The Consequences of Forced Abortions

By David J. Stewart

The Word of God commands in Exodus 20:13... THOU SHALT NOT KILL!  Abortion is murder, plain and simple.  There are no excuses for murdering a child!  It's insane that in our modern times scientists are being given the legal authority to produce Chimeras (i.e., half animal, half human creatures); while parents are being denied the right to give birth to their own precious children.  Hell will be hot! 

The Chinese Communist government is the blueprint for America's future, where parents are required to obtain a license before having a child.  China's leaders play God—treating their citizens like herded cattle, confiscating their homes, harvesting their organs and allowing their women to be sexually exploited worldwide. 

As a tragic result of China's Communist Forced Abortion policy, 18,000,000 Chinese men cannot find wives, and the number is expected to soar to 37,000,000 by the year 2020!  This is what happens when mankind rebels against God.


Crisis Looms as 18 Million Chinese Can't Find a Wife!

Fears of sexual turmoil and 'bachelor villages'

Jonathan Watts in Beijing | Sunday August 26, 2007
The Observer

China is planning to tighten punishments for sex-selective abortions amid concerns that its widening gender imbalance will lead to wife trafficking, sexual crimes and social frustration.

Shocking new figures released by the state media show that the worst affected city, Lianyungang in Jiangsu province, has a ratio of 165 boys to 100 girls among children aged one to four.

Nationwide, six males are born for every five females, far above the international average. With the gap growing every year as a result of increased access to ultrasound sex-checking technology, one senior official warned that China faces the 'most serious gender imbalance in the world'.

There has been alarm for more than a decade, but it has reached a new pitch in recent months as state demographers forecast that 37 million men will be unable to find wives by 2020. Already there are 18 million more men than women of marriageable age. In a recent survey by the China Youth Daily, 85 per cent of respondents were worried about the implications of the gender gap.

The main reason for the imbalance is a traditional preference for boys, particularly in the countryside. Males are considered better at carrying on the family line, caring for elderly parents and earning money. Many farmers believe that raising a girl baby is a waste because she will marry into another family.

China's problem is compounded by a strict family planning policy that limits many couples to one child. The government credits these restrictions for preventing 400 million births since the rules were introduced in 1979. Without them, it says the world's largest population - now 1.3 billion - would have spiralled out of control. But the result is an increasingly lopsided demography.

In the past, unwanted girls were abandoned. Now they are more likely to be aborted. As China has become wealthier, more couples have access to ultrasound checks. Although there are two laws banning doctors from telling pregnant women the sex of the foetus, the practice is common. Local media report that one common way around the regulations is for doctors silently to give a thumbs-up if the foetus is a boy. If it is a girl, a thumbs-down serves as an execution order.

While Lianyungang had the worst imbalance, it was one of 99 cities with a ratio of more than 125 boys for every 100 girls, says the state-run Xinhua news agency. Citing a report by the China Family Planning Association, it said other provinces with serious problems were Guangdong, Anhui and Hainan. In Guizhou province, the media have reported the existence of 'bachelor villages' where most men of eligible age are unable to find a bride. In cities there has been a rise in commercial matchmaking parties aimed at bachelors, also known as 'guangun', or single sticks.

Family planning experts said the imbalance in China far surpassed the 'normal level', which they defined as an international average of about 105 boys for every 100 girls.

The authorities have found the gender balance harder to manage than restricting population growth itself. In 2003, the government introduced a 'Care for girls' policy, which provided incentives - such as tax breaks and exemptions from school and health fees - for families raising girls.

It also intensified a propaganda campaign in the countryside, where many buildings are daubed with slogans proclaiming 'Girls are as valuable as boys'. Old-style propaganda campaigns are not working, however. This summer, the government said it will punish for the first time any medical institution that tells couples the sex of unborn babies.

It is also trying to standardise its slogan campaign. According to the China Daily, out have gone threats such as 'Your house will be demolished and your cows confiscated if you reject abortion demands', and in have come sensitive entreaties aimed at raising the status of women, such as 'Both boys and girls are the hearts of their parents'.

Whether rural parents agree they are equal remains to be seen.



