Executive Summary

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), founded in 1952 in Bombay, is the largest population control organization in the world. Through its 140 national affiliates, called family planning associates (FPAs), IPPF exerts unparalleled influence on national policy making regarding population issues. Over the past 25 years, it has spent the equivalent of over two billion U.S. dollars--mostly provided by the governments of developed countries--in pursuit of its goals.1

IPPF's original mission was "[t]he initiation and support of family planning services throughout the world." Although it has in recent years sought to change the public perception that it is a pure "population control" organization, emphasizing such principles as "responsible parenthood" and the "health of families and young people,"2 its original mission remains paramount.

No other organization has done more to spread abortion throughout the world than the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Not satisfied to rest on its laurels, the IPPF has forcefully and repeatedly stated its intention to assist in the legalization of abortion in every country of the world, regardless of the means used, and has also voiced its willingness to equip abortion centers and provide the expertise required to perform abortions on a massive scale.

The IPPF's Absolute Commitment to Abortion

Overview. For more than three decades, the International Planned Parenthood Federation has lobbied worldwide for the liberalization and eventual repeal of all laws that place any restrictions whatever on access to abortion. This stance is reflected in all of its major policy statements.

The Vision 2000 Plan. The most definitive statement of IPPF's total commitment to the worldwide legalization of abortion is contained in its 1992 Strategic Plan - Vision 2000, which was unanimously approved by its 140 member family planning associates (FPAs), each of which represent a nation.

In its Vision 2000 document, which is considered to be the "marching orders" for all member FPAs, the IPPF repeatedly and unambiguously calls for legalization of abortion in countries where the procedure is currently unlawful;

"[IPPF and its member associations] ... GIVE special emphasis to maternal and child health and notably to the elimination of unsafe abortion, through information, advocacy and access to family planning and safe abortion services.

"Activities: FPAs ... Where appropriate, include information on the rights of women to access to safe abortion ... Analyze, and advocate for changes in, restrictive national laws, policies, practices and traditions ... Collaborate with other national organizations in promoting sexual and reproductive health services in an effort to bring pressure on governments to remove barriers to access [to abortion] ... To eliminate the high incidence of unsafe abortion, and increase the right of access to safe, legal abortion ... Actively campaign to reduce levels of unsafe abortion and to improve access to safe abortion services where permitted ... Provide information and technical expertise to assist FPAs in activities related to reducing unsafe abortions and improving access to safe abortion services ... Where legislation is restrictive analyze, interpret and provide information on provisions in the law regarding safe abortions, and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against safe abortions. Where legislation permits abortion, inform women of their legal rights to safe abortions, provide confidential information and counseling on how to obtain a safe abortion; provide access to safe abortion services; continually improve access to these services; and condemn incidents of any political, administrative or social barriers curtailing this right. Whenever possible, enter into a dialogue with political, religious, and cultural opinion leaders to liberalize their attitudes towards safe abortion.

"Objective 4: Examine the current health care provision for the treatment of incomplete abortions and actively work to ensure that adequate and humane services are in place. Activities: International/Regional: Keep up to date with new technologies for the provision of safe abortion and work to ensure that individuals who perform abortions receive the appropriate training and equipment to carry them out safely."

The Mauritius Conference. Many of the IPPF's international and regional conference summaries also describe the organization's philosophy and strategies regarding the legalization of abortion. For example, in the summary of its 1994 Mauritius Conference, the IPPF states its general belief that "Safe abortion is a medical procedure that can save lives and protect health: It is unethical to withhold it." Dr. Richard Turkson, Legal Counsel for IPPF's Africa Region, very clearly outlines the organization's overall strategy in the same document: "Legal reform [of abortion laws] will have to take the form of a gradual expansion in the scope of permissible abortions until the exceptions become the general rule and vice versa."

