus’ Essay on Population, 1803 edition:

 

A man who is born into a world already possessed – if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food.

 

At nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall.

 

Rapid agricultural advances in the 19th Century proved his main premise wrong, because food production generally more than kept pace with the growing population.

 

But the idea that the rich are threatened by the desperately poor has cast a long shadow into the 20th Century.

From the 1960s, the World Bank, the UN and a host of independent American philanthropic foundations, such as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, began to focus on what they saw as the problem of burgeoning Third World numbers.

 

The believed that overpopulation was the primary cause of environmental degradation, economic underdevelopment and political instability.

 

Massive populations in the Third World were seen as presenting a threat to Western capitalism and access to resources, says Professor Betsy Hartmann of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, in the US.

 

“The view of the south is very much put in this Malthusian framework. It becomes just this powerful ideology,” she says.

In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson warned that the US might be overwhelmed by desperate masses, and he made US foreign aid dependent on countries adopting family planning programmes.

Other wealthy countries such as Japan, Sweden and the UK also began to devote large amounts of money to reducing Third World birth rates.

 

‘Unmet need’

 

What virtually everyone agreed was that there was a massive demand for birth control among the world’s poorest people, and that if they could get their hands on reliable contraceptives, runaway population growth might be stopped.

 

But with the benefit of hindsight, some argue that this so-called unmet need theory put disproportionate emphasis on birth control and ignored other serious needs.

 

“It was a top-down solution,” says Mohan Rao, a doctor and public health expert at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University.

 

“There was an unmet need for contraceptive services, of course. But there was also an unmet need for health services and all kinds of other services which did not get attention. The focus became contraception.”

 

Had the demographic experts worked at the grass-roots instead of imposing solutions from above, suggests Adrienne Germain, formerly of the Ford Foundation and then the International Women’s Health Coalition, they might have achieved a better picture of the dilemmas facing women in poor, rural communities.

 

“Not to have a full set of health services meant women were either unable to use family planning, or unwilling to – because they could still expect half their kids to die by the age of five,” she says.

 

Us and them

India’s sterilisation ‘madness’

 

Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay (above) presided over a mass sterilisation campaign. From the mid-1970s, Indian officials were set sterilisation quotas, and sought to ingratiate themselves with superiors by exceeding them. Stories abounded of men being accosted in the street and taken away for the operation. The head of the World Bank, Robert McNamara, congratulated the Indian government on “moving effectively” to deal with high birth rates. Funding was increased, and the sterilising went on.

 

In Delhi, some 700,000 slum dwellers were forcibly evicted, and given replacement housing plots far from the city centre, frequently on condition that they were either sterilisedor produced someone else for the operation. In poorer agricultural areas, whole villages were rounded up for sterilisation. When residents of one village protested, an official is said to have threatened air strikes in retaliation.

 

“There was a certain madness,” recalls Nina Puri of the Family Planning Association of India. “All rationality was lost.”

 

In 1968, the American biologist Paul Ehrlich caused a stir with his bestselling book, The Population Bomb, which suggested that it was already too late to save some countries from the dire effects of overpopulation, which would result in ecological disaster and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 1970s.

 

Instead, governments should concentrate on drastically reducing population growth. He said financial assistance should be given only to those nations with a realistic chance of bringing birth rates down. Compulsory measures were not to be ruled out.

 

Western experts and local elites in the developing world soon imposed targets for reductions in family size, and used military analogies to drive home the urgency, says Matthew Connelly, a historian of population control at Columbia University in New York.

 

“They spoke of a war on population growth, fought with contraceptive weapons,” he says. “The war would entail sacrifices, and collateral damage.”

 

Such language betrayed a lack of empathy with their subjects, says Ms Germain: “People didn’t talk about people. They talked of acceptors and users of family planning.”

 

Emergency measures

 

Critics of population control had their say at the first ever UN population conference in 1974.

 

Karan Singh, India’s health minister at the time, declared that “development is the best contraceptive“.

