NJ to Eliminate All Funding for Women’s Health Clinics

I had a bad feeling about Chris Christie back in October. In the New Jersey gubernatorial race, Jon Corzine had explicitly used women’s issues as a major platform to separate himself from his opponent. Christie’s record and stances on women’s health seemed so striking, that this method of attack seemed like the best approach.

He lost, of course, and Christie assumed the office. As it turns out, Corzine and Corzine’s supporters may have been right– Christie is not pro-woman, particularly on issues of women’s health. He has now proposed to cut all funding to all women’s health and reproductive services in the state. The cuts would completely wipe out all $7.5 million of state funding to about 50 clinics throughout NJ that provide basic health services– prenatal care, std testing, pap smears, mammograms, blood pressure screenings, health counseling and birth control. More than 136,000 women used the services last year, and clinics estimate that they helped prevent 40,000 pregnancies and 19,000 abortions, calculating that this saved the state $150 million.

Most of those 136,000 women were low-income, relying solely on these clinics as their main health care provider, as they lack health insurance. Buying birth control without health insurance can easily cost around $700 a year, an amount women or families may choose to forgo if trying to keep the electricity on or put food on the table. Let alone the issue of health screenings for gynecological diseases or proper prenatal care. They’re not just gambling with women’s bodies, but also with children.

As Deborah Jacobs writes to HuffPo:

It will cost New Jersey — and all of the other states — far more in the long run, leaving a devastating impact on both the economy and society. For every dollar spent on family-planning services, the state saves four dollars in Medicaid expenses. If these cuts go through, only women wealthy enough to afford skyrocketing medical costs or those with stable jobs and good benefits will be able to see a doctor.

Again, low-income women are the ones to pay. Moves like this perpetuate and exacerbate the wide gap between poor and affluent women, and their respective reproductive options. Jacobs also invokes Sandra Day O’Conner’s famous line about reproductive rights to illustrate this point:

“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

I’m not going to deny that NJ’s budget is a big issue. And reducing the amount spent on some programs and services seems necessary. But completely eliminating funding for women’s health is dangerous, and is also going to have serious financial consequences with an increase in unwanted pregnancies and undiagnosed diseases. Time and time again, services for women are the first and the most drastically cut from budgets. They’re seen as the most expendable. And in this case, funds aren’t cut, they’re eliminated. And furthermore, the DHS withdrew an application for expansion of Medicaid funding that would have cut the costs by 90% of expanding these services. Then there’s the abortion issue. Opponents see the word “abortion” and have no qualms about eliminating funding from any clinic with any connection to the procedure. Without even debating the ‘morality’ of abortion, these facilities do more to prevent abortions than to provide them (and, by the way, aren’t even allowed to use federal funds to provide abortions). But abortion opponents don’t care to recognize that. They think abortion’s a problem but don’t seem to care to figure out a way to fix it.

It’s no surprise that Chris Christie is not pro-choice. He also says he wants to keep abortions as infrequent as possible. Christie, here’s a reality check: You know what will help reduce the number of abortions in your state? Proper access to preventative care, including birth control. You know what will obstruct this access? Cutting health clinics’ entire state funding. These budget cuts are painful to read on many levels, but what one aspect that particularly gets to me is the abortion issue. When abortion rights opponents argue that they’re not anti-woman, that they think women ‘deserve better’ than abortions– and then they completely fail to provide any support for sex education or access to birth control, it’s just blatant hypocrisy. They’re either operating under such a myopic framework that they don’t understand the causality of the two issues, or they actively choose not to care. Either way, it’s shameful and it hurts women. And frankly, it hurts everyone in the end.

China Wavers in Decreasing Its Population Growth

As I have written before, the United Nation’s decision to avoid talking about population growth at the Copenhagen climate meeting is a huge mistake.  A great opportunity has been lost.  This story about China’s wavering interest in controlling its own population growth is an example of the issues that should have been included if there was any discussion.

The issue, as always, is what to do when there is a conflict between trying to slow population growth and the economic issues that could result from a decrease in the birth rate.