China's Coercive 

Population Control Program

The following is from an article from the National Committee For A Human Life Amendment. May 1999; 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 926, Washington, DC 20005  202-393-0703     

SYNOPSIS:  Key reports on China's coercive one-child-per-couple population control policy are presented along with information on the important support given to the policy by the United Nations Population Fund (referred to as the UNFPA).  Primary attention is then directed to the past and present debate surrounding U.S. funding of the UNFPA, including evidence that, despite claims to the contrary, China's program continues to be coercive.

Coercion in China's One-Child-Per-Couple Policy

In 1979 China announced a one-child-per-couple family planning policy.  In the early 1980's evidence was accumulating that China was employing coercive abortion and compulsory sterilization to carry out this policy.  After living in rural China for a year, Stephen Mosher wrote:

The Chinese government claims that the guiding principle of the abortion program is voluntarism,' but there was nothing voluntary about the process I observed when living in a Chinese village in 1980.  It involved subjecting pregnant women, many very close to term, to exhausting morning-to-night 'study sessions,' levying heavy penalties on them and their families, and the actual incarceration of those who still proved recalcitrant.  Nor does the description 'voluntary' adequately encompass the reports that have come out of China since then of pregnant women being handcuffed, thrown into hog cages and taken to operating tables of rural clinics. 1

After a three-year investigation of China's "one couple, one child" policy, another report confirmed the Mosher experience:

Publicly, they [Chinese leaders] claim to rely on the powers of persuasion and education, exercising a policy of voluntary consent...But a closer and longer look reveals a very different picture.  China, to be sure, is curbing its population growth, but its success is rooted in widespread coercion, mass abortion and intrusion by the state into the most intimate of human affairs...What emerges from more than 200 interviews spaced over three years with officials, doctors, peasants and workers in almost two-thirds of China's 29 main subdivisions is the story of an all-out government siege against ancient family traditions and the reproductive habits of a billion people.2

Over the years, the evidence has only grown.  The official government claims that the program is voluntary stand in stark contrast to the pervasive brutal realities reported on repeated occasions.  In the early 1990's, China intensified its population control program.  One news account relates how unauthorized births are punished:

Villagers say that if they cannot pay the fines, the family planning officials confiscate a cow, a pig, an important farm tool or household belongings like furniture or a television.  Sometimes they simply smash the items, and often they knock down the house as well.3

In the same news account, one woman comments about the punishments:

'If you get sterilized, they take your stuff, and if you don't get sterilized, they beat you.  Some people have been beaten badly, family members and women.'4

The U.S. State Department's Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 agrees that in China "violence against women, including coercive family planning practices--which sometimes include forced abortion and forced sterilization" continues to be a problem today.5

UNFPA's Support for China's Population Program

The UNFPA has been deeply involved in the China program from the beginning.  UNFPA officials participated in the State Family Planning Commission.  In 1983, the UNFPA gave China's family-planning minister, Qian Zinzhong, the first U.N. population award.  In 1985 the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) concluded that "the kind and quality of assistance provided by UNFPA contributed significantly to China's ability to manage and implement a population program in which coercion was pervasive."6  In 1987 the UNFPA representative in China said that the government had "shown its full commitment to a family planning program that has been internationally acknowledged as one of the most successful efforts in the world today."7  In 1991, Navis Sadik, the executive director of the UNFPA, stated that "China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable achievements" and held up the family planning program as a model for others:  "Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries."8

The UNFPA has continued to be firmly supportive of the China program, declining to criticize its coercive character and even making claims that the program is voluntary.  Rafael Salas, a UNFPA Executive Director, once stated: "I am very sure that the Chinese themselves will say that, within their cultural norms, they are not at all coercive. Maybe from certain Western standards, these might not be totally acceptable. But then, each country must determine that for themselves."9  In 1998, the UNFPA agreed to a new 4-year funding commitment.