 

But just a year later, Mr Singh’s government presided over one of the most notorious episodes in the history of population control.

In June 1975, the Indian premier, Indira Gandhi, declared a state of emergency after accusations of corruption threatened her government. Her son Sanjay used the measure to introduce radical population control measures targeted at the poor.

 

THE INDIAN EMERGENCY LASTED LESS THAN TWO YEARS, BUT IN 1975 ALONE, SOME EIGHT MILLION INDIANS – MAINLY POOR MEN – WERE STERILISED.

 

Yet, for all the OFFICIAL PROGRAMMES and COERCION, many POOR WOMEN kept on having babies.

 

Advertisement

 

The BBC’s Fergus Walsh finds out whether the numbers will rise or fall in the future

 

And where they did not, it arguably had less to do with coercive population control than with development, just as Karan Singh had argued in 1974, says historian Matt Connelly.

 

For example, in India, a disparity in birth rates could already be observed between the impoverished northern states and more developed southern regions like Kerala, where women were more likely to be literate and educated, and their offspring more likely to be healthy.

 

Women there realised that they could have fewer births and still expect to see their children survive into adulthood.

 

Total control

By NOW, this phenomenon could be observed in another country too – one that would nevertheless go on to IMPOSE THE MOST DRACONIAN POPULATION CONTROL OF ALL.

 

CHINA: ‘WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR BABY TO LIVE’

 

STEVEN MOSHER WAS A STANFORD UNIVERSITY ANTHROPOLOGIST WORKING IN RURAL CHINA WHO WITNESSED SOME OF THE EARLY, DISTURBING MOMENTS OF BEIJING’S ONE CHILD POLICY.

 

“I remember very well the evening of 8 March, 1980. The local Communist Party official in charge of my village came over waving a government document. He said: ‘The Party has DECIDED TO IMPOSE A CAP OF 1% ON POPULATION growth this year.’ He said: ‘We’re going to decide who’s going to be allowed to continue their pregnancy and who’s going to BE FORCED TO TERMINATE THEIR PREGNANCY.’ AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.”

 

“These were WOMEN IN THE LATE SECOND AND THIRD TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY. THERE WERE SEVERAL WOMEN JUST DAYS AWAY FROM GIVING BIRTH. And in my hearing, a party official said: ‘Do not think that you can simply wait until you go into labour and give birth, because we will not allow your baby to live. You will go home alone’.”

 

The One Child Policy is credited with preventing some 400 million births in China, and remains in place to this day. IN 1983 ALONE, MORE THAN 16 MILLION WOMEN AND FOUR MILLION MEN WERE STERILISED, AND 14 MILLION WOMEN RECEIVED ABORTIONS.

 

Assessed by numbers alone, it is said to be by far the most successful population control initiative. Yet it remains deeply controversial, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE HUMAN SUFFERING IT HAS CAUSED.

 

A FEW YEARS AFTER ITS INCEPTION, PARENTS THE POLICY WAS RELAXED SLIGHTLY TO ALLOW RURAL COUPLES TWO CHILDREN IF THEIR FIRST WAS NOT A BOY. BOY CHILDREN ARE PRIZED, ESPECIALLY IN THE COUNTRYSIDE WHERE THEY PROVIDE LABOUR AND CARE FOR IN OLD AGE.

 

BUT MODERN TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS PARENTS TO DISCOVER THE SEX OF THE FOETUS, AND MANY CHOOSE TO ABORT IF THEY ARE CARRYING A GIRL. IN SOME REGIONS, THERE IS NOW A SERIOUS IMBALANCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.

 

Moreover, since Chinese fertility was already in decline at the time the policy was implemented, some argue that it bears less responsibility for China’s falling birth rate than its supporters claim.

 

“I don’t think they needed to bring it down further,” says Indian demographer AR Nanda. “It would have happened at its own slow pace in another 10 years.”

Backlash

 

IN THE EARLY 1980S, OBJECTIONS TO THE POPULATION CONTROL MOVEMENT BEGAN TO GROW, ESPECIALLY IN THE UNITED STATES.