In a section entitled "Safer Abortion: What FPAs Can Do," the Mauritius Conference summary issues guidelines on how member organizations can agitate for abortion law liberalization, and once abortion is legal, participate in the performance of the procedures:

"Where abortion is illegal, all family planning organizations could ... Take up "test cases" to pressurize for more liberal interpretation of some legislation ... Liaise with sympathetic legal professionals to develop clear guidelines for health workers on the ways in which the law can be interpreted ... "Where abortion services are not legally restricted, all FPAs could: ... Play a role in preparing the ground for the use of newer abortion techniques and ... provide training in safe abortion techniques."

The Mauritius Conference report includes an extremely detailed 12-page long country-by-country "Action Plan," which shows precisely where the IPPF's involvement in abortion advocacy will take place in the developing countries of Africa. These activities range from organized agitation for abortion legalization to the equipping of abortion clinics and the training of medical personnel to perform abortions. The IPPF's activities are certainly not restricted to Africa, however; it periodically holds similar conferences in Asia, Oceania, and Latin America as well. Appendix A includes some extracts from the Mauritius Conference report that describe IPPF's specific strategy in promoting and enabling abortion.3

Other Examples of Abortion Advocacy. Vision 2000 and the Mauritius Conference summary are certainly not isolated statements of the IPPF's political support for abortion legalization. Calls for "reform," "repeal," and "legalization" of abortion laws, and participation in the widespread implementation of abortion services themselves, permeate all of the IPPF's publications. As one of many scores of examples, the IPPF Medical Bulletin has stated that:

"FPAs [Family Planning Associations] should assist health professionals to implement safe abortion services ... and to facilitate women's unrestricted access to these services." "Where safe [abortion] services are legal, but currently provided only in a few limited facilities, FPAs [Family Planning Associations] should take on a pioneering role in conducting research to identify culturally appropriate strategies and approaches for extending safe [abortion] services ...

"FPAs could play a role in preparing the ground for the use of new technologies, by keeping up to date with new developments and keeping governments and service providers informed of the available safe [abortion] techniques ...

"FPAs could also conduct research into the cultural appropriateness of the different safe abortion techniques."

The IPPF and the Mexico City Policy. The IPPF also demonstrated its absolute and unwavering commitment to abortion when it opted to give up United States funding in 1985 rather than comply with the Mexico City Policy, which stated that the U.S. would not continue to fund organizations which were involved in any way with population programs promoting abortion.

The IPPF was warned that, unless it ceased to fund the coercive Chinese population control program, it would lose all monetary support from the U.S. government. The IPPF refused to give any such assurances and, in 1985, lost its U.S. funding. Daniel Weintraub, Vice-President for International Programs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), a member of the IPPF, said to a Planned Parenthood legislative conference held in Madison, Wisconsin, on 12 March, 1985 that:

"I know that there are some people in our own country ... who sincerely believe that we should compromise, we should accept the Administration's [Mexico City] policy. And the argument goes that ‘after all abortion in our international programs is only a small percentage of our entire program. Strategically we would be better off to try to save family planning by giving up abortion.' Well, I tell you that these people are wrong ... One of the principles of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is that reproductive freedom is indivisible. You either have it or you don't."

The IPPF's Unique Capabilities. In the early 1970s, Malcolm Potts, a former Medical Director of the IPPF, recognized that it is impossible to implement a family planning program whose purpose is to limit population without widespread abortion. He also realized that the IPPF was (as it is now) in a unique position to promote abortion all over the world;

"Abortion and contraception are inextricably intertwined in their use. As the idea of family limitation spreads through a community there appears to be a rise in the incidence of induced abortion at the point where the community begins to initiate the use of contraceptives ... Abortion is the horse that pulls contraceptive practice into the community. When abortion is omitted, then family planning programmes often lose direction.

