Category: Population

Related directly to population issues.

Categories
Population

Distrust Amendment 67

Image NO67 largerThis essay needs some explanation to people who live outside of Colorado. Colorado has been chosen to be a lightning rod for the antiabortion people. This year is the third time they have proposed an amendment to the state’s constitution that would give “personhood” to a fetus–even to a fertilized ovum!
Although this article may not be relevant to people who live outside of Colorado, if we are not careful the “personhood” movement may spread across states–and across countries.
If you live in Colorado, be certain to vote against Amendment 67. If you live elsewhere, please wish us good luck!

Some people are trying to take political advantage of a tragic accident. In 2012 a drunk driver turned left in front of woman who was driving home from a prenatal visit. The two vehicles collided and the woman’s airbag exploded. She survived, but her fetus was killed by the impact.
The intoxicated man had had multiple prior tickets for drunk driving. By Colorado law at that time, drunk driving was only a misdemeanor unless it resulted in the injury or death of a person. This added insult to injury since the infant was not a person, and thus the drunkard got off with a light sentence.
Fortunately the law has been changed. In June of this year the Governor Hickenlooper signed into law: “The civil remedy for unlawful termination of pregnancy act.” The purpose of the law is “to provide an appropriate civil remedy to a woman who suffers an unlawful termination of her pregnancy….” This makes Amendment 67 unnecessary.
Importantly, this new law stresses that the law cannot be construed to confer “any rights… upon a human being at any time prior to birth”. Furthermore, it provides that no woman or healthcare worker can be prosecuted for an injury to her pregnancy caused by any action or inaction.
What is this all about? Amendment 67 is the third attempt of people who are against abortion to establish that a fetus—even an embryo and most ridiculously, a fertilized egg—is a legal “person”. This “personhood” would give it the same protection of law as a walking, talking individual.
It would seem that the ultimate goal of this legal maneuvering is to limit or to outlaw all abortions. But if this is so, why aren’t the people who are pushing “personhood” honest and just propose an amendment that would outlaw all abortions? Why are they sneaky and going this devious legal route? The people of Colorado have already passed a law to protect a fetus from “unlawful termination”. This amendment would increase governmental probing into and control of our personal lives. Reproduction should remain private!
I can only guess at the deceitful thinking that is motivating this amendment. It is likely that antiabortion forces are exploiting the drunk-driving tragedy mentioned above.
The writers of this proposed amendment should disclose three important facts to make it more truthful. Amendment 67 is totally unnecessary because there already is a law to cover this. Furthermore, the proposed amendment has been worded so that it could be interpreted to outlaw all abortions. Even worse, it could be construed to prevent the use of some of the most effective methods of birth control.
IUDs are now recognized to be significantly more effective than hormonal contraceptive methods such as “the pill”. Medical science has found that IUDs do not cause an abortion. Many of the people who are against abortion are also against contraception, and ignore the scientific evidence and would try to outlaw IUDs.
If this amendment were to become law, women who had a miscarriage would be vulnerable to investigation by law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, desperate women who tried to self-abort could be guilty of murder.
An evangelical professor and historian, Randall Balmer, writes about the hypocrisy of the Religious Right’s movement against abortion in his book “Thy Kingdom Come—an Evangelical’s Lament”. He describes what he calls the “abortion myth”, that the RR has always been against abortion. Indeed, some of the leaders of the movement were initially in favor of abortion when it became legal in our country, in 1973. Instead, he claims, when too many evangelicals were leaving their spouses abortion became a political football. Balmer writes that in the late 1970s there was a conference call among evangelical leaders to discuss strategy. They realized that they had the makings of a broad political movement but needed a cause. “A voice said ‘How about abortion’. And that is how abortion was cobbled into the agenda of the Religious Right.”
Even if you are against most abortions, sometimes abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life, and almost everyone feels that legal abortion should be available to survivors of rape and incest.
There have been two prior attempts (in 2008 and 2010) in Colorado to establish legal “personhood” for a fetus by amending our constitution. In each case over 70% of voters cast their ballots against those amendments. Please vote in this election, and please recognize that Amendment 67 is not needed. Indeed, the amendment is a devious attempt to control women.
© Richard Grossman MD, 2014

Categories
Environment Medical Population

Integrate Population, Health and Environment

            If we had unlimited resources we wouldn’t need to be concerned about human population. We live in a wonderful, rich world, but we need to share with such a large number of people and other living beings.

