Several years ago, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) devised a new public relations strategy in an attempt to offset the radical image associated with its "pro-choice" rhetoric. Now IPPF seeks public approval by marketing population control and eugenics in a new disguise: concern for women's health.

Instead of "pro-choice," abortion promoters now call themselves "pro-women's health." Why this switch when "pro-choice" jargon has worked so well, especially in the United States? The answer lies in understanding Planned Parenthood's worldwide goals of population control, especially among "less desirable" populations — e.g. minorities, the poor, the less educated.

IPPF and its affiliates follow in the footsteps of their founder and "hero" Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who was sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's ideology. Unlike Hitler, however, Sanger pursued a more subtle, but no less sinister path toward racial "purification," believing inferior people could be easily convinced to accept birth control and abortion under the guise of personal freedom. One of her main objectives was to ensure "more children from the fit, fewer children from the unfit.(1) Her warped philosophy is evident in her writings. She said: "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it."(2)

IPPF clearly has emulated Sanger's racist and eugenicist plans. Bishop James P. Lyke, O.F.M. informs us: "I wonder how many of my own African-American sisters and brothers know....(that) 1. for every three black babies born, two are aborted; 2. Some 400,000 black babies are aborted each year in the U.S.; 3.70% of Planned Parenthood's abortuaries are in African American and Hispanic neighborhoods."(3)

Jim Sedlak, director of Stop Planned Parenthood Inc., notes that while blacks make up 12% of the American population, "the revelation of the CDC survey that 32% of all abortions are performed on black (and other minority) women, demonstrates just how discriminatory the practice of abortion has become".(4)

The pro-abortion movement's new propaganda is aimed primarily at Third World nations, where feminist "pro-choice" rhetoric has not been so readily accepted as it has in wealthier nations. And what more convincing plea can be made than to appeal to people's need for proper health care? Who would not want to do everything possible to secure good health care for all? Without an understanding of IPPF's sinister designs and terminology, many people would automatically endorse the cry for greater attention to "health care."

One can never underestimate the power of language. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pro-life Ob/Gyn who was once director of the largest abortuary in the world, warns that: "Verbal engineering always precedes social engineering".(5) In order to comprehend the great evil that pro-abortionists are perpetuating throughout the world, it's crucial to carefully examine their deceptive use of language.

What is meant by the term "reproductive"? According to Webster's, "reproduction" means "the process by which animals and plants produce new individuals".(6) It seems self-evident that healthy reproduction involves the safe completion of this natural process. However, pro-abortionists have distorted the meaning to such a degree that to them it means the exact opposite. For pro-abortionists, the term "reproductive health" is really a euphemism for the impeding of the natural reproductive process of conception and birth. The abortion and contraception they advocate are unnatural and unhealthy. The term "safe abortion" is completely fallacious. Abortion is certainly never "safe" for the defenseless, unborn baby, nor mentally, spiritually or physically "safe" for the mother.

To understand the verbal and social engineering taking place here, it's critical to examine the definitions of "reproductive health" that have been advanced by international agencies like the U.N., the World Health Organization and IPPF:

"Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed of and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. In line with the above definition of reproductive health, reproductive health care is defined as the constellation of methods, techniques and services that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health problems. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations, and not merely counseling and care related to reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases".(7)

Thus these anti-life organizations are stating that part of promoting "reproductive health" is pushing condoms so that both heterosexual and homosexual couples can have promiscuous sex and avoid its consequences. Of course, even though they don't say it clearly, "solving reproductive health problems" to them means guaranteeing access to what they euphemistically call "safe, legal abortion."

At least since 1989 the groundwork was being laid for the "reproductive health" strategy. In October of that year, the Second Christopher Tietze International Symposium titled "Women's Health in the Third World: The Impact of Unwanted Pregnancy" took place in Brazil. It was attended by 200 gynecologists, who were hosted by the pro-abortionist International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC). At this symposium, Dr. Fred Sai (who, before becoming IPPF president, was senior population advisor of the World Bank) and Janet Nassim, who was also an advisor for the World Bank, mapped out future strategy later followed at U.N. conferences in Cairo and Beijing by IPPF and its cohorts.