More than 30 years ago, China implemented its one-child policy.  People can argue whether this coercive program was a violation of human rights, but there is no doubt that it resulted in a great drop in the birth rate.  The rate dropped from six children per couple when the policy started to 1.8 children today.

The one-child policy is considered by many to be draconian.  Couples who violate the policy have to pay large fines, which in some areas could be up to three times their annual salary.  “In rural areas, some officials have forced women pregnant with a second child to undergo abortions. In addition, many couples have had sex-selective abortions, leading to an unnaturally high male-to-female ratio.” In addition, the policy has become so ingrained that people who violate the policy are frequently looked down upon and discriminated against at work.

At some point, China began to get concerned about the rise in the number of elderly residents and how to have a large enough workforce to provide for the elderly.  The global average for the number of people 60 and older is 20 percent.  In China, the number of residents 60 and older is predicted to rise from 16.7 percent of the population in 2020 to 31.1 percent by 2050.  In some of the wealthier cities in China, the rise will be even more.  In Shanghai, for example, last year residents 60 and older accounted for almost 22 percent of its population, while the birthrate was less than one child per couple.

And because of the concern about how to support a rising over-60 population, China has made exceptions to the one-child rule.  For instance, in 2004, it created exceptions for urban residents, members of ethnic minorities, and cases in which both the husband and wife are only children.  In 2007, it toned down many of the hard-line slogans it had been using.  Now, it is looking into even more exceptions, such as allowing couples to have two children if only one of the partners is an only child.

Shanghai is now taking even more aggressive steps against the policy.  It is actively encouraging more births.  For example, it took down posters that had “directed” couples to have only one child, and replaced them with information about how to have a second child and how to apply for a permit. Shanghai also sent officials to meet with couples in their homes and slip leaflets under doors, as well as pledging to provide emotional and financial counseling to those electing to have more than one child.

So far at least, these exceptions and new steps have not met with much success, for the simple reason that couples have found that it is too expensive to have a second child.  One couple quoted in the article said that:

they would love to have two children and are legally allowed to do so. But like many Chinese, they have only the scant medical and life insurance provided by the government. Without a social safety net, they say, the choice would be irresponsible.

“People in the West wrongly see the one-child policy as a rights issue,” said Yang [Jiawei], a construction engineer whose wife is seven months pregnant with the couple’s first child. “Yes, we are being robbed of the chance to have more than one child. But the problem is not just some policy. It is money.”

Another said that “”Ours is the first generation with higher living standards.  We do not want to make too many sacrifices.”

And, so, there are not any easy solutions.  A decrease in population should be the starting point for discussing global warming, not something that is not even discussed because of political concerns.  The issues need to be discussed and the United Nations has missed an important opportunity.

Why Won’t Population Growth Be Discussed at the Copenhagen Climate Summit?

In September, I wrote that “Fewer Kids = Less Global Warming.”  At that time, the London School of Economics had just issued a study suggesting that, in order to fight climate change, “governments should focus on another pollutant: us.”  And the study was the first time that statistics were provided to show exactly how much each life, especially each American life, adds to the world’s emissions.

According to the study’s sponsoring group, Optimum Population Trust, “birth control could be one of the world’s best tools for fighting climate change. By preventing the creation of new polluters, the group says, contraceptives are a far cheaper solution than windmills and solar plants” and:

There is no possibility of drastically reducing total carbon emissions, while at the same time paying no attention whatever to the drastic increase in the number of carbon emitters.   For reasons of an irrational taboo on the subject, [family planning] has never made it onto the agenda, and this is extremely damaging to the planet.

I also wrote that lowering the birth rate (specifically the subjects of the provision of contraceptives and abortions) was, indeed, a taboo subject and that an official of the United Nations “wrote in response to a query that ‘to bring the issue up . . . would be an insult to developing countries,’ where per-capita emissions are still so low compared with those in the United States.”  The Obama administration had declined to comment when asked about the family-planning idea.

