<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Suzanne Petroni's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/suzanne-petroni"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/172/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/172/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2007-05-02T15:26:46+00:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Hand in Hand</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/19/hand-in-hand" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/19/hand-in-hand</id>
    <published>2008-02-19T13:58:11+00:00</published>
    <updated>2008-02-19T14:02:09+00:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Suzanne Petroni</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="International Organizations" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="global gag rule" />
    <category term="international cooperation" />
    <category term="international family planning" />
    <category term="maternal health" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>It’s crucial to align domestic and international <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122">family planning</a> and <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/131">reproductive health</a> movements in order to save women’s lives.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Those of us who care about women&#39;s health and rights have long lamented the diminishing U.S. government support for <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/131"><acronym title="Reproductive Health: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Health">reproductive health</acronym></a>--both for those in this country and for the millions around the world whose lives depend on our assistance. But maybe there is a way that we can help turn things around: by joining together the now-separate efforts of the international and domestic <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/133"><acronym title="Reproductive Rights: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Rights">reproductive rights</acronym></a> fields, as well as with our allies in other progressive causes.</p>
<p>At the risk of grossly oversimplifying a complex history, here&#39;s a quick review of how domestic and international efforts diverged.</p>
<p><a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">Family planning</acronym></a> first landed on the official United States policy agenda in the 1960s. The initial aims of these early policies were, admittedly, not entirely altruistic: Eugenics and a desire to stem immigration played a role. But U.S. support was also focused on humanitarian concerns such as alleviating food crises and extreme poverty, and bolstering environmental and national security. Improving the status of women was a minor interest at first, but one that took on increasing prominence over the years.</p>
<p>Support in those early days was broadly bipartisan, with Republicans such as Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush among the most ardent proponents. Within just a few years, the U.S. became the world&#39;s most significant sponsor of voluntary family planning, both at home and abroad. Today, according to USAID, it supplies 35 to 40 percent of donor-provided contraceptives to the developing world.<span class="inline left"><img class="image img_assist_custom" src="/files/images/Hand%20in%20Hand.jpg" border="0" alt="Hand in Hand" title="Hand in Hand" width="124" height="166" /><span class="caption"></span></span></p>
<p>But in a backlash to the 1973 <em>Roe v. Wade<strong> </strong></em>decision, both domestic and international family-planning assistance became politicized by right-wing forces. The Helms amendment, passed in 1973, prohibited U.S. foreign assistance from being used for abortion services. Three years later, the Hyde amendment cut off Medicaid funds from being used for abortions in the U.S. And in 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan instituted the global gag rule.</p>
<p>As U.S. feminists kept fighting domestically to preserve women&#39;s hard-fought right to abortion, supporters of global women&#39;s reproductive rights focused more on issues of birth control and family planning. And the two movements found themselves working in separate spheres, with distinct funding streams and unique political allies.</p>
<p>Yet for years, the same conservative forces in the U.S. who have worked to eliminate abortion services, promote abstinence-only programs in schools and exempt doctors and pharmacists from their obligation to provide <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/132"><acronym title="Reproductive Health Care: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Health Care">reproductive health care</acronym></a> have also been the ones pushing to export such philosophy abroad. Indeed, policies such as the global gag rule are often first tried abroad--where few U.S. citizens notice their operation--and then attempts are made to import them <em>back<strong> </strong></em>to this country.</p>
<p>In his latest budget request, President Bush recommended cutting international reproductive health assistance to a paltry $325 million--the same level at which his father left it in 1992. He has consistently attempted to flatline domestic Title X family-planning funds, while increasing taxpayer dollars for domestic and international abstinence-only programs. The president has also blocked some $200 million appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the agency that provides the poorest women in over 150 countries with family planning, maternal and child health services and HIV prevention assistance.</p>
