Rights Review September 2010.Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

An entire thesis can be written on this. Is the virus a cause that exert an effect we see in some states and nations in the world Or the effect has appeared for a reason and the virus was made to be seen as cause?Read below very carefully and make your own decision. I picked this up fromInvestigation of Sterilization Camp Funding—India from Welcome to PRI - PRILook up for: India's sterilisation scandal and gates foundation. If you can’t find then read below that I simply copied from the research work PDF documents. I don’t have any literary contribution in it.Written by Celeste McGovern and by Produced by the Population Research Institute. India is now manufacturing 1.5 billion deses of vaccines. Beware!!!Ok before you go ahead its worth to have a quick view on the following:Coronavirus not an epidemic in UK, say Oxford University experts -- Coronavirus not an epidemic in UK, say Oxford University expertsAndIndia's sterilisation scandal - The LancetThen go to the following to understand vulnerability of unsuspecting general genuinely nice and modest and respectful Indian public who believe in God. This is the contribution of British (White) Raj.Start:One in three Indian women have been sterilized. (Data derived from the Demographic and Health Surveys.)ContentsExecutive summary………………………………………………………………………..…………5Background: Population Control in India……………………………………………………………6Report:Business as usual ………………………………………………………………………….…7One Family’s nightmare…………………………………………………………...…………8Who is to blame? ………………………………………………………………………….....9USAID denial……………………………………………………………………….………10All-American Field Support………………………………………………………………...14USAID tied to “results” ……………………………………………………….……………15Resurrection of the IUD……………………………………………………….………….…16Gates funding………………………………………………………………………..………28Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………...……………20Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………….….……Executive summaryState family planners penalize health workers if they do not bring in their quota of women for sterilization. To fulfill their quotas, health workers offer money or gifts to women if they accept sterilization. Some are paid as little as 600 rupees–about $10 –to be sterilized. Other times, they withhold genuine medical aid to the woman or her child. Young childless women consent to procedures by thumbprint unaware that it will leave them infertile. Forced, coerced, or simply lied to, internationally funded programs in India systematically sterilize men and women without their consent.The harried frenzy to fulfill quotas leaves the women in unsanitary and abusive procedures. The resulting abuses are harrowing; dozens of women being sterilized on school desks by doctors operating by flashlight; women maimed in the quest to meet government sterilization quotas.Some see–and feel–doctors pull shreds of their organs from their abdomens during procedures. Doctors reuse gloves and needles for dozens of surgeries. Doctors know that the legal numerical limit on sterilizations performed per day is not enforced; their compensation per sterilization, however, is real and immediate.COMPLICITY IN ABUSEIn 1992, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) designed and signed the bilateral agreement to a program called the “Innovations in Family Planning Services” (IFPS) which it continues to implement in India. Through this program, USAID has funded and participated in tens of thousands of sterilization camps which engage in abusive sterilization practices. Between 2003 and 2006 alone, the USAID-funded program supported over 60,000 camps and sterilized over 810,000 men and women.In some cases, USAID funding is several degrees removed from horrific abuse, but there is no doubt that USAID money in India is complicit in coercive sterilization programs.The pervasive and frequent nature of the abuse makes complicity hard to avoid; sterilization camps are not a rare exceptions relegated to remote places. Approximately 1 in 3 Indian women of reproductive age has been sterilized, and, among these women, at least 1 in 3 did not give informed consent to the sterilization. A conservative estimate places the number of women inIndia who have been coercively sterilized at 28 million.1 India’s sterilization programs systematically violate basic human rights in the world’s second most populous country.As long as sterilization quotas take precedent over the consent and the health of the woman, the United States cannot justify participating in “family planning programs” in India. Despite verbal assurances of reform, India’s “family planning” programs remain so riddled with horrific abuse, that participating partners cannot avoid complicity. Until India enacts genuine and lasting reform, the people of the United State must withdraw their participation from India’s “family planning” programs.BackgroundINDIAWith three million square kilometres of land to its name, India encompasses a diverse geographic area from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean. India gained independence from Britain in 1947, and--with over 1.2 billion persons—the federal republic is the world’s largest democracy. The geographic diversity and large population make India one of the most diverse places on earth. The most commonly spokenare Hindi and English, but India holds hundreds of native languages.In its attempt to rectify generations ofcaste and genderdiscrimination, Indiahasaffirmative action in schooling, politics, and employment. Despite large improvements, India still continues to struggle with violence and discrimination against women and girls.India’s economy is beginning to harness its vast resources and its GDPgrowth rate averaged 6.8% per year between 2000 and today.22 CIA World Factbook: India <Central Intelligence Agency>3 Morse, Anne and Mosher, Steven. “A Once and Future Tragedy: India’s sterilization campaign 39 years later.” PRI Review. 