" ... Predictably, the inter-governmental agencies, such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the World Health Organization, are in an especially weak position to promote abortion services, although they command many of the available resources. Therefore, a particular responsibility falls on the non-governmental agencies; the Population Council and especially the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Fortunately, the resources needed to extend realistic abortion services into the poor, or at least into the urban, slums of the world are modest."4

On the "Elimination of Unsafe Abortion"

Leading IPPF spokespersons have lately adopted the tactic of avoiding mention of abortion altogether, except to advocate the "elimination of unsafe abortion," which sounds palatable to all interested parties, regardless of their viewpoints. However, this is merely an IPPF code phrase which is equivalent to a call for legalized abortion.

This point was emphasized during an IPPF Members' Assembly in Manila, Philippines, 10-13 November, 1995, where FPAs voted to adopt a "Charter on Sexual and Reproductive Rights" which stated, in part;

"Delegates to the triennial Members' Assembly also adopted a strong policy on unsafe abortion which calls on FPAs to advocate women's rights of access to safe, legal abortion when an unwanted pregnancy has occurred ... FPAs are urged to ... analyze the legal status of abortion in their country and work to maximize the availability of safe abortion services under the existing laws; and campaign for the removal of legal, policy, and other restrictions on women's rights of access to safe abortion services."5

Dr. Halfdan Mahler, Secretary-General of the IPPF, repeated the "unsafe vs. legal" theme at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt, 5-13 September, 1994;

"IPPF's fourth challenge and one that has been particularly contentious for this Conference is the elimination of unsafe abortion. IPPF has made a powerful and bold commitment to speak out on this major threat to the health and lives of women ... The only way to fight unwanted and unnecessary abortion is to provide all women everywhere with quality reproductive health care including contraception and, if indispensable, safe abortion. At a recent IPPF conference [the above-mentioned Mauritius Conference], delegations from 20 African countries agreed in a final declaration to "act now to end the tragic and needless suffering from unsafe abortion", by strengthening family planning programmes, working to liberalize restrictive [abortion] laws, and ending "the conspiracy of silence that has kept the full extent of unsafe abortion out of the public eye and the public conscience for decades."

"Neutrality" on Abortion. The "unsafe vs. legal" wordplay is not the only attempt by the IPPF to verbally sugar-coat its abortion advocacy. The organization also claims that it maintains a "neutral" position on abortion, which is curious in light of the fact that it agitates for abortion legalization all over the world.

Dr. Fred Sai, immediate past President of IPPF, recently verbalized this peculiar brand of disingenuous thinking on abortion when he claimed that IPPF is "neutral" on abortion, but that it also fights to legalize it and implement it: "On abortion, we are neutral. If the local FPA has to fight its government on the issue of abortion, we will support them in that fight. If the countries legalize abortion, we will help them train people to do it properly."6

IPPF's Contempt for the Law.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation has demonstrated repeatedly that it considers its principles to a be a more compelling guide than inconvenient local laws or customs.

The IPPF has stated that "[Family Planning] Associations should operate right up to the edge of what is legal and sometimes even beyond where the law is uncertain or out of tune with public opinion. While a government gains short term respect by being respectable, a voluntary body may gain long term respect by being responsibly disreputable."7

Malcolm Potts, a former Medical Director of the IPPF, has claimed that "There are some laws that can and should be broken ... restrictive abortion laws ... are as obsolete and irrelevant to the contemporary world as the New York State statute which makes it a crime to have a deck of cards in an apartment within a one-mile radius of an armory."8

The IPPF does not merely talk about breaking the law it takes action on a massive scale. IPPF has been promoting and enabling illegal abortion in the Philippines for at least twenty years, and has been providing large numbers of abortion machines to numerous developing countries, including Bangladesh, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, and India.

The following extract from a Hastings Center Report article shows how the IPPF assists groups in circumventing the laws of developing countries, while systematically covering up such activities;

"The International Planned Parenthood Federation of London (IPPF) has been the most outspoken advocate of legal abortion services in the developing countries ... As a central body it receives funds from international donors, including AID [the United States Agency for International Development], and passes money and supplies along to the local associations ... The IPPF's stated position is that abortion should be legally available to those who desire it and that local associations, when possible, should assist in providing the necessary services ...