<p>The list of family-planning roadblocks thrown up by the Bush administration goes on and on: egregiously inappropriate appointments to critical government positions, the denigration of condoms, blatant disregard of scientific evidence. And we have not been able to overcome these obstacles, partly because the domestic and global movements have been moving on parallel tracks rather than in tandem. As a result, we have weakened and dispersed our base, complicated our messages and further dissipated the scarce resources available to do our work.</p>
<p>But we can still do right by the world&#39;s women by working together with those with whom we share common cause. Here are some excellent examples of current efforts to work collaboratively:</p>
<ul>
<li>The Sierra Club has undertaken a Global Population and Environment campaign to increase access to family planning and <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/137"><acronym title="Comprehensive Sex Education: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Comprehensive Sex Education">comprehensive sex education</acronym></a>, advance women&#39;s and girls&#39; basic rights, and raise awareness of wasteful resource consumption at home and abroad.</li>
<li>Ipas, an international reproductive-rights organization, partnered with U.S.-based SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to map sexual and reproductive rights across the U.S., thus linking reproductive choice with the right to choose life partners.</li>
<li>NARAL Pro-Choice America&#39;s work to guarantee every woman reproductive choice now includes women <em>outside<strong> </strong></em>U.S. borders as well as within.</li>
<li>The Feminist Majority Foundation has seen student engagement and activism swell as it has incorporated global issues into its campus outreach programs.</li>
<li>Women Won&#39;t Wait, a coalition of women&#39;s-rights, health, development, human-rights and HIV/AIDS organizations from the global North and South, has come together around the two pandemics threatening the lives of women throughout the world: HIV/AIDS and gender-based violence.</li>
</ul>
<p>By recognizing our common goals and joining forces, we can take back the agenda. We have no reason to continue segregating our efforts and working in separate silos; we have hundreds of millions of reasons to work together to defeat the dangerous fundamentalist opposition to women&#39;s health and rights. Can we give it a try?  </p>
<blockquote><p><em>For the full special report on global reproductive rights, see the Winter 2008 issue of </em>Ms.<em> magazine, now available on newsstands and by subscription from <a href="http://www.msmagazine.com">www.msmagazine.com</a>.</em></p>
</p></blockquote>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Ideologues Hijack International Family Planning</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/04/17/ideologues-hijack-international-family-planning" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/04/17/ideologues-hijack-international-family-planning</id>
    <published>2007-04-17T13:00:00+00:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-01T14:59:17+00:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Suzanne Petroni</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p>Suzanne Petroni is a Senior Program officer for the<a href="http://www.summitfdn.org/"> Summit Foundation</a> in Washington, DC, where she manages the foundation&#39;s Global Population and Youth Leadership program.</p>
</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#39;s been interesting to read the <a href="/blog/2007/04/09/young-people-make-strife-problems-with-the-youth-bulge-theory">exchanges</a> here on <a href="/blog/2007/04/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come-why-age-structure-matters-to-a-safer-more-equitable-world">PAI&#39;s latest report</a>, while at the same time researching the history of U.S. international <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122">family planning</a> policy.  </p>
<p>I&#39;m back in school to take what I&#39;ve learned in ten years in the population field, add some knowledge and skills, and ultimately—hopefully!—come up with a way to help move our field out of its current political morass.  My hypothesis is that, as a field, we&#39;re using the same arguments and strategies that we&#39;ve used for decades, and as a result, we&#39;re not gaining ground; rather, we&#39;re losing it.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p>Suzanne Petroni is a Senior Program officer for the<a href="http://www.summitfdn.org/"> Summit Foundation</a> in Washington, DC, where she manages the foundation&#39;s Global Population and Youth Leadership program.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#39;s been interesting to read the <a href="/blog/2007/04/09/young-people-make-strife-problems-with-the-youth-bulge-theory">exchanges</a> here on <a href="/blog/2007/04/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come-why-age-structure-matters-to-a-safer-more-equitable-world">PAI&#39;s latest report</a>, while at the same time researching the history of U.S. international <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">family planning</acronym></a> policy.  </p>
<p>I&#39;m back in school to take what I&#39;ve learned in ten years in the population field, add some knowledge and skills, and ultimately—hopefully!—come up with a way to help move our field out of its current political morass.  My hypothesis is that, as a field, we&#39;re using the same arguments and strategies that we&#39;ve used for decades, and as a result, we&#39;re not gaining ground; rather, we&#39;re losing it.  </p>