24 Jun, 2014 <http://pop.org/content/once-and-future-tragedy-india%E2%80%99s-sterilization-campaign-39-years-later>4 Morse, Anne. “Aborting Indian Democracy.” PRI Review.9 Jan, 2015 <Aborting Indian Democracy - PRI>5 Data compiled from the UN Population Division and the Demographic and Health Survey.POPULATION CONTROL IN INDIAPopulation control has a sordid and extensive history in India. In the 1970’s India’s prime minister ruled by decree during an “emergency period.” In this twenty-one month period, the government coercively sterilized 11 million men and women.3India is known for its compul-suasion tactics (a combination of compulsion and persuasion) to reduce its population.Seven states with a population of over 430 million persons prohibit those with more than two children from holding local public office.4To mitigate its recurring problem with unsanitary and coercive camps, Indialegally prohibits doctorsfrom performingmore than 30 sterilizations in a twenty-four hour period. Sex-selection abortion is also illegal in India as well. These laws are not enforced. POPULATION CONTROL IN INDIA5Total fertility Rate:1970 5.5Total fertilityRate:2015 2.5Population growth rate 1.2%Women sterilized: total 30%Women sterilized: married 37%Women sterilized: unmarried, sexually active 48%Women sterilized: informed about other contraceptive methods 28%Women sterilized:informed procedure was permanent 66%Men sterilized 1%Sex-ratio at birth (males: females) 112:100USAID Funding of Sterilization Camps in IndiaWomen's wombs are inflated with bicycle pumps. Some are paid as little as 600 rupees –about $10 –tobe sterilized. Some see –and feel –doctors pull shreds of their organs from their abdomens during procedures. Doctors reuse gloves and needles for dozens of surgeries. Antibiotics or painkillers, if used, may be tainted with rat poison.These are justa few of the details about India's “family planning” programs that have emerged in the wake of the latest population control tragedy: the deaths in November of 14 women at a government sponsored sterilization “camp” in central India where health officials' reportssay 83 women underwent surgical sterilization at the hands of one doctor in just a few hours.66 “Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' to inflate women’s abdomens during sterilisation surgery.” The Independent, Tuesday 02 December, 2014. Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' during sterilisation surgery7 “Fact-Finding Report on Sterilization, Access to Contraceptive Information and Services, and Women’s Health in Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh 14-18 November 2014,” Human Rights Law Network.PRI has numerous documents which demonstrate unambiguously that America's foreign aid agency USAID has underwritten such camps in India for decades. They also establish that the agency –in concert with a host of American charity groups, India's biggest bank and private funders like Bill and Melinda Gates –has been the primary architect and a major overseer of the country’s state-run population control.BUSINESS AS USUALTwo days after the news broke about the deaths of the women in Chhattisgarh at an abandoned rural hospital –while Indian health officials and human rights activists were denouncing the camp and the surgeon who conducted it was hiding from the swelling numbers of protesters in the district of Bilaspur–it was business as usual in the rural town of Gaurella just about 40 km north where workers were holding their twice-weekly sterilization day at the local health center.The death toll was not as high –only one woman died but many more were hospitalized. It probably wouldn't have been reported at all except for the events earlier in the week. The Delhi based Human Rights Law Network had sent an activist and two lawyers to speak with the deceased women's relatives and health workers in Chhattisgarh. The stories recounted in their report released in December illustrate one of the darkest and cruellest population control regimes on earth.7ONE FAMILY'S NIGHTMAREChaitiBai was 22 years old and the mother of a six year old and 7 month old baby. She had never used contraception between her pregnancies but she had been feeling unwell in October 2014 and was jaundiced. So when the mitanin –or community health worker –came to her door and told her she could receive treatment at the Community Health Center in Gaurella, she agreed. The health center has a target of sterilizing 800 women each year, but the worker never mentioned sterilization or family planning to Chaiti.Upon arrival at the center, Chaiti's husband Budh Singh was given a blank paper to sign. Unlike many in the center, he and his wife could read and write, but there was not text on the paper. He signed for his wife's medical treatment anyway. No one mentioned family planning or sterilization and Budh was ushered outside to wait.A few hours later, when he was allowed into the recovery room, Budh found Chaiti among many women lying on the filthy floor, barely conscious. A health worker gave him some medicinesfor his wife, but no instructions and no paperwork.The following evening Chaiti began vomiting. The health center sent her by ambulance to the district hospital three hours away the following day, but she died en route. Bud Singh received a compensationcheque from the government for 200,000 rupees –about $3200.WHO IS TO BLAME?Health officials reported that some of the medicines used in Chhattisgarh contained a banned chemical used to poison rats. Police arrested the head of the company that made the drugs in Bilaspur and shut his factories. But other reports cited rusty surgical equipment causing infection as the cause of deaths. Many blamed the butchery of the greedy surgeon who, working for 100 rupees per operation according to one news report, was accused of trying to cram as many as he could in an afternoon's work.88 “India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisation deaths,” Mail online, 02 December, 2014. India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisati...9 ”India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor,” The Guardian, Thursday 13 November, 2014. India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor10 “U.S.