"In the Philippines, where abortion is both illegal and explicitly against official population policy, the IPPF provided 200 ‘menstrual regulation' [first trimester abortion] kits for demonstration purposes ... Further controversy arose when the FPOP [the IPPF affiliate, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines] distributed ‘menstrual regulation' kits to local doctors. Although the government had laws specifically prohibiting the importation of abortive devices, these kits were brought into the country as ‘medical instruments' to obtain ‘sample tissue for examination.' These examples show the potential of the IPPF and its collaborating organizations for circumventing national laws and policies

"One of IPPF's largest projects, totaling about $62,000, was in Bangladesh, where 5,000 vacuum aspiration kits were provided to the local family planning association. These kits have also been supplied to Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, and India. Although most of these projects have been relatively small - usually under $30,000 - the IPPF has not provided details of its activities in its published reports, even in its main report to donor agencies. One reason, apart from the illegal and controversial nature of these activities, may be that the federation is under constant scrutiny from the U.S. government to insure that it is not violating the Helms Amendment."9

The Role of ‘Menstrual Regulation.'

"Menstrual regulation" (MR) or "menstrual extraction" (ME) are synonyms for an abortion procedure that is especially suited to circumventing the abortion laws of developing countries, because the abortions are performed so early that the resulting ‘evidence' is either destroyed during the procedure or easily disposed of. The IPPF Family Planning Handbook for Doctors describes the procedure:

"Menstrual regulation is commonly defined as evacuation of the uterus in a woman who has missed her menstrual period by 14 days or less, who previously had regular periods and who has been at risk of conception. It may be performed before proof of pregnancy ... It can be used for: (1) diagnostic or therapeutic curettage; (2) the treatment of incomplete abortion; (3) uterine evacuation to ensure that no early pregnancy is present at the time of tubal ligation if this is done in the second half of the menstrual cycle; and (4) uterine evacuation in cases of suspected pregnancy.

"In some countries, menstrual regulation has proved remarkably popular, and individual practitioners sometimes perform several thousand operations a year. In certain countries menstrual regulation is legal, even when therapeutic abortion is illegal, as in many Latin American countries, where prosecution for abortion requires proof that a pregnancy was terminated ..."10

Recall that the IPPF has supplied thousands of vacuum aspiration abortion machines purportedly for "collecting tissue samples" or "finishing incomplete abortions," but which can just as easily be used for early suction abortions.

Malcolm Potts explained nearly thirty years ago how the IPPF drove a wedge for abortion on demand into the cultures of countless developing countries. Notice that Potts also acknowledges that MR/ME is indeed an abortion procedure, and that it is a simple and convenient method of performing abortions that are difficult to prosecute:

"Using the name "menstrual regulation" alters the name of the game ... It is not practical to write about abortion in a Bangladesh newspaper in a straightforward way, but it has proved acceptable to hold a much-publicized conference on menstrual regulation in Dacca ... It is not prudent to have even a whispered discussion of the role of abortion in family planning in the Philippines; but it generates immediate and widespread interest to discuss menstrual regulation ... Menstrual regulation is probably safer than any other pregnancy termination procedure ... there will be no proof of pregnancy unless the tissue removed from the uterus is subjected to microscopic examination. The point is of crucial importance in countries where abortion is illegal."4

Conclusion

The International Planned Parenthood Federation has been deeply involved in the promotion and performance of abortion on a massive scale in scores of developing countries for at least thirty years. It has spent massive sums of money to promote every type of family planning, and explicitly states that family planning programs must include the provision of abortion.

The IPPF is in a unique position to assist in the repeal of abortion laws in developing countries. As an NGO, it can operate without the appearance of government interference in the internal affairs of developing countries. In reality, of course, the vast majority of the IPPF's funding is derived from contributions by developed nations: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.11

Most importantly, the IPPF has firmly stated in its Vision 2000 strategic planning document and many other references that it intends to continue to promote and facilitate abortion through every one of its 140 national affiliates. The IPPF also holds as fundamental principles that family planning must include abortion and that family planning is a fundamental human right. By inference, therefore, the IPPF believes that abortion is a fundamental human right. This means, quite simply, that all financial contributions by developed countries to the IPPF will result in a furtherance of the legalization of abortion in developing countries.