<p>For me, it comes down to this: No matter how many ways we try to present them, the facts just don&#39;t seem to matter to our opponents.  Religion does. </p>
<p>But we&#39;re still making the same fact-based arguments that have been around for 40 years.  While I believe this applies to both <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/133"><acronym title="Reproductive Rights: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Rights">reproductive rights</acronym></a> and population, I&#39;ll focus only on the latter today.</p>
<p>A short quiz, if you&#39;ll indulge me.  Look at the following quotes, and guess who said them and when.  (Answers are at the end.):</p>
<ul>
<li>&quot;How will we educate and employ such a large number of people? ... How will we provide adequate health care when our population reaches 300 million?&quot;</li>
<p>
<li>&quot;Are we really going to be able to give these extra people jobs, homes, health care and education?&quot;</li>
<p>
<li>&quot;High rates of population growth ... impair individual rights, jeopardize national goals, and threaten international stability.&quot;</li>
<p>
<li> &quot;The risks of civil conflict ... generated by demographic factors may be much more significant than generally recognized.&quot;</li>
<p>
<li> &quot;Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence.&quot;</li>
<p>
<li>&quot;Population age structure has significant impacts on countries&#39; stability, governance, economic development and social well-being ...&quot;</li>
</ul>
<p>Whether it&#39;s from 1969, 1974, 2003 or 2007, it&#39;s pretty much the same thing.</p>
<p>I don&#39;t intend to criticize anyone for making such statements.  Not only have I made many of these exact arguments myself (including on behalf of the U.S. government), but I have also provided my (bosses&#39;) foundation&#39;s funding to make such a case even more persuasively.  The facts are what motivated the U.S. to begin providing international population assistance in the 1960s.  And yes, they may help to make the case for continued investments in critically important and life-saving programs now.  </p>
<p>My point is that, well, rational arguments don&#39;t matter to the right-wing policymakers who have hijacked international family planning.  </p>
<p>Look at the history.  From the 1950s on through to 2007, it&#39;s been the influence of <em>religion</em> on politics—not a lack of awareness of demographic impacts—that has impeded the success of our efforts.  </p>
<p>Here&#39;s former Congressman James Scheuer <a href="http://www.population-security.org/journal-spes.htm">discussing</a> President Nixon&#39;s reaction to his own Population Commission&#39;s findings in 1972: &quot;(he) promptly ignored our final report. The reasons were obvious—the fear of attacks from the far right and from the Roman Catholic Church because of our positions on family planning and abortion.&quot;</p>
<p>A decade later, we saw the tremendous influence on American politics of the &quot;Religious Right,&quot; which generated the Mexico City Policy and the withdrawal of U.S. funding to <a href="http://www.unfpa.org/">UNFPA</a> (the United Nations Population Fund). This movement has worked doggedly (and successfully) since to mold the government&#39;s policies to their views, including on the role of the family.  In this forum, I certainly don&#39;t need to discuss the Bush Administration&#39;s willingness to let theology drive policy.  </p>
<p>Bottom line: Whether it&#39;s the Catholic Church or the Religious Right, <em>fundamentalist religious involvement in politics is at the root of our inability to normalize international family planning.</em></p>
<p>We can&#39;t keep coming up with new ways of saying the same things about global population growth and expect to achieve a breakthrough.  We need to develop new ways of tackling this significant and niggling impediment to helping the women and youth of the world achieve their <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/131"><acronym title="Reproductive Health: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Health">reproductive health</acronym></a> and rights.   </p>
<p>And if you have any thoughts on just how to do that, you&#39;ll make my dissertation a whole lot easier!</p>
<p>*** </p>
<p>Answers to the Quiz:</p>
<p>1. <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2132">President Nixon</a>&#39;s Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth, presented on July 18, 1969. </p>
<p>2. Official in Uganda&#39;s Ministry of Finance, discussing population growth in <em>The Guardian</em>, August 25, 2006, as cited in Population Action International&#39;s <a href="http://www.populationaction.org/SOTC/SOTC.pdf">The Shape of Things to Come</a> (p. 14, link opens as PDF).</p>
<p>3. Panel of the United Nations, quoted in President Nixon&#39;s <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2132">Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth</a>, presented on July 18, 1969. </p>
<p>4.  Cincotta, Engelman and Anastasion.  The Security Demographic—Population and Civil Conflict After the Cold War.  <a href="http://www.populationaction.org/resources/publications/securitydemographic/index.html">Population Action International</a>.  2003. </p>
<p>5. <a href="http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html">National Security Study Memorandum 200</a> (p. 69). Signed by National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, April, 1974.  </p>