Some of the richest places on Earth have been called “biodiversity hotspots”. These 35 special areas are home to many endemic species—species that are unique to that one area. Although the hotspots make up only a small fraction of the Earth’s surface (about a 40th), they are home to such a variety of life that isn’t found anywhere else. The sad thing is that much of this wonderful diversity is already lost, and what is left is threatened with extinction.

Hotspots are also fertile spots. People are attracted to settle in them to exploit this productivity. Indeed, it is this humanity that threatens to destroy the fecundity. Fortunately a relatively new constellation of services offers help in a very humane way.

Population-Health-Environment (PHE) programs are the new way to slow damage to hotspots. Starting with the “E”, the first step is to help the local people be more aware of the value of the wonderful place where they live. The locals learn how they depend on ecosystem services, such as mangrove trees that serve as nurseries for fish. A clinic provides simple health care and health education, which are unusual in hotspots. Voluntary family planning is made available along with other health services. Often local women learn to be advocates for family planning and can administer certain modern contraceptive methods.

Many years ago we visited a PHE in Peru. It is the brainchild of an eccentric research scientist turned humanitarian, Eleanor Smithwick. Peru Amazon Conservation is based the small town of Atún Cocha. As Eleanor points out, the mestizo people there have lost their indigenous respect for nature. In the past they felled trees to sell for lumber, but didn’t replant; Eleanor taught them the value of raising saplings.

Eleanor recruited a local bilingual man, Clever Hoyos, to be the health educator. He taught about conservation as well as sanitation and nutrition. Together they set up a clinic that serves 14 villages and about 2500 people.

Their innovation was their family planning program. Most of the people live far from Atún Cocha along the river where the only means of transportation is a slow dugout canoe. On a certain Thursday every 3 months Clever would travel by boat to give DMPA (DepoProveraâ) injections. The women knew when to expect the boat and would be waiting at the dock. This was a very popular program, but unfortunately the cost of the medication rose so high that the program wasn’t sustainable.

A more recent and elaborate PHE program is half a world away in Madagascar. A British physician who loves to SCUBA dive became distressed by the destruction of the ocean life. Blue Ventures has an interesting combination of a nonprofit funded by a for-profit business. The for-profit arm features ecotourism and especially diving, but the nonprofit is more difficult to outline.

Blue Ventures not only conserves endangered species such as sea turtles and sharks, but engages the local children in conservation. They provide school scholarships to be certain that future generations are well educated. Because of the risk of overharvesting crops of fish, octopi and sea cucumbers, they have successfully instituted temporary fisheries closures, which have increased total yields—and the fishers’ incomes.

Health services focus on the basics—water and sanitation—as well as clinical services. They use many modalities to reach the people about health and conservation, including radio, interactive village presentations and school workshops using sports and theater.

Blue Ventures have trained 40 local women to provide voluntary reproductive health services to over 20,000 people in 50 communities. The contraceptive prevalence rate has gone from 10% to 55% in just 6 years. They calculate that voluntary family planning has averted more than 750 unintended pregnancies during this period. Most important, perhaps, is that the vast majority of people recognize the links between reproductive health, family size and food security. I wish that were true for more people in the USA!

To quote from the Blue Ventures’ website, “PHE programmes address the interconnected challenges of poor health, unmet family planning needs, environmental degradation, food insecurity, gender inequality and vulnerability to climate change in a holistic way.” They have great potential to keep biodiversity hotspots from being overrun by people. Just as important are the benefits to the people who live in these rich and beautiful areas.

© Richard Grossman MD, 2014