Appendix A: Extracts from IPPF's Africa Region "Action Plan"

Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Guinea (Conakry). [Problems]: "Restrictive [abortion] legislation ..." [Strategies]: "Improve access and availability of safe abortion services ..."

Ethiopia. [Problems]: "Abortion is restricted by law ..." [Goals]: "To campaign for the abolition of restrictions on family planning services [including abortion] and the rights for women to use these services." [Objectives]: "Remove all legal constraints and customary practices militating against women and increase their access to family planning services ... Establish centers for safe abortion services." [Activities]: "Lobby with lawyers and service providers for the abolition of restrictive laws affecting women's and young people's reproductive health."

The Gambia. [Problems]: "Status of abortion law." [Activities]: "Advocate for the provision of safe abortion services."

Kenya. [Goal]: "To improve family planning services, abortion and post-abortion services in order to reduce the rate of unsafe abortion." [Strategies]: "Advocate for review of existing [abortion] laws ... Improve family planning and abortion services ... [Objectives]: "Achieve more liberal [abortion] legislation within five years ... make MVA [Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion machines] services available in all district and provincial hospitals and 10 mission hospitals within three years."

Mauritius. [Problems]: "The law on abortion is very restrictive." [Goals]: "To decriminalize abortion through revision of existing laws." [Objectives]: "By the year 2000 to ... sensitize at least 75 percent of women's groups to the risks of unsafe abortion and actions to advocate for legislative reform."

Nigeria. [Problems]: "Restrictive [abortion] laws." [Goals]: "To introduce a module on abortion into any community survey ... to educate the public, including policy-makers, opinion leaders, traditional and religious leaders, youth and women's organizations on the advantages of family planning and safe abortion in appropriate circumstances."

Tanzania. [Problems]: "Very restrictive abortion law." [Goal]: "To reduce maternal mortality and morbidity associated with complications of unsafe abortion through the promotion of reproductive health information and services, efficient treatment of abortion complications, post-abortion counselling and contraceptive services, and safe abortion practice." [Strategies]: "To lay the foundations for the provision of access to safe abortion practice through the use of the most favorable interpretation of the existing law and constitution for the benefit of the woman, as well as work for the eventual decriminalization of abortion." [Objectives]: "To have in place laws that permit for the provision of safe abortion services."

Uganda. [Problems]: "Restrictive [abortion] law, which also inhibits research and discussion of the problem." [Strategies]: Advocacy for [abortion] law and policy change."

Zambia. [Strategies]: "Set up modal abortion care centres in four major hospitals by the end of 1995 ... By the end of 1997 set up similar centres in remaining provincial and major mission hospitals ... by the year 2000 in district hospitals ... Train all doctors in Obstetrics/Gyneacology wards in major hospitals in the performing of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) techniques by the end of 1996 ... By the end of 1998 safe abortion training will be incorporated into existing nursing, medical and clinical officer curricula ... By the end of 1997 amend the law and policy guidelines on the Termination of Pregnancy Act [of] 1972 ..."

IPPF Africa Regional Women's Advisory Panel (RWAP). [Problems]: "Restrictive or inadequate abortion laws." [Goals]: To reduce unsafe abortion through integration of abortion services into existing maternal and child health/family planning (MCH/FP) services throughout the Region ... National Women's Advisory Panels (NWAPs) to work for revision or liberalization of existing laws to ensure that safe abortion is legalized." [Strategies]: "NWAPs should play a leading role in lobbying for review of the existing [abortion] law and its repeal where necessary ..." [Objectives]: "Between 1995 and 1997, at least 10 countries of the Region should have reviewed, repealed and liberalized [abortion] laws and further reduced the incidence of unsafe abortion by at least 10 per cent."