<p>6. Population Action International&#39;s <a href="http://www.populationaction.org/SOTC/SOTC.pdf">The Shape of Things to Come</a> (p. 10, link opens as a PDF), 2007. </p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>More Than a Choice</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/09/18/more-than-a-choice" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/09/18/more-than-a-choice</id>
    <published>2006-09-18T13:00:00+00:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-02T15:26:46+00:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Suzanne Petroni</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Finally, we have a vision!  After years of asking what has regrettably been a rhetorical question, &quot;We know what we&#39;re against, but do we actually know what we&#39;re for?&quot; the Center for American Progress has provided an answer.  In issuing &quot;<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&amp;b=2060837">More Than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights</a>&quot; last week, the Center lays out a new approach to <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/133">reproductive rights</a>.  </p>
<p>Kudos to the Center for prioritizing this issue<span class="inline inline-right"><img src="/files/images/CAP report.JPG" alt="" title="" class="image image-thumbnail" width="94" height="80" /></span> (it&#39;s still at the top of their website after three days!), and to author Jessica Arons, for laying out an agenda that can help us shift the debate and bring a new generation to our side. Arons moves us one step further down the path of broadening the discourse beyond its historic myopic focus on abortion.</p>
<div class="image-clear"></div>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Finally, we have a vision!  After years of asking what has regrettably been a rhetorical question, &quot;We know what we&#39;re against, but do we actually know what we&#39;re for?&quot; the Center for American Progress has provided an answer.  In issuing &quot;<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&amp;b=2060837">More Than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights</a>&quot; last week, the Center lays out a new approach to <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/133"><acronym title="Reproductive Rights: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Rights">reproductive rights</acronym></a>.  </p>
<p>Kudos to the Center for prioritizing this issue<span class="inline inline-right"><img src="/files/images/CAP report.JPG" alt="" title=""  class="image image-thumbnail" width="94" height="80" /></span> (it&#39;s still at the top of their website after three days!), and to author Jessica Arons, for laying out an agenda that can help us shift the debate and bring a new generation to our side. Arons moves us one step further down the path of broadening the discourse beyond its historic myopic focus on abortion.</p>
<p>Arons outlines four cornerstones of reproductive rights: the ability to become a parent and parent with dignity, the ability to determine whether or when to have children, the ability to have a healthy pregnancy, and the ability to have healthy and safe families and relationships.  </p>
<p>These cornerstones lay the groundwork for an approach that all progressives, indeed all who care about individual rights and liberties, can agree with.  With these in mind, as Arons pointed out this week, we can continue to strengthen the connections between those who care about reproductive rights and those who are focused on immigration (i.e., prenatal care for immigrant women), environment (the impact of pollution on <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/134"><acronym title="Maternal Health: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Maternal Health">maternal health</acronym></a>), workers&#39; rights (parental leave), and other issues.  </p>
<p>It&#39;s a great step toward breaking out of the silos that the progressive movement has been in for too long and a blueprint for a winning agenda.</p>
<p>However (you knew there was a however coming, didn&#39;t you?), it&#39;s not enough. While tearing down some silos, the Center&#39;s approach leaves one still standing tall - that is, the international side of the discussion.  </p>
<p>We all know that we have lost the battles for UNFPA funding, for comprehensive approaches to HIV prevention overseas, and against the Gag Rule, because of that same myopic abortion debate that drove the Center to write this report in the first place.  </p>
<p>The right wing doesn&#39;t separate us into &quot;the domestic reproductive rights people&quot; and &quot;the international <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">family planning</acronym></a> folks,&quot; yet we still do.  They have a unified message that transcends borders, while we continue to develop separate and uncoordinated strategies for the domestic and international debates - even though they stem from the very same issue.</p>
<p>Why can&#39;t we agree that all people, no matter where they live, have a right to Arons&#39; four cornerstones, and that the U.S. government has an obligation to help them access these rights?  Why can&#39;t we agree that, in changing mindsets around domestic reproductive rights, we should at the same time urge Americans to think of the reproductive health needs of their brothers and sisters around the world? </p>
<p>I truly hope that as the reproductive health and rights field continues to work to bring our issues together with others, we first do so within ourselves.    </p>
<div class="image-clear"></div>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