Two of the biggest gains made by the global pro-abortion movement at the Cairo Conference are the redefinition of the term "reproductive health,"(8) and acceptance of the statement: "....in those countries where abortion is legal, it should be safe."(9) It logically follows that abortion should be legalized in order to make it "safe," and that abortion services constitute "reproductive health services," along with contraception, sterilization, abortion, AIDS prevention and even hedonistic sex education.

In accord with the Cairo Conference, IPPF defines "reproductive health care" as including "education for responsible and healthy sexuality, safe and appropriate contraception, and services for sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, delivery, and abortion".(10) Under the guise of promoting "reproductive health," the international pro-abortion movement, led by IPPF, is pushing hedonistic sex education, harmful contraceptives and abortifacients even for minors, and so called "safe, legal abortions."

Through such campaigns, people — especially women and youth — are brainwashed into a mentality that views fertility not as a healthy state for a woman of child-bearing years, but rather as undesirable — as though fertility were a hideous disease, a plague from which one must "immunize" oneself. Such attitudes, which pervade the anti-life mentality, are evident in the following quotes: "It should be recognized that adolescents often suffer socially and healthwise from sexual and reproductive health problems such as unwanted pregnancy...."(11)

In "Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics" (1979), situation ethics founder Joseph Fletcher writes: "Pregnancy when wanted is a healthy process; pregnancy when not wanted is a disease — in fact, a venereal disease" (p. 138). Alan Guttmacher, former Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, testified before a Senate subcommittee that, "...one of the gravest sociomedical illnesses extant...of course, is unwanted pregnancy."(12) Dr. Carl Tyler, Jr. of the Centers for Disease Control and Dr. Willard Cates, Jr. write that "we can consider unwanted pregnancy a 'sexually-transmitted disease,' and abortion as its 'treatment'." Accordingly, "we can estimate that unwanted pregnancy is the second most prevalent sexually-transmitted 'disease' in the United States...."(13)

Pro-abortionists purport to defend a woman's right to "control her fertility," yet what they really want is to control it for her! And they are particularly astute in recruiting the help of physicians and other medical personnel under the guise of "compassion" for the health and welfare of women. Publications such as the World Health Organization's Safe Motherhood Newsletter abound with appeals to "encourage" physicians and especially OB/GYNs to provide "comprehensive reproductive health services."

In an article headlined "Birth Control by Force," the Dallas Morning News reported that in Mexico "medical personnel — under pressure to meet government quotas to slow population growth — are effectively forcing women who come for births to accept either intrauterine devices or sterilization after delivery."(14) The article states something most pro-lifers know: The health and welfare of women is not the main concern of many so-called health providers. "A 1994 U.N. Population Fund report on eight countries found that few providers checked on a woman's health needs when issuing contraceptives," the article says.(15)

Another report notes: "These tactics are part of government programs primarily funded by the United States through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)."(16) Hillary Clinton claimed in Beijing that: "It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their families.…"(17) Yet population control abuses are commonplace in Third World countries, and U.S. aid money is almost always involved.

Pro-abortionists pressure leaders to legalize abortion in nations where it is illegal, under the pretense of concern for the safety of women, supposedly dying by the hundreds of thousands from so-called "unsafe, illegal abortions." Yet they ignore significant studies with medical evidence about the many often devastating effects of supposedly "safe, legal abortion."(18)

IPPF and its cohorts unrelentingly insist on the right to "reproductive health" yet refuse to address health problems/risks caused by contraception and abortion. Pro-abortionists drone on about the need for "safe, legal abortions" yet they oppose any legislation which would regulate the abortion industry. Claiming to promote "health," they are the perpetrators of untold physical and psychological dangers to the true health of women.

A number of laws and population programs have been introduced in several Latin American countries, under the guise of "reproductive health," which smack of population control. They are being used to lay the groundwork for abortion legalization through the massive promotion and use of abortifacients, euphemistically called "post-coital or emergency contraception," even in countries where all abortions are illegal. In Mexico, for example, the "Reproductive Health and Family Planning Program" approved by the government was prepared with "the active participation" of anti-life organizations like MEXFAM (IPPF of Mexico), GIRE (Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida — pro-abortion feminists) and the Safe Motherhood Initiative for Mexico. A similar program approved in Argentina, boldly announces as part of the "contraceptive arsenal" the availability of "post-coital contraceptives."(19) Surprisingly, this Argentinean population control program is part of President Menem's Social Plan and is financed with a $400 million loan from the World Bank.(20)

Recently, USAID-Peru gave a large sum of money to two anti-life feminist groups to advance a new project called ReproSalud, which promotes so-called "reproductive health." A pro-abortion periodical reported that these two organizations received US $19,626,000 to promote the ReproSalud project.(21) This amount is so immense that at first we thought it surely must be a typographical error! However, this figure was confirmed by another anti-life publication.