-U.K. Foreign Aid Tied to India’s Forced Sterilization Campaign” National Catholic Register, 09 May, 2012. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-u.k.-foreign-aid-tied-to-indias-forced-sterilization-campaign/#ixzz3OKSecNKD11 “103 women sterilised in a day at West Bengal hospital; probe ordered,” NDTV, 06 February, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fmnGeK2cBMSurgeon R.K Gupta, who conducted the procedures did not understand the outrage, however. He told reporters that he had done more than 50,000 such surgeries and blamed the government for the number of women he sterilized on the day. “It is up to the administration to decide how many women would be kept for operation,” he said.9“It is up up to the administration to decide how many women would be kept for operation.”Indeed, human rights activists pointed to the government for failing to put a stop to the camps which not only violate the most basic national health and safety standards, but also clearly and egregiously breech national and international guidelines respecting human rights.Human rights activists have repeatedly documented that camps like those in Chhattisgarh are pervasive and routine throughout India. They've detailed how women are persuaded with cash incentives –or the chance to win a refrigerator or a car –and how they arecoerced –into sterilizations. And they have described cases inharrowing detail: young childless women consenting to procedures by thumbprint unaware that it would leave them infertile; dozens of women being sterilized on school desks by doctors operating by flashlight; women maimed in the quest to meet government sterilization quotas.10 Just last year, there was outrage after the national television station aired footageof women lined up and bleeding on the ground at a camp where 103 lower caste women had been sterilized in under five hours in another state.11Yet none of the Supreme Court of India rulings, international policies and declarations, ever seem to make a difference in India which has been a playground for population controllers for decades.8 “India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisation deaths,” Mail online, 02 December, 2014. India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisati...9 ”India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor,” The Guardian, Thursday 13 November, 2014. India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor10 “U.S.-U.K. Foreign Aid Tied to India’s Forced Sterilization Campaign” National Catholic Register, 09 May, 2012. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-u.k.-foreign-aid-tied-to-indias-forced-sterilization-campaign/#ixzz3OKSecNKD11 “103 women sterilised in a day at West Bengal hospital; probe ordered,” NDTV, 06 February, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fmnGeK2cBMUSAID DENIALUSAID has deniedhaving anything to do with India's odious sterilization camps in the past but its recent response to PRI carefully distanced itself only from “involuntary sterilization” in India.“We are aware of the tragic deaths which have occurred in India related to female laproscopic sterilization surgeries,” a USAID spokesman said in a written statement to PRI. “We offer our deepest condolences and sympathies to the affected families. USAID does not support involuntary sterilization contraceptive services in India or in any other country in which we implement programs. U.S. law prohibits the use of foreign assistance funds to pay for the performance of involuntary sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo sterilizations. Additional legal and policy requirements that apply to USAID-supported sterilization activities also help ensure the principles of voluntarism and informed choice.”But documents reveal that USAID has for more than two decades been at the helm of India's family planning programs, not just funding the massive directive that includes tens of thousands ofcamps, but overseeing and orchestrating the entire program, even encouraging cash incentives for sterilization and IUD insertion.A 2012 reportfrom the Washington, D.C based global health consulting firm, Futures Group International, for example, outlines USAID's 20 year involvement in one family planning program, funding more than 60,000 “integrative reproductive and child health camps” which provided more than 810,000 sterilizations in a single state in India, in itsfirst 10 years of operation—even providing transportation to the camps, but only for the sterilization “acceptors.”12The document describes a USAID designed program called the Innovations in Family Planning Services (IFPS). Determined to constrict India s population growth, USAID signed the IFPS bilateral agreement on September 30, 1992. It was launched as a 10 year program, with $325 million from USAID to be matched by $400 millio n from India's government. It targeted India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, because of its high fertility rate (5.2 children per woman) and its low contraceptive use (21% using a Western technology to prevent births).“The primary goal of the IFPS Project was to assist the state of Uttar Pradesh in reducing the rate of population growth to a level consistent with its social and economic objectives, objectives,” explains an affiliated program s website . In this long term goal, it i simplied that there is a need to lower the level of fertility significantly. 13Eventually, buoyed by its success, the IFPS extended into two more phases of operation between 2005 and 2012 in the states of Uttarakhand and Jharkhand. As well as providing reproductive health services, services,”USAID interventions included training, technical support, social marketing, behaviour change communication,communication,” and the cultivation of private public partnerships ” (PPPs) in the global family planning industry.As a first step towards achieving its long term goal in Uttar Pradesh, USAID and the IFPS created a special autonomous parastatal ” agency called the State Innovations in Family Planning Services Agency (SIFPSA) to provide flexibility and avoid bureaucratic delays. delays.” In other words, they made an unaccountable agency to operate away from public view and outside the democratic process. It was directed by members of the governments of India and Uttar Pradesh as well as representatives from USAID and a number of private sect or experts, all of whom, according to one report to USAID , it could afford to pay higher salaries than the governments could offer and had more control over finances. 14 The Futures Group report documents how SIFPSA and the IFPS have used every innovation they could think of to achieve USAID's population reduction goal: attracting and training providers,providers,” integration ” of family planning ” with immunization and other services; the recruitment and training of armies of community workers to act as motiva tors ” to persuade Indian women to accept Western pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions; incentive schemes for acceptors,”massive advertising campaigns on radio, TV, wall paintings and even puppet shows to “change behaviour;” sex education campaigns for teenagers; and campaigns to lure women to give birth in cleaner, safer delivery rooms –where they can also be contracepted. Even the local dairy co-operatives are utilized as a platform for propagandizing Western ideas about small families and promoting condoms, pills, IUDs and, of course, sterilization.1512 “20 Years of the Innovations in Family Planning Services Project in Uttar Pradesh, India Experiences, Lessons Learned and Achievements The Power of Innovations and Partnership,” Futures Group International for USAID,April, 2012. http://futuresgroup.com/files/publications/20_Years_of_IFPS_in_Uttar_Pradesh.pdf13 State Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Agency website Welcome :: SIFPSA14 EVALUATION: USAID/India Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Final Evaluation Report, May 2013. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JQ4B.pdf15 Opsit.16 USAID/INDIA STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE CLOSE OUT REPORT, http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedstates/36133186.pdfWhile some of IFPS's interventions, such as improving hygiene in delivery rooms or training gynecologists, have arguably helped Indian women, the campaigns for women's “reproductive rights” and “children's health,” it is clear from the USAID and affiliates documents that all of the initiatives are ultimately aimed at achieving USAID’s paramount goal of reducing the number of children born in India.“Foreign donors have been funding sterilization in India almost since the inception of India's Family Planning Program,” Kerry McBroom, an American human rights lawyer with HRLN in Delhi told PRI. “Donor organizations need to be accountable for rights violations perpetrated with their funding. Activistshave made reports of unsafe and unethical sterilization for decades -it's impossible that donors are totally oblivious to the violations.”“All of the initiatives are ultimately aimed at achieving USAID’s paramount goal of reducing the number of children born in IndiaGiven that 85% of all family planning money goes to female sterilization, McBroom added, “wherever money is being spent for 'maternal health' or 'reproductive health' money is going for camps as they comprise a significant portion of both these projects.”Take, for example, how USAID paid for transport for women attending “reproductive and child health camps,” (RCH camps) but only if they agreed to be sterilization. One USAID/India Strategic Objective Close Out Report published by the Organisation for Economic C-operation and Development (OECD) describes a $168.3 million plan for “Reducing Fertility and Improving Reproductive Health in Northern India.“RCH camps, which are popular as Parivar Swasthya SewaDivas (Family Health Days)… provide an opportunity to integrate the efforts of providers and increase access to reproductive health services,” says the report. “Each camp included a gynecological check-up, child examination and immunization, family planning counselling and services and provision for transportation to clients who utilized sterilization services.”Each camp was scheduled in advance and publicized. In rural areas, attractive jingles on audio cassettes were played, said the report on the project overseen by the Department of Finance in India, the SIFPSA and ICICI, India's largest bank.“SIFPSA has funded 47,889 camps over a six-year period from 1998,” says the report. “On an average, 100 clients attended each camp and more than half of these accessed integrated MCH Services.It adds: “Since most of these camps were in remote rural areas, the availability of a team of surgeons, anesthetist and female gynecologist were ensured from the district level. Enhanced budget for maintenance and fuelfor vehicles was provided so that an adequate number of vehicles could be deployed to transport doctors to RCH camp sites and sterilization clients to their homes.”Indicators used to measure the success of the USAID funded program included the “contraceptive prevalence rate” and the “total fertility rate” in Uttar Pradesh. Other indicators of progress were the percentage of babies born to trained providers and the percentage of women who received two tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccine injections during pregnancy –a questionable service considering that tetanus vaccines were recently surrounded with accusations of being tainted with contraceptive antibodies in Kenya, and all the more suspect in a campaign dedicated to reducing fertility.1717 The tense standoff between Catholic14 November, 2014. bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/14/the-tense-standoff-between-catholic-bishops-and-the-kenyan-government-over-tetanus-vaccines/18 Wikipedia. EngenderHealth - Wikipedia19 2010 Annual Report, The Centre for Development and Population Activities. http://www.cedpa.org/files/2533_file_2010_Annual_Report_sm1.pdf“Attendance at the RCH camps grew over time,” explains the Futures Group report. “By 2003, each camp on an average served 100 clients and more than half of the sterilization operations in the IFPS districts were performed at the RCH camps. Through March 2006, IFPS had supported 60,148 RCH camps, providing 525,000 antenatal check-ups, sterilization services to 810,000 men and women...” along, of course with a host of other family planning and immunization services.ALL-AMERICAN FIELD SUPPORT“Field support” groups listed in various documents include Johns Hopkins University, its affiliated non-profit “health organization” Jhpiego, the New York City-based Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception (AVSC) which was founded as the Sterilization League of New Jersey in 1937 to “provide for the improvement of the human stock by the selective sterilization of the mentally defective and of those afflicted with inherited or inheritable physical disease." It is currently known as Engender Health.18Other groups financed by USAID to carry out the population control objective in India are the Washington, DC based Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), which trains health workers and “motivators” on the ground and produces family planning literature, CARE International, PopTech, a global “innovation” group based in Cambden, Maine, the New York City based Population Council, the Chapel Hill, NC based medical training and technological support group Intrahealth International, and the Washington, D.C based Population Reference Bureau.These group's websites attest that they are still busy in family planning inIndia and many acknowledge USAID funding. CEDPA's most recent reportlists $5.8 million in grants from the US government in 2010 for example, as well dozens of other private and corporate funders including the Ford Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Exxon Mobil Foundation.19USAID TIED TO “RESULTS”The OECD report also elucidates how USAID encouraged India's sterilization quota system to develop by carefully financing its activities in India. It used a unique mechanism known as “performance based disbursement (PBD”) in which the dollar value was attached to “a set of targeted results” agreed upon between USAID and SIFPSA. “The targets for achievement were set at an achievable yet ambitious level to emphasize the focus on achieving results,” according to the OECD.Of course, on the surface it looked as though population targets were being dropped. As USAID noted to PRI this week, US law forbids funding them. The 1999 Tiarht Amendment prohibits the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)from funding any family-planning program that has targets or quotas, is coercive, has financial or other incentives or involves non-consensual experimentation. If any of these requirements is violated or a “pattern or practice of violations” emerges, the administrator of USAID has 60 days to submit a report of findings and remedies to the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.It was damaging for India to keep quotas in the open after all the bad publicity China's One Child Policy was eliciting in the 90s anyway, so in 1996 India adopted a “Target-Free Approach” to family planning. But recent investigations by human rights activists in India have found that population targets and sterilization quotas are still routine and widespread. “Every state sets targets in its annual health plan for female sterilization, male sterilization, insertion of IUDs, and distribution of contraceptive pills,” says a 2012 report from Human Rights Watch (HRW)based on interviews with 50 Indian health workers. “A central government body, the National Project Coordination Committee, reviews these targets and allocates funds for family planning in every State.20 India: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming Women, 12 July, 2012. India: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming Women21 Effectiveness of Fund Allocation and Spending for the National Rural Health Mission in Uttarakhand, India Block and Facility Report, March 2014, The Policy Project. http://www.healthpolicyproject.com/pubs/377_UttarakhandPhaseFINAL.pdf22 SIFPSA website. Welcome :: SIFPSAAnd the funds, at least in part, are coming from USAID. A 2014 report of the Health Policy Project, a five-year cooperative agreement funded by USAID in 2010 and implemented by Futures Group, Futures Institute CEDDPA and others, details how funds to India’s National Rural Health Mission in the state of Uttarakhand are dispersed through a labyrinth of implementing District Health Societies and their underling organizations and how “RCH Flexipool funds are used for reproductive and child health programming, which includes maternal health, child health, family planning, JSY, RCH camps, and compensation for sterilisation.”21State family planners, working to ensure that the people sending the cash are pleased, can get draconian to meet their quotas.“They shoutat those who have not fulfilled their targets during meetings. It’s humiliating,” one worker told HRW. “They say, “If others can achieve the target, why can’t you? You must know some women? You must have relatives or some contacts after working in the villages? Use them and get women operated [sterilized].”“In much of the country, authorities aggressively pursue targets, especially for female sterilization, by threatening health workers with salary cuts or dismissals,” the HRW report adds. “As a result,some health workers pressure women to undergo sterilization without providing sufficient information, either about possible complications, its irreversibility, or safer sex practices after the procedure.”“I have to keep going to women’s houses,” one worker explained. “Sometimes in one week I go 10 times to one woman’s house.”It's also why at financial year end or when new budgets are being written, sterilization targets can suddenly swell in India. Dr. Abhijit Das from the Centre for Health and Social Justice, told HRW investigators,that in Bihar state for example, fewer than 150,000 sterilization operations were “achieved” in 2005-2006 but that target for 2011-2012 was set at 650,000 –nearly a four-fold increase. Similarly, the state of Madhya Pradesh set a target of 700,000 sterilizations, doubling what was achieved in earlier years.SIFPSA’s “target-free” policies were simply a bugbear that family planners had to work around, while still playing the numbers game. SIFPSA's website describes how it “kick-started the government sterilization programme after setbacks due to the introduction of the target-free approach and expanded services provided in camps by funding 60,148 integrated RCH camps in 33 districts of [Uttar Pradesh] and 5 districts of Uttranchal.”22And there is no sign of India retreating from its population control objectives. Apress releaseissued last month by the Government of India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare details new “schemes and awareness campaigns” by the government “to stabilize the population of the country.” These include a new emphasis on “post-partumsterilization,” a “compensation scheme for sterilisation acceptors” which has been “enhanced for 11 high focus states with high TFR,” a National Family Planning Indemnity Scheme which protects “providers and accredited institutions “against litigation in the event of death or complications following sterilizations.It also describes how the government made World Population Day a mandatory celebration in 2013, which is marked by “Mobilization Fortnight” and “Population Stabilization Fortnight” government funded campaigns marked by increased population control activity including camps.23RESURRECTION OF THE IUDClearly, India's sterilization camps are a public relations nightmare for health officials and any foreigners even remotely involved. It's not likely the way most American elite designers and “innovators” of the programs envisioned their population control being executed. But it is the reality.Another new population stabilization “scheme” listed by the GOI is an “emphasis” on resurrecting hormonal and copper IUDs, intrauterine devices that are surgically implanted in the uterus to prevent conception for up to five years.IUDs fell out of fashion in the US in the 1980s after as many as 200,000 American women testified they were injured by the notorious Dalkon Shield –and their market has never really recovered. Given the complications associated with IUDs from displacement (one 2014 studydescribes their migration to the peritoneal cavity is a known complication and they have even been found to migrate to the intestine), and expulsion to perforation of the uterus and infection,24 it's hard not to wonder why a development agency would choose it for a country where women are dying from filthy sterilizations. It also is known to cause heavy bleeding in some women which would be a particular problem among Indian women, more than half of whom (56%) HRLN reports are anemic.2523 “Population Stabilization.” Press Release of the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 05 December, 2014. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=11269924 “Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine.” Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, July 2014. Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine - PubMed25 See no. 2.But in the mid 2000s USAID started looking for more ways to reduce fertility in the developing world and The Contraceptive and Reproductive Health Technologies Research and Utilization (CRTU), a five-year (2005-2010) agreement with Durham, NC based Family Health International (now FHI360) resulted. FHI started working in a number of countries including India through its Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), the Population Council, the Indian Council of Medical Research, the Constella Futures Group, SIFPSA and, of course, the government of India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, towards supporting the “revitalization” of family planning, “especially the IUD.”In 2007, USAID sponsored a symposiumwith FHI360, about developing a “comprehensive strategy for IUD repositioning.” Dr L.B.Prasad, the director general of India's MOHFW once again highlighted the growing population of India. He said that “limiting methods” of contraception (ie., sterilization”) were not so acceptable as they once were and that they wouldn't really affect population growth enough since sterilizing couples had already had all the children they want. In order to really get numbers down, he said, they needed “birth spacing” and the Copper T380A IUD was the answer to be “promoted by changing the mindsets and attitudes of people and providers.”2626 Symposium to Develop a Comprehensive Strategy for IUD Repositioning, Report of FHI 360, 03 March , 2008. http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Symposium%20to%20Develop%20a%20Comprehensive%20Strategy%20for%20IUD%20Repositioning.pdf27 “Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy, and Expulsion of Post-Placental and Intra-Cesarean Insertion of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices (PPIUCD).”Mishra S. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. October, http://2014.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368457This explains why currently at all of SIFPSA/ USAID/India affiliates’ websites, including those belonging to Jhpiego at Johns Hopkins University and Engender Health include copious documentation about the benefits and need for promoting social awareness and acceptance of Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCs)s like the IUD; and strategizing about social marketing and social franchising to “create a market” and “increase demand” for the devices. Once again, advertising agencies and media are enlisted, providers are being trained in the technicalities, and community workers deployed en masseto bring women intohospitals for safe, clean deliveries where they can have IUDs inserted within 10 minutes of delivery.A studypublished in October 2014 in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Indiasays that post-partuminsertion of a copper IUD is “safe and effective” and “cash incentives to the accepter, motivator and of course provider would bring about a substantial progress in the PPIUCD use in developing countries like India.”27USAID seem to have been well ahead of that trend. One USAID/INDIA Innovations in Family Planning Services Final Evaluation Reportfrom May 2013 discusses the implementation of a compensation scheme for IUDs and sterilizations, without any mention of the Tiahrt Amendment. “Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), a safe motherhood intervention under the NRHM [National Rural HealthMission], is being implemented with the objective of reducing maternal and neonatal mortality by promoting institutional delivery among poor pregnant women.”“The success of the scheme is determined by the increase in institutional delivery among poor families,” explains the report. “All mothers irrespective of age, birth order, or income group (BPL & APL) will get cash assistance of Rs 1400 in a lump sum at the time of delivery. ASHAs [Accredited Social Health Activists] receive Rs 600 for accompanying a rural delivery and Rs 200 for an urban delivery.” The USAID document says that sterilization is equally rewarded under the scheme with 600 rupees for a tubectomy and 1,100 rupees for vasectomy.2828 See. No. 9, p. 12.29 See No. 15.30 Gates Foundation website. OPP108438631 Gates Foundation website. OPP1084463Of course, there is no guarantee that IUD provision in India will be any safer, cleaner or more ethical than the sterilization camps were meant to be. HRW interviewed health workers who said India is already implementing the “camp approach” to IUDs. One doctor in Tamil Nadu said camps in her district insert IUDs in 30 to 35 women a day and activists are documenting cases of women having the devices inserted without consent and refused their requests to have them removed.29GATES FUNDINGUSAID said last week that it no longer supports its SIFPSA offspring. There are new strategies in play and private sector funding and corporate profiteering are playing a greater role today, although there is considerable overlap between all these agencies. Rajeev Shah, the Administrator of USAID's $22 billion annual budget, for instance, spent years in leadership positions at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation before he launched his government career.Melinda Gates appears now to be leading the charge for IUD programs for India and the rest of the developing world. Her foundation website says it gave $3million last year to Jhpiego Corporation to “provide support to the Family Planning Division, MoHFW, Government of India, as [it] takes leadership and management in providing voluntary, high-quality FP services in India with a special focus on the six high TFR [total fertility rate] states of UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.25 She awarded another $5 million to Cambridge, MA based Abt Associates, a favorite of USAID, to promote a “basket of contraceptives including injectable contraceptives” to couples in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.26And she gave FHI360 –a group that has been working in India over the past two decades --$3million for a multi-center study on IUDs.30While Gates has distanced herself from population control, Gates' family planning ties are hard to disentangle from their population control roots. Her foundation awarded $15 million this year,for example, to “promote accountability” of family planning programming in India and other countries to Johns Hopkins University31 –a group that has been among those at the helm in India under IFPS for the past decades while women suffered the most barbarous sterilization abuses. But the Gates Foundation declined to answer PRI’s questions about its programs in India.Some might consider the USAID/Gates “technological” approach to family planning amidst the deeply entrenched cultural context of India naïve. The question remains whether IUDs, latex rubber gloves for sterilizations and US-sponsored free condoms for men will do anything to truly help women in the country where they are still tortured to death in witch-hunts, half are married before age 18 and millions of baby girls are killed by infanticide. Indeed, the USAID approach—increasing Western pharmaceutical and device consumption and reducing by sterilization the number of babies born to Indian women –population control by definition –seems only tohave added to the exploitation and suffering of India’s women. Already more than 20 years of history of US underwriting of this population control tyranny is documented in tedious government and NGO policy reports. The reality is told in heart-breakingdetail by human rights activists, by the women themselves, and by their surviving families and children. America must now decide whether it wants that legacy to continue.Bibliography“103 women sterilised in a day at West Bengal hospital; probe ordered,” NDTV, 06 February, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fmnGeK2cBM2010 Annual Report, The Centre for Development and Population Activities. http://www.cedpa.org/files/2533_file_2010_Annual_Report_sm1.pdf“210 women tortured to death for 'witchcraft' in Chhattisgarh, many await justice.”The Times of India, 06 December, 2014. 210 women tortured to death for 'witchcraft' in Chhattisgarh, many await justice | India News - Times of India“20 Years of the Innovations in Family Planning Services Project in Uttar Pradesh, India Experiences, Lessons Learned and Achievements The Power of Innovations and Partnership,” Futures Group International for USAID,April, 2012. http://futuresgroup.com/files/publications/20_Years_of_IFPS_in_Uttar_Pradesh.pdfCountry Profiles: India. CIA World Factbook. Central Intelligence AgencyEffectiveness of Fund Allocation and Spending for the National Rural Health Mission in Uttarakhand, India Block and Facility Report, March 2014, The Policy Project. http://www.healthpolicyproject.com/pubs/377_UttarakhandPhaseFINAL.pdfEVALUATION: USAID/India Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Final Evaluation Report, May 2013. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JQ4B.pdf“Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy, and Expulsion of Post-Placental and Intra-Cesarean Insertion of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices” (PPIUCD).”Mishra S. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. October, http://2014.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368457“Fact-Finding Report on Sterilization, Access to Contraceptive Information and Services, and Women’s Health in Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh 14-18 November 2014,” Human Rights Law Network.Gates Foundation website. OPP1084386Gates Foundation website. OPP1084463Gates Foundation website. OPP1099538Gates Foundation website. OPP1079004“Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' to inflate women’s abdomens during sterilisation surgery.” The Independent, Tuesday 02 December, 2014. Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' during sterilisation surgery“India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisation deaths,” Mail online, 02 December, 2014. India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisati...“India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor,” The Guardian, Thursday 13 November, 2014. India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctorIndia: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming Women, 12 July, 2012. India: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming WomenInformed consent variables; Demographic and Healthy Surveys. Accessed January 2015.“Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine.” Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, July 2014. Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine - PubMedMorse, Anne. “Aborting Indian Democracy.” PRI Review. 9 Jan, 2015 Aborting Indian Democracy - PRIMorse, Anne and Mosher, Steven. “A Once and Future Tragedy: India’s sterilization campaign 39 years later.” PRI Review. 24 Jun, 2014 http://pop.org/content/once-and-future-tragedy-india%E2%80%99s-sterilization-campaign-39-years-later“Population Stabilization.” Press Release of the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 05 December, 2014. Untitled PageSIFPSA website. Welcome :: SIFPSAState Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Agency website. Welcome :: SIFPSASymposium to Develop a Comprehensive Strategy for IUD Repositioning, Report of FHI 360, 03 March , 2008. http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Symposium%20to%20Develop%20a%20Comprehensive%20Strategy%20for%20IUD%20Repositioning.pdfThe tense standoff between Catholic14 bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines, The Washington Post, November, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/14/the-tense-standoff-between-catholic-bishops-and-the-kenyan-government-over-tetanus-vaccines/USAID/INDIA STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE CLOSE OUT REPORT, http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedstates/36133186.pdf“U.S.-U.K. Foreign Aid Tied to India’s Forced Sterilization Campaign” National Catholic Register, 09 May, 2012. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-u.k.-foreign-aid-tied-to-indias-forced-sterilization-campaign/#ixzz3OKSecNKDUN Population Division; fertility data; accessed January 2015AcknowledgementsThis investigation was completed and written by Celeste McGovern to whom PRI would like to give a special thanks. This report was compiled by Anne Morse.