Caitlin Hall

The Third World is squatting right in the eye of Hurricane Bush, and everyone thinks the storm is over.

When one year ago Bush reinstated the global gag rule created by Reagan and revoked by Clinton, family-planning services in developing nations were hit hard. They faced the choice of losing their largest source of funding or severely limiting the reproductive rights of young women. They had to make that decision because the gag rule - or Mexico City Policy, depending on which side of the issue you're on - stipulated that no U.S. funds could go to family planning institutions that provided abortion services, counseled women on them, or lobbied for them to remain legal.

At the time, women's groups around the world raised hell. But that was a year ago, and a lot has changed in the last year. The public has fixed its gaze on other issues, and understandably so. However, what people don't realize is that the fight over reproductive rights for women in developing nations isn't over, and Bush is gearing up for round two. When I say the Third World is in the eye of the storm, it's because so far, the groups that are usually most vocal when it comes to family planning have been dead quiet. There's hardly been a peep from the media or even Planned Parenthood.

So what is this major issue that's provoked astonishingly little reaction? Two weeks ago, Bush took action to deny U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, the single largest provider of reproductive services for women in developing countries. U.S. support is allegedly in jeopardy because of ludicrous claims that UNFPA supports the "one-child policy" and forced abortions in China.

In reality, UNFPA withdrew all funding from China when accusations of such activities surfaced. It reinstated funding on a tentative basis in select counties only after assurances were made by the Chinese government that meaningful steps would be taken immediately to end coercive policies toward family planning. To be certain that legitimate progress would occur, UNFPA spent seven years in negotiations before resuming activities in China.

The real issue has nothing to do with China; it has only to do with Bush's personal vendetta against reproductive choice worldwide.

Bush claims he doesn't want taxpayer money going to abortions, but even that isn't the real issue. Since 1973, the Helms Amendment has outlawed the use of taxpayer money for abortions overseas. Furthermore, while UNFPA does counsel women on all of their reproductive choices - including abortions - it does not, as a matter of policy, provide abortion services or equipment. In fact, a major aim of UNFPA is to reduce the number of abortions worldwide by increasing contraceptive education.

Bush's claim that American money will go toward funding abortions is totally unfounded, as he and anyone else intimately involved in the debate know. What Bush is really after, and what the global gag rule and this latest action both seek to accomplish, is eradication of the concept of abortion in Third World countries. While for pro-life advocates that may be a cause for celebration, it undermines an option that our Supreme Court, the United Nations, and the governments of most industrialized nations have deemed a fundamental human right - the right of a woman to decide, by whatever means available, the number and spacing of her children.

As devastating as this loss would be, it pales in comparison to the untargeted effects of denying U.S. funds to UNFPA. The organization, which receives 13 percent of its budget from the United States, supplies many services to developing nations. As the largest source of reproductive services in the world, it provides 168 countries with programs promoting safe childbearing, AIDS prevention, contraceptive use and the general well-being and equality of women.

These services are sorely needed in the areas where UNFPA is most active. It is in the least-developed parts of the world - where education and healthcare are lacking - that there is the greatest strain on current resources and where the population is increasing most rapidly. Family planning services are these countries' greatest asset in the effort to curb explosive growth and fertility rates.

Given the true aims of family planning services worldwide, Bush needs to reevaluate his stance on UNFPA funding. If the effects of hobbling the organization's efforts to provide reproductive services in the most destitute regions of the world are fully understood, it is clear that we have a moral imperative to support UNFPA.