Letter: Misconceptions about U.N. fund

Thursday, Aug. 8, 2002 | 9:20 a.m.

This is in response to an Aug. 1 letter about President Bush pulling funds from the United Nations Family and Population Fund.

The author refers to the Population Research Institute in her letter. A quick review of the PRI's website revealed that most of that organization's news and announcements refer to and contain anti-abortion rhetoric; hardly the neutral organization the author would like us to believe it is.

The author wrote that videotaped testimony showed human rights abuses occurred "side by side" with UNFPF programs. I am not quite sure what that implies since she does not claim that the UNFPF was responsible for the abuse.

An article appearing in the July 27, 2002, issue of The Economist magazine, hardly a left-wing liberal publication, supported claims by the United Nations Family and Population Fund that it does not support abortion in China or anywhere else. The article reads in part: "In May, a state department visit to China found no evidence that the United Nations Family and Population Fund supported abortion and recommended releasing the money" (already allocated by Congress). Furthermore, the article says, the United States was granted a concession that no money it contributed to the UNFPF could be used for programs in China.

To correct the author's final statement: Mr. Bush did not save taxpayers the $34 million that was allocated to the UNFPF; instead, the money will go to the Agency for International Development.

ANTHONY MARCISOFSKY