FY 2002 Funding for the UN Population Fund

Answer: The White House was part of the interagency effort.

Question: Exactly when was UNFPA informed of the decision?

Answer: Gene Dewey, Assistant Secretary of State of Population, Refugees, and Migration spoke with UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid just prior to the announcement at yesterday’s press briefing.

Question: What was the timing for the Secretary signing off on the memo?

Answer: The Secretary made the determination on July 21, 2002.

Question: What kind of assurances do we get that our UNFPA funds are not going to China?

Answer: Under current law, we require UNFPA to maintain our funds in a separate account. UNFPA is not permitted to use these funds in China. UNFPA also provides us with documentation listing the countries UNFPA uses our funds.

Question: How much money goes to promoting abstinence?

Answer: USAID’S family planning and reproductive health programs offer a broad array of voluntary family planning methods, including contraceptives, natural family planning, information about the delay of sexual activity (abstinence), the delay of first birth for married teens, and linking it to the "ABC" initiative (abstinence, being faithful, and condom use) when appropriate. Abstinence is one of many options family planning clients may choose from and, for this reason, is not separated out in the budget.

Question: Why did the U.S., as a member of the UNFPA Executive Board, approve the China program in 1998?

Answer: the U.S. is one of 36 members of the UNFPA Executive Board. At the time of the approval, the U.S. emphasized the importance of ensuring voluntarism and non-coercion in China’s family planning program. We also ensured that both the Chinese and UNFPA would allow independent access to monitor and evaluate the voluntary nature of family planning activities in UNFPA program counties. At the time the approval was made, we did not have the benefit of the assessment team’s report, the breadth of information now available on how UNFPA money is spent in China, or as complete information as we now have regarding the particular laws underpinning State population matters in China.

Question: Doesn’t funding that the U.S. provides to UNICEF or WHO for their programs in China fall under the same Kemp-Kasten interpretation as UNFPA?

ANSWER: The Kemp-Kasten Amendment specifically precludes the US from funding "any organization or program which…supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization." The determination was made after close legal analysis of the situation.

UNFPA’S program supports reproductive health and family planning programs in China that are coercive by the very nature of the social compensation fees that couples are required to pay for "out-of-plan" births. These fees are so draconian and excessive that avoidance of these penalties can and does lead to unwanted and involuntary abortion and sterilization.

Question: What about the argument that the $34 million that would have gone to UNFPA – and now will go to USAID’s population program – will not reach the millions of women living in countries where UNFPA works but USAID doesn’t?

ANSWER: There are considerable unmet needs around the world for family planning and reproductive health information. The additional $34 million will go to address the unmet needs of women and families through USAID programs.

Despite our best bilateral efforts through USAID, there are still large unmet needs in the countries in which USAID works. The additional $34 million will help provide family planning and reproductive health to millions of persons who currently do not have such help.

The U. S. Government remains the world leader in providing family planning and reproductive health assistance. The decision by the Secretary to commit the full $34 million as envisaged by Congress for family planning and reproductive health is indicative of our leadership and commitment to these activities.