At a Summit of Presidents held 9-11 December 1995 in Miami, an agreement was signed that opened the door for all these anti-life projects. Latin American presidents, including Argentina's Menem, agreed to "endorse a basic package of clinical, preventive and public health services consistent with World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization and World Bank recommendations and with the program of action agreed to at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development. The package will address...maternal and reproductive health interventions, including...family planning information and services." The presidents also agreed to, "Develop or update country action plans or programs for reforms to achieve...reproductive health goals and ensure universal, nondiscriminatory access to basic services...."(22)

Since the Cairo Conference had already defined "reproductive health" to include "a satisfying and safe sex life" and "the freedom to decide if, when and how" to reproduce, it's obvious that the "right" of teenagers to contracept would be included in any such plan. Did pro-life President Menem or any of the other pro-life Latin American presidents really know what they were agreeing to? Probably not.

Abortion advocates encourage medical professionals to challenge laws that restrict abortion, using such statements as: "Where laws are restrictive, physicians could serve many more women if they knew the law and interpreted it as broadly as possible...."(23) Many of these pro-abortionists go so far as to openly advocate the breaking of laws as a means of eventually changing them: "Family Planning associations and other non-governmental organizations should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for inaction; action outside the law, and even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change."(24)

In February of 1994, the International Medical Parliamentarians Organization (IMPO), was established. IMPO promotes these types of pro-abortion activities, strategies and goals using the pretense of "reproductive health."(25)

Those who vigorously promote abortion and contraception under the guise of "reproductive health" recruit not only medical personnel, educators and legislators to help them further their cause. They try to deceive and use anyone — particularly religious leaders — in order to gain credibility. In 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) created a reproductive health program called the "Division of Family and Reproductive Health". Under the supervision of its director, Dr. Tomris Turmen, the Cairo definition of "reproductive health" was established.

Dr. Turmen freely admits that "in an environment where there are religious overtones, the greatest asset is to ask religious leaders for their help in promoting reproductive health." According to her, what is needed is, "just the right approach." She says that, "if expressed correctly, we can have the religious leaders on our side." In recent meetings in two traditionally conservative societies (Malasia and Pakistan), she revealed that: "There I tried to go for another definition of reproductive health. I said that reproductive health was about quality of life."(26) According to the World Health Organization, "reproductive health" means men and women having access to "methods of fertility regulation of their choice." The WHO definition of "fertility regulation" includes "interrupting unwanted pregnancies," which translates to abortion on demand.(27)

If pro-abortionists are so concerned about women's health, then why do they deny women access to accurate information about natural methods of family planning which would be entirely safe for their bodies? While IPPF and its cohorts tirelessly promote and force artificial contraceptives and abortion, which are unsafe for women on unsuspecting people in the name of "reproductive health for women," they eschew and often misrepresent the truly healthy methods of Natural Family Planning (NFP).(28)

However, studies have shown that NFP methods never compromise a woman's health and serve to promote greater self-knowledge and awareness of her body. In fact, because of this increased awareness, women practicing NFP may detect possible health problems and thus receive diagnosis and treatment far earlier than if they had not used NFP. The various methods of NFP are completely safe, unlike all forms of artificial contraception and abortion, which can and often do cause countless health problems, ranging from discomfort or an annoying rash to severe side-effects, such as infection, stroke, cardiac infarction, sterility and even death. (29)

We must fervently pray and work to warn others by exposing the schemes of the enemy. By spreading the light of truth we will expose the lies and thus we can better protect ourselves from the darkness of the deceptions of evil. Let's promote NFP, which helps achieve true "reproductive health" in harmony with the laws of nature and with God's plan for humanity.

Magaly Llaguno is executive director of Vida Humana Internacionale, HLI's Miami-based outreach to all of Latin America. Sylvia Jiménez is the coordinator of side-walk counceling for HLI-Austria in Vienna, a ministry that has saved hundreds of babies and their mothers from abortion.