U.S. Policy 1985 to 1993: Funding Denied to UNFPA

On July 10, 1985, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to condemn the China population program and eliminate U.S. funding for the UNFPA. 10  In August of that year Congress approved the Kemp/Kasten Amendment to a supplemental foreign aid appropriations bill.  The amendment denied funding to any organization that, as determined by the President, supported or participated in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

On September 25, 1985, AID stated that involvement by UNFPA in China violated the Kemp/Kasten Amendment and disqualified the organization for funding.  This decision was challenged by the Population Institute (which received funds from the UNFPA) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but a three-judge panel unanimously upheld the AID determination on August 12, 1986.

In subsequent years, the Kemp/Kasten Amendment was enacted as part of the annual Foreign Operations Appropriations Bills.  Each year, AID reviewed the China program and UNFPA's involvement in it and concluded that there was no change in the situation that would warrant resumption of funding.  Congress annually redirected the family planning monies to organizations that complied with the Kemp/Kasten Amendment.

1993: Clinton Administration Re-interprets Law and Approves Funding

However, in 1993 the Clinton Administration reinterpreted the Kemp/Kasten Amendment to apply only to "direct" participation in the prohibited coercive policies.  The Administration began funding the UNFPA

1999: Pro-Abortion Advocates Back  UNFPA Funding

Efforts to block the flow of federal tax dollars to the UNFPA had no meaningful success until a prohibition was included in the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.11

Even though China's population program is coercive and the UNFPA continues to support that program, pro-abortion advocates in Congress are seeking in 199 to regain U.S. funding for the UNFPA.

On March 23, 1999, the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations voted out a Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 1211) with the condition that no U.S. funds can be made available to the UNFPA unless the President certifies for each fiscal year that:

(A) the UNFPA has terminated all activities in the People's Republic of China, and the United States has received assurances that UNFPA will conduct no such activities during the fiscal year for which the funds are to be made available; or

(B) during the 12 months preceding such certification there have been no abortions as the result of coercion associated with the family planning policies of the national government or other governmental entities within the People's Republic of China.

This language is similar to pro-life language that has been approved by the House since 1995 (thought it never became law).

However, on April 14 the full House Committee on International Relations voted 23-yea, 17-no, to gut this provision and substitute an amendment offered by Re. Tom Campbell (R-CA).  This amendment allows U.S. funds to be given to the UNFPA.  The amendment's requirement that bookeeping procedures keep U.S. monies separate from other UNFPA funds is meaningless.  Assurances that the UNFPA monies in China not be used in places where coercion is practiced ring hollow.  Even UNFPA admits that in these places couples who choose to have more children than recommended by official policy may be subject to a "social compensation fee."  According to one account: "The authorities insist the fee is not a punitive fine but rather a tax on those who contribute to the population growth rate....In Deqing County, the fee is 20 to 50 percent of a couple's income that year, payable over five years.."12 At a minimum, the ploys in the Campbell Amendment downplay the reality of the coercive population control program in China.  The amendment colludes in the claims that China's family planning policies are voluntary and that the UNFPA only supports voluntary programs.  money supporting the China program in any respect inevitably supports the whole program.

Former Planned-Birth Office Administrator Testifies

Recent personal testimony before Congress reveals that coercive population control practices that began in 1979 continue today.

On June 10, 1998, Gao Xiao Duan, an administrator from 1984 to 1998 in a Planned-Birth Office (PBO) in China's Fujian Province, gave firsthand testimony before the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee on how the policies on planned-births are carried out. Ms. Gao described "planned-birth supervision teams" organized by the PBOs.  At the PBO's behest, the town head and party secretary would order all social organizations--including public security and the courts--to select persons who would be organized into teams.

They are then sent to villages or areas where problems are expected, either for routine door-to-door checking or for swift checking of local violators.  Supervision teams are makeshift, and, to avoid leaks, cadres do not know which village they will be sent to until the last minute.  Planned-birth supervision teams usually exercise night raids, encircling suspected households with lightening speed.  Should they fail to apprehend a woman violator, they catch he husband, brother(s), and/or parent(s) in lieu of the woman herself, and detain them in the PBO's detention room to force the woman into surrendering herself.  We then would perform a sterilization or abortion surgery on her.

