Category: Action

Categories
Action Durango Herald Environment Hope Media Population

Speak Out on Population

Speak Out on Population

© Richard Grossman MD, 2009

“I do not understand why there is very little discussion, or even acknowledgement, that unless the human population on this planet can be limited to a sustainable number, there will be wars and death over food and water.”

I agree with Rick, a fellow Bayfield resident, who wrote the above sentence several months ago in response to one of my articles. Rick started:

“I read your article in the Herald this past weekend and was encouraged to find some recognition that human population growth is the root cause of this planet’s problems. I find it nauseating to read countless articles written by supposed experts proposing band-aid fixes to the increasing numbers of problems we humans face, when in fact, that will only delay the inevitable”.

I feel rewarded to know that there are others who feel the same way as I do. Thank you, Rick, and all of the others who have written or spoken to me in response to Population Matters! articles. I even appreciate hearing from people who do not agree with me. I count as a friend a man I haven’t met, but we communicate respectfully about abortion—a subject about which we have radically different ideas.

I am amazed that people do not make the connection between environmental issues and the human effect on Earth. After all, it is our profligate consumption and our ever-increasing numbers that are causing pollution, loss of species and global climate change—amongst other crises. Fortunately there are people, like Rick, who do “get it”; they understand the relationship, and are willing to do something about it.

Concern about human population became popular after Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb was published in 1968. Shortly afterwards, Zero Population Growth (which espoused reaching a steady state of population) was founded. Interest came to a halt in 1994 when the International Conference on Population and Development shifted the focus from population to “reproductive health.” The assumption was that providing reproductive health care would allow people to have as few children as they wanted.

The other part of that assumption is that economies were improving, and that fertility would decline as peoples’ wellbeing improved. Unfortunately, economic development implies increased consumption, so development is not an unmitigated blessing. Education (especially of girls) is all-around good, since education doesn’t need to increase consumption—but definitely is associated with smaller family size.

There were several reasons that people at ICPD turned away from population and toward RH. This huge conference of the United Nations needed to reach a consensus of the 179 nations attending (including the Holy See or Vatican) and RH was an easier concept for some countries to tolerate than population stabilization. A major reason that limiting population growth went out of favor is the abuses that were perpetrated in its name. In some countries people were coerced to use contraception or to have sterilization operations. China’s one child family policy is famous for being coercive, and there is evidence that some women were even forced to have abortions. We now recognize that the most successful family planning programs are totally voluntary.

So ICPD was a turning point away from concern about population. But how successful has the focus on RH been? In the fifteen years since ICPD the world’s population has increased by more than one billion people and atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from 358 to 386 parts per million. Furthermore, we are now using the resources of about 1.3 planet earths, whereas in 1994 we only used about 10% more than was sustainable. We have not done well! I feel that attention has been distracted from the real issue.

How could this be? Why do people not pay more attention to population? I recommend a short video by a Harvard professor of psychology. Although it focuses on the related issue of global climate change, much of what it says also pertains to population: www.desmogblog.com/dan-gilbert-on-the-psychology-of-global-warming-video.

An additional reason that population is even more taboo than climate may be more important. Population involves the issues of sexuality and contraception that many people—and religions—feel strongly about.

John Feeney, a Colorado journalist, has created the Global Speak Out on Population at http://gpso.wordpress.com/. The goal of GSOP is to bring the issue of human population back into the public’s consciousness. I suggest that you check out the website, and then sign the pledge of support.

Rick, you are correct; human population growth is the root cause of many of this planet’s problems. Thank you for recognizing this!

Published in the Durango Herald 2-09

The article above may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Categories
Action Contraception Durango Herald Family Planning Medical Population Public Health Reproductive Health Women's Issues

No on Amendment 48

The article below may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

 

No on Amendment 48

© Richard Grossman MD, 2008

 

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

 

            “I am sorry, Mrs. Folk. There is nothing I can do.” I am in my office, holding ultrasound pictures. The Folks are sitting in front of me, looking dumbfounded. Two of their three children are present; the oldest is at school.

            “These pictures show a tubal pregnancy. It is very early, but we can still see the fetal heartbeat. It is clearly outside of your uterus.” Mrs. Folk is crying now.

             “In the past we used to treat ectopic pregnancies with surgery, or even just medicine. That is not possible now. Your chances of dying from this pregnancy are about fifty-fifty.”

            Approximately one pregnancy in 200 is in the wrong place. Although a woman’s uterus is wonderfully adapted to nourishing a developing fetus, her tubes are not. When a pregnancy grows in the tube, it tears the fragile tissue, causing pain and internal bleeding. Women still die of tubal pregnancies.

            Is the above scenario some sort of science fiction, set in some remote hard-hearted future? No, not if proposed Amendment 48 passes this November election. This scenario could happen right here in Colorado next year.

            Clearly 48 was drafted to stop all abortions in Colorado (even after rape or incest). It is short—and extremely deceptive. Nicknamed the “Personhood Amendment”, 48 reads: “As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of article II of the State Constitution, the terms ’person’ or ‘persons’ shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”

            Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution states: “Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” If a developing fetus (or even a newly fertilized egg) is defined as a person, then anyone who interrupts a pregnancy, no matter if it is potentially lethal to the mother, could be punished. The woman herself would be an accomplice. This would mean that anyone, including a physician who does surgery to save a woman’s life because of a tubal pregnancy, would be subject to the same penalties as a first degree murderer. Would the police have to investigate women who have miscarriages, too?

            The proposed amendment is so extreme that, if 48 were to pass, it would create legal havoc in our state. It would take years and millions of dollars to work out the legal implications.

            This amendment would not only prevent abortion, but it might also prevent many forms of contraception. Antiabortion people claim that hormonal birth control and IUDs cause abortions. Their evidence for this is weak, and is at odds with the majority of medical experts including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—my professional organization.

            The sad fact is that the amendment would probably increase the number of abortions! Making abortion illegal doesn’t stop women from trying to interrupt pregnancies—it makes them use desperate means. For instance, when abortion became legal in Norway, the abortion rate didn’t increase. Women did get better care, however. Remember that the best way to prevent abortions is with access to good contraception.

            Moreover, proposed Amendment 48 would prevent couples from taking advantage of many infertility treatments. In vitro fertilization would be banned because of the risk of losing an embryo—defined as a person.

            The people who wrote this proposed amendment (and the 131,245 people who signed petitions to put it on the ballot in November) appear to be honest, God-fearing Coloradoans. Their website lists physicians who support the amendment, but very, very few live in Colorado! In fact, they are outsiders testing the waters in our state to see how they can control women’s reproductive lives. Because of their efforts to impose their strict religious beliefs on everyone, they are the closest thing we have in the USA to the Taliban.

            This proposed amendment would punish parents and physicians who believe that all children should be planned and loved. It has been centuries since people were punished so severely for trying to help women control their fertility. There is strong evidence that the motivation to seek out and kill “witches” in Colonial times was to eradicate women who held the secrets of contraception. This was one way men could retaliate against women who knew more than they did.

            Don’t let religious zealots control women’s lives in Colorado. Vote “NO” to proposed Amendment 48. Go to www.protectfamiliesprotectchoices.org for more information.

 

Published October, 2008