The UN War on Population

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.1
• Paul Ehrlich,

The Population Bomb (1968)

Central to the issues we are going to have to deal with are: ... the explosive increase in population.... We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control.2
• Maurice F. Strong,

UNCED Secretary-General

Since its inception, the U.N. has advanced a world-wide of population control, scientific human breeding, and Darwinism.3
• Claire Chambers,

The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution


The United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation have the blood of millions of innocent babies worldwide on their hands.4
• Rev. Paul Marx,

Founder, Human Life International

One of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century, now accepted without question by much of the world’s “educated” populace, is the fraudulent contention that the earth is terribly overpopulated with humans.


So serious is the “overpopulation crisis,” according to prevailing wisdom, that it threatens not only to outstrip food production and all other basic resources, but also to render our planet uninhabitable for humans and other animal species because of pollution.


Overpopulation is a crucial tenet underlying much of the collectivist One-World agenda. According to its theorists, this global “crisis,” justifies the most far-reaching government controls imaginable: controls over the economy, the environment, and, of course, over the most private and intimate of areas, our reproductive lives. The high oracle of the doctrine of overpopulation for more than two decades - and a leading advocate of totalitarian “remedy” for this supposed affliction - has been Paul Ehrlich.


Since its publishing debut in 1968, more than 20 million copies of his book The Population Bomb have been sold, making it one of the best-selling books of all time. It remains on high school and college required reading lists, along with Professor Ehrlich’s newest diatribe, The Population Explosion,5 a 1990 update of his famous doomsday message of 1968.


In the earlier work he warned:

Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.... We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out.6 [Emphasis added]

Although his radically pessimistic predictions of dying oceans and imminent global catastrophes were refuted at the time by many men of science (and the passing years have seen the refutations increase in number),7 the biologist from Stanford University rocketed to stardom as a leading spokesman of the environment/population control movement.


In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich praised abortion as “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control,” and suggested that “compulsory birth regulation” through the government-mandated addition of “temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food” may become necessary.8

A few months earlier, in the Winter 1968 issue of Stanford Today, he was even more explicit.

“It must be made clear to our population,” he said, “that it is socially irresponsible to have large families.”

Then, completely disregarding parental rights, norms of morality, and the fact that our constitutional system grants the federal government absolutely no authority to meddle in such affairs, he called for “federal laws making instruction in birth-control methods mandatory in all public schools.”9


Increasing the intensity of his totalitarian demands, he stated,

“If these steps fail to reverse today’s population growth, we shall then be faced with some form of compulsory birth regulation. We might institute a system whereby a temporary sterilant would be added to a staple food or to the water supply. An antidote would have to be taken to permit reproduction.”10 (Emphasis added)

Sound a bit authoritarian?


Well, according to this anti-population crusader, we’re facing a deadly serious situation, and the “operation will require many brutal and tough-minded decisions.”11 Ehrlich’s critical acclaim in the major media and his phenomenal book sales ushered in a doom boom that has fed, and in turn has been fed by, an ever-expanding proliferation of population control programs.


They are funded by tax dollars funneled through national government agencies, the United Nations, and an international network of private anti-natalist organizations. Of the many ecological jeremiads following in the wake of The Population Bomb, two of the most influential were The Limits to Growth (1972),12 a report produced for the Club of Rome, and the Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States (1980),13 a federal government publication that gives legitimacy to the thoughts of a large assemblage of professional wailers from environmental/population control circles.


The Limits to Growth has sold over 10 million copies and has been translated into more than 30 languages. The prodigious Global 2000, whose physical size resembles a New York City telephone book, sold over one million copies. Both achieved an aura of importance with their reliance on sophisticated computer modeling to analyze massive banks of data, factor in various assumptions and variables, and then predict the future.

Like Ehrlich, these publications predicted a dismal future for both mankind and nature unless governments intervened on a massive scale. As the Club of Rome’s researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported in The Limits to Growth: “Entirely new approaches are required to redirect society toward goals of equilibrium rather than growth.” And, “joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent.” The ultimate goal of this “supreme effort” would be “to organize more equitable distribution of wealth and income worldwide.”14


Karl Marx could not have phrased it better. And, of course, the social engineers with their mighty computers would show the way. Not everyone, however, was favorably impressed by their efforts or their results. Scientists and scholars from many disciplines, representing a broad cross-section of political thought, thoroughly discredited these studies with facts, logic, and sound analysis. Even socialist Gunnar Myrdal, certainly no opponent of heavy-handed government, remained unconvinced that the celebrated MIT researchers had made a worthwhile contribution to our knowledge of the world, how it works, or what to expect in the future.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist said of the Club of Rome’s vaunted “science”:

[T]he use of mathematical equations and a huge computer, which registers the alternatives of abstractly conceived policies by a “world simulation model,” may impress the innocent general public but has little, if any, scientific validity. That this “sort of model is actually a new tool for mankind” is unfortunately not true. It represents quasi-learnedness of a type that we have, for a long time, had too much of....”15

Or, as another unimpressed scholar would aptly put it, the MIT team amounted to little more than a glorified “Malthus with a computer.”16 The Global 2000 team differed little from the MIT group in approach, methodology, assumptions, and conclusions. In its letter of transmittal to the President of the United States, its staff reported, as expected, that the world’s future was indeed bleak:

Environmental, resource, and population stresses are intensifying and will increasingly determine the quality of human life on our planet. These stresses are already severe enough to deny many millions of people basic needs for food, shelter, health, and jobs, or any hope for betterment. At the same time, the earth’s carrying capacity ... is eroding.17