Ms. Gao listed "a few practices" carried out in the wake of planned-birth supervision: house dismantling, apprehending and detaining violators, sterilization, and abortion.  She described one exercise that she led:

I found that two women in Zhoukeng Town had extra-plan births.  In a move approved by the town head, I led a planned-birth supervision team composed of a dozen cadres and public security agents.  Sledge hammers and heavy crowbars in hand, we went to Zhoukeng Town and dismantled their houses.  Unable to apprehend the women in the case, we took their mothers in lieu of them, and detained them in the PBO's detention facility.  It was not until a month-and-a-half later that the women surrendered themselves to the PBO, where they were sterilized and monetary penalties were imposed.

Ms. Gao summed up her work:

All of those 14 years, I was a monster in the daytime, injuring others by the Chinese communist authorities' barbaric planned birth policy, but in the evening I was like all other women and mothers, enjoying my life with my children.  I could not live such a dual life anymore.  Here, to all those injured women, to all those children who were killed, I want to repent and say sincerely that I'm sorry!  I want to be a real human being

On the same day, Mr. Harry Wu also testified, arguing that China's policy is from the central government on down.  Because the policy is from the top down, the central government cannot shirk its responsibility for these policies "by referring to 'local cadres' low qualities,' 'deviation from the Center's spirit,' 'force of habit,' 'backward social culture,' or other explanations."

UNFPA: Fiction versus the Truth

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Christopeher Smith (R-NJ) observed that Ms. Gao's testimony reveled new details about the China population control program, for example, that a network of paid informants is used, that sterilization is used not only as a preventive measure but also as a punishment, that the PBOs keep records about the sexual history of every woman within their jurisdiction, or that the PBOs actually contain detention cells.

Ironically, these shocking revelations come only a few months after the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has resumed its formal cooperation with the PRC population program. The UNFPA's announcement this January [1998] of a 4-year, $20-million China program included a statement that 'China is keen to move away from its administrative approach to family planning to an integrated client-centered reproductive health approach, based on the principles of free and voluntary choice.' Ms. Gao's testimony today makes clear that this premise is profoundly wrong.  UNFPA's renewed arrangement with the PRC population control bureaucrats puts them in partnership with thugs and criminals.

Forced abortion was rightly denounced as a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg Tribunal. The United Nations should be or organizing an international tribunal to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the Chinese population control program.  Instead it goes on funding them and congratulation them.

Denial, evasion, and opportunistic arguments  cannot change the truth. Coerced abortion and coerced sterilization are realities in China.  The United Sates has an obligation to take a stand for basic human rights and should not contribute in any way to this moral tragedy.


Aird, John S. Slaughter of the Innocents: Coercive Birth Control in China.  Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1990.

Moshe, Steven W. A Mother's Ordeal: One Woman's Fight against China's One-Child Policy. I993

Coercive Population Control in China." Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, 104th Congress, First Session.  May 17, June 22, and 28th, and July 19, 1995.  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.

"Forced Abortion and Sterilization in China: The View from the Inside." Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, Second Session.  June 10, 1998.  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998.


1. "How China Uses U.N. Aid for Forced Abortions," The Wall Street Journal (May 13, 1985).

2. Michael Weisskopf, "Abortion Policy Tears at China's Society," The Washington Post (January 7, 1985).

3. Shirley WuDunn, "Births Punished by Fine, Beating or Ruined Home," The New York Times (April 25, 1993)

4. Ibid.

5. U.S. Department of State, Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 (released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, February 26, 1999).

6. John S. Aird, Slaughter of the Innoncent: Coercive Birth Control in China (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1990).

7. Ibid.

8. XINHUA (China's official news agency), April 11, 1991.

9. Address to a forum on Capitol Hill, April 8, 1986.

10. H.R. 2577, signed into law August 15, 1985 as Pl 99-88

11. "Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).: H.R. 4328, signed into law October 21, 1998 as PL 105-277.

12. Liz Sly, "China's Voluntary One-Child Policy Birthing New Revolution," Chicago Tribune (May 24, 1998).

SOURCE: China Population

Evils in Government  |  Police State USA!

Beauty products made from the skin of executed Chinese prisoners

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." —2nd Thessalonians 1:8

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!