Now, it appears that population control may not even be discussed at the Copenhagen summit on global warning.  The Telegraph reports that “[t]he global population is currently at 6 billion and could rise to 11 billion by 2050 if fertility rates continue, not only threatening the climate, but food shortages and conflict as well.”  It provides quotes such as “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more,” “[m]edical journal the Lancet also found greater use of contraceptives to reduce the global impact of climate change,” and”a study by the London School of Economics found contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green solutions such as investing in green technology.”

And, yet, no one at the Copenhagen summit is willing to discuss population growth, including “[t]he UN [,which] has insisted the issue does not become part of the negotiations at Copenhagen, pointing out that the population will control itself as countries develop, women become better educated and families shrink.”  Obviously, that is the point: there should be discussion as to how women should become better educated and families should shrink.  As is common, much of the “taboo” against discussing ways to slow population growth comes from “religious groups who see it as a Government push to control individual fertility.”

While I agree that a huge part of the problem is “consumption in the rich world,” Copenhagen is missing a great opportunity.  Hopefully, some group will at least protest loudly enough to get some discussion of a solution that should be obvious.

Wisconsin State Assembly Debates a School Birth Control Education Bill

Today, the Wisconsin state assembly is scheduled to have debate on a bill concerning sex education in its schools.  Under the bill, schools that decide to teach sex education would have to instruct students on the use of birth control.  Specifically, the schools would be required to address the health benefits, side effects and proper use of contraceptives and other methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  Parents could view the instructional materials and chose to not have their child participate in the class.

As would be expected, the bill is being opposed by anti-abortion groups and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.  It’s always amazing to me that anti-choice groups could be so inconsistent.  How can anyone who is against abortion also be against birth control?

Fewer Kids = Less Global Warming

It should be obvious that having fewer babies will result in less global warming, shouldn’t it?  After all, according to an article in the Washington Post, “every new life . . . is a guarantee of new greenhouse gases, spewed out over decades of driving and electricity use.”   (See my 2003 article about population control and women’s rights.)  Now, a new study by the London School of Economics suggests that, in order to fight climate change, “governments should focus on another pollutant: us.”

Apparently this is the first time a study has provided statistics that show exactly how much each life, especially each American life, adds to the world’s emissions:

In the United States, each baby results in 1,644 tons of carbon dioxide, five times more than a baby in China and 91 times more than an infant in Bangladesh, according to the Oregon State study. That is because Americans live relatively long, and live in a country whose long car commutes, coal-burning power plants and cathedral ceilings give it some of the highest per-capita emissions in the world.

Seen from that angle, the Oregon State researchers concluded that child-bearing was one of the most fateful environmental decisions in anyone’s life.

Recycle, shorten your commute, drive a hybrid vehicle, and buy energy-efficient light bulbs, appliances and windows — all of that would cut out about one-fortieth of the emissions caused by bringing two children, and their children’s children, into the world.

Thus, according to the sponsoring group, Optimum Population Trust, ” birth control could be one of the world’s best tools for fighting climate change. By preventing the creation of new polluters, the group says, contraceptives are a far cheaper solution than windmills and solar plants.”  Roger Martin of the sponsoring group says that:

There is no possibility of drastically reducing total carbon emissions, while at the same time paying no attention whatever to the drastic increase in the number of carbon emitters.   For reasons of an irrational taboo on the subject, [family planning] has never made it onto the agenda, and this is extremely damaging to the planet.

Martin is right about lowering the birth rate being a taboo subject, specifically the subjects of the provision of contraceptives and abortions.  An official of the United Nations, which is overseeing global negotiations on reducing emissions, ” wrote in response to a query that ‘to bring the issue up . . . would be an insult to developing countries,’ where per-capita emissions are still so low compared with those in the United States.”  And what does the United States say?  Well, the Obama administration declined to comment when asked about the family-planning idea.

Yes, the non-responses of the United Nations and United States are pathetic.  Everyone always talks about the economics of pursuing any solution to global warming.  Now, there are statistics that can be used to help come up with solutions and no one wants to talk about them.