But a different group of eminent scientists and academics, surveying precisely the same horizons, came away with a completely opposite picture of what the future holds. In The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000, these experts predicted:

Environmental, resource, and population stresses are diminishing, and with the passage of time will have less influence than now upon the quality of human life on our planet. These stresses have in the past always caused many people to suffer from lack of food, shelter, health, and jobs, but the trend is toward less rather than more of such suffering. Especially important and noteworthy is the dramatic trend toward longer and healthier life throughout all the world. Because of increases in knowledge, the earth’s “carrying capacity” has been increasing throughout the decades and centuries and millennia to such an extent that the term “carrying capacity” has by now no useful meaning.18

The authors of The Resourceful Earth marshaled an avalanche of scientific evidence to substantiate their optimistic projections and to refute the dire prophesies of the Global 2000 alarmists. Their authoritative refutations received scant media attention, however, and were not successful in offsetting the harmful influence of the doomsday reports or in stanching the seemingly endless succession of imitators. What The Resourceful Earth scientists and many other scholars have conclusively demonstrated is that the scientific credibility of overpopulation alarmists is about as reliable as that of Chicken Little.


There is no evidence that the earth, or any region of it, is overpopulated. China and India, two countries most often cited as cases of extreme population density, in reality have population densities similar to Pennsylvania and the United Kingdom, respectively.19 These and other socialist nations suffer not from overpopulation, but overregulation: not too many people, but too many bureaucrats and too much government stifling productivity and progress.

We do not have the space here to attempt to dispel the overpopulation myths that have been so assiduously promoted over the past two decades. For those with an interest in exploring this important issue, however, there are a number of excellent works that deserve attention: The Myth of Overpopulation by Rousas J. Rushdoony; Grow or Die by James A. Weber; The War Against Population by Jacqueline Kasun; The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon; Population Growth: The Advantages by Colin Clark; Handbook on Population by Robert Sassone; and The Birth Dearth by Ben Wattenberg.

The globalists at the Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, and the United Nations continue to hold to and support their doom-and-gloom worldview in the face of overwhelmingly contrary evidence. Doing so supplies the excuse for their continuing proposals for global “crisis management.”


Thus we have reports like Changing Our Ways (1992) from the Carnegie Endowment’s National Commission on America and the New World, claiming population growth “threatens international stability,” and “universal access to family planning services ... is the least costly and ... the most pragmatic means to address the issue.”20


The Carnegie Commission charged that “American leadership has been absent on the population crisis for too long,” even though it admits in the next breath “the United States remains the largest donor (in 1990, $280 million).”21

“Since the 1980s,” continued the report of this prestigious panel of Establishment Insiders, “the United States has abandoned the two major international organizations devoted to population control efforts: the International Planned Parenthood Federation ... and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).”22

The Carnegie collectivists were referring to the congressional cutoff of funding for these organizations, beginning in 1985, because of the support they were providing for coercive abortion policies and programs in China. But the cutoff of American-supplied funds for one UN agency did not kill the UN’s efforts to force population control.



The UN Supplies the Funds


The barbarity of China’s one-child policy was so repugnant that, as reports came out, even many liberals were repelled.


In her book entitled The War Against Population, conservative Professor Jacqueline Kasun supplied a stunning summary of the shocking brutality directed against pregnant women by China’s communist officials:

Christopher Wren reported in the New York Times that thousands of Chinese women were being “rounded up and forced to have abortions.” He described women “locked in detention cells or hauled before mass rallies and harangued into consenting to abortions.” He told of “vigilantes [who] abducted pregnant women on the streets and hauled them off, sometimes handcuffed or trussed, to abortion clinics,” and of “aborted babies which were ... crying when they were born.” Michele Vink wrote in the Wall Street Journal of women who were “handcuffed, tied with ropes or placed in pig’s baskets” for their forced trips to the abortion clinics. According to Steven Mosher, the People’s Republic Press was openly speaking of the “butchering, drowning, and leaving to die of female infants and the maltreating of women who have given birth to girls.”23

China scholar Steven Mosher, who personally witnessed the harshness of these policies in the rural Chinese village where he lived and worked on his doctoral studies during 1979-80, noted that U.S.,

“tax dollars were providing about 25 percent of the annual budget for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. Monies from UNFPA’s budget (which ran $136 million in 1985) have aided China’s population control program.”24

Long after China’s atrocious policies were brought to light, UNFPA was still supporting the totalitarian measures. In July 1987, for example, the New China News Agency in Beijing reported the praise an UNFPA official had showered on the regime.

“China is actively working to set up a model of how social and economic factors can be harnessed in a harmonious way,” he said. “The government has 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.”25 (Emphasis added)

The Council on Foreign Relations chose to swallow the line put out by Chinese communist officials and UN bureaucrats rather than believe the independently corroborated stories of both Chinese and Western observers. In his article entitled “The Case for Practical Internationalism” in the Spring 1988 issue of Foreign Affairs, top CFR strategist Richard N. Gardner reiterated earlier calls for programs to meet the “population challenge” and asserted:

A major challenge to the next president will be to restore U.S. support for the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, which we have cut off over charges that China’s population program uses coercive abortion, something both China and UNFPA deny. The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) denied any direct role in supplying funds for China’s population program.26

According to Jacqueline Kasun, AID may not have done so directly, but,

“it was a major contributor to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Fund for Population Activities, both of which supplied funds to the Chinese program. China and the United States also exchanged researchers to study population policy.”27

But, if the UNFPA received U.S. funds indirectly through other U.S.-funded organizations, isn’t it still accurate to state that the citizens of this nation are helping to fund the population control activities of the UN? Also, the denial by Chinese and UNFPA officials that coercