Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 63(3) August 2013

Editorial

The New Imperialists by Dr Pravin Thevasathan 

Billionaire Ted Turner has stated that he would like to reduce the world's population by a few billion people by asking them to back a one child family for a hundred years. Turner, a dedicated globalist, has given a billion dollars to the United Nations, much of which has been used for projects dealing with population issues. [1]

The David and Lucille Packhard Foundation gives large sums to population control. Old wealth has long supported population control through major private foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller. [2]

Billionaire Warren Buffett has given much to support pro-abortion research and population control. [3]

Billionaire George Soros gives large grants for purposes of population control and to support public opinion research " to combat anti-choice activities" by pro-life organizations. In 1998, the International Women's Health Coalition was funded by Soros to publish a strategy booklet on how to spread abortion in poorer countries. The organization outrageously calling itself "Catholics For Choice" has been funded by the Ford Foundation, the Buffett Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and Playboy Foundation. [4]

Billionaire Melinda Gates, who describes herself as a Catholic, campaigns to inject millions of women in the developing nations with contraceptive drugs. The Ursuline Nuns who educated her and who have received large donations from her have stated : "We're for you. We know that it is a difficult issue to speak on, but we absolutely believe you're living under Catholic values." [5]

In his book "Fatal Mis-Conception” Matthew Connelly, who does not support the pro-life cause, argues otherwise. He examines what happens when a rich and powerful lobby sees others as excess: “This is a story of how some people have tried to control others without having to answer to anyone. They could be ruthless and manipulative in ways that were, and are, shocking.”[6]

A key figure in the history of population control is Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and an ardent eugenecist. Much the same may be said of her British counterpart Marie Stopes. Connelly writes : “In the aftermath of World War II, one might have expected the whole idea of shaping populations to be discredited.” But the population controllers won. [6]

Paul Ehrlich's “The Population Bomb" [7] was released in the sixties and convinced millions. The population controllers turned to intrusive methods including the IUD. At the time, although it led to high rates of infection, J Robert Wilson, Chair of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Temple University, said: "Perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things, particularly if the infection she acquires is sterilization, but not lethal." [8]

His famous colleague Alan Guttmacher said : "No contraception could be cheaper and once the damn thing is in, the patient cannot change her mind." [9]

By the late sixties, population control became US policy. Lyndon Johnson tied aid to India with population control, as did Richard Nixon. In India, sterilization became a condition not only for land allotment but also for water, electricity and medical care. [10]

China embraced its own notorious population control programme. According to Connelly, "If parents had only one child, they were to be given subsidies for health care, priority in housing and extra retirement pay. If the parents had another child, they were required to repay these benefits." In the eighties, all women with one child were forced to have an IUD and women with more than two children were forcibly sterilized and unauthorized pregnancies were aborted. [6]

In order to gain support for their campaign, the population controllers have tried to portray themselves as people of compassion who are only interested in eradicating poverty. Connelly concludes: "The great tragedy of population control, the fatal misconception, was to think that one could know other peoples' interests better than they know it themselves." [6]

The CMQ had much positive feedback from readers around the world following our article by Andrew Pollard [10]. The article seems to have struck a chord with many who are now seeing the difficulties of ageing populations and also depopulation.

The Roman Catholic Church has suffered huge unpopularity over its stand on family life and birth control. And yet if you stand the views of the Church, which has always seen every individual as unique and special, against views such as those of Sanger [6], Stopes and Robert [7] there is a clear a categorical difference. One (the Church defending individuals) opposes the the lobby which seeks to control individual freedom through its ideology.

So these issues are centrally important in today’s world. The Church protects individuals from the “New Imperialists” Were we to rewrite the above quote from Wilson we might say “Perhaps the individual patient never expendable in the general scheme of things”