For women in poverty, contraception is not top priority, scholars argue
July 18, 2012
In a devastating critique of plans for a redoubled international drive to promote contraception in the Third World, Greg Pfundstein and Meghan Grizzle point out that women living in poverty have many more immediate needs: for food, shelter, security, education, and health care. The funds spent on contraceptives could be devoted to those needs, they argue. Instead:
A woman whose education has not been improved; whose access to essential healthcare has not been improved; whose very real and legitimate desire for children has not been met; whose economic opportunities have not been improved a whit. For this woman, Melinda Gates has one message: “Here’s twenty bucks; don’t have babies.”’
Pfundstein and Grizzle demolish the oft-cited statistic that 1 million teenage girls die each year from pregnancy-related causes. The actual figure, provided by the World Health Organization, is 50,000—5% of the propaganda claim. That number, they observe, could certainly be brought down by providing adequate nutrition, prenatal care, education, and medical assistance in childbirth.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!