 

 

In Washington, the new Reagan administration removed financial support for any programmes that involved abortion or sterilisation.

 

 

 “Start Quote”

“if you give women the tools they need – education, employment, contraception, safe abortion – then they will make the choices that benefit society”

 

End Quote Adrienne Germain

 

 

The broad alliance to stem birth rates was beginning to dissolve and the debate become more polarised along political lines.

 

WHILE SOME ON THE POLITICAL RIGHT HAD MORAL OBJECTIONS TO POPULATION CONTROL, SOME ON THE LEFT SAW IT AS NEO-COLONIALISM.

 

Faith groups condemned it as a Western attack on religious values, but women’s groups feared changes would mean poor women would be even less well-served.

 

BY THE TIME OF A MAJOR UN CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN CAIRO IN 1994, WOMEN’S GROUPS WERE READY TO STRIKE A BLOW FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS, AND THEY WON.

 

The conference adopted a 20-year plan of action, known as the Cairo consensus, which called on countries to recognise that ordinary women’s needs – rather than demographers’ plans – should be at the heart of population strategies.

 

After Cairo    

 

Today’s record-breaking global population hides a marked long-term trend towards lower birth rates, as urbanisation, better health care, education and access to family planning all affect women’s choices.

 

With the exception of sub-Saharan Africa and some of the poorest parts of India, we are now having fewer children than we once did – in some cases, failing even to replace ourselves in the next generation. And although total numbers are set to rise still further, the peak is now in sight.

 

CHINA PROMOTED BIRTH CONTROL BEFORE IMPLEMENTING ITS ONE-CHILD POLICY

 

Assuming that this trend continues, total numbers will one day level off, and even fall. As a result, some believe the sense of urgency that once surrounded population control has subsided.

 

The term population control itself has fallen out of fashion, as it was deemed to have authoritarian connotations. Post-Cairo, the talk is of women’s rights and reproductive rights, meaning the right to a free choice over whether or not to have children.

ACCORDING TO ADRIENNE GERMAIN, THAT IS THE MAIN LESSON WE SHOULD LEARN FROM THE PAST 50 YEARS.

 

“I have a profound conviction that if you give women the tools they need – education, employment, contraception, safe abortion – then they will make the choices that benefit society,” she says.

“If you don’t, then you’ll just be in an endless cycle of trying to exert control over fertility – to bring it up, to bring it down, to keep it stable. And it never comes out well. Never.”

 

NEVERTHELESS, THERE REMAIN TO THIS DAY SCHEMES TO STERILISE THE LESS WELL-OFF, OFTEN IN RETURN FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES. IN EFFECT, SAY CRITICS, THIS AMOUNTS TO COERCION, SINCE THE VERY POOR FIND IT HARD TO REJECT CASH.

 

“The people proposing this argue ‘Don’t worry, everything’ s fine now we have voluntary programmes on the Cairo model’,” says Betsy Hartmann.

 

“But what they don’t understand is the profound difference in power between rich and poor. The people who provide many services in poor areas are already prejudiced against the people they serve.”

 

 Work in progress

For Mohan Rao, it is an example of how even the Cairo consensus fails to take account of the developing world.

 

“Cairo had some good things,” he says. “However Cairo was driven largely by First World feminist agendas. Reproductive rights are all very well, but [there needs to be] a whole lot of other kinds of enabling rights before women can access reproductive rights. You need rights to food, employment, water, justice and fair wages. Without all these YOU CANNOT HAVE reproductive RIGHTS.”

 

Perhaps, then, the humanitarian ideals of Cairo are still a work in progress.

 

Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich has also amended his view of the issue.

 

If he were to write his book today, “I wouldn’t focus on the poverty-stricken masses”, he told the BBC.

 

“I would focus on there being too many rich people. It’s crystal clear that we can’t support seven billion people in the style of the wealthier Americans.”

 

Mike Gallager is the producer of the radio programme Controlling People on BBC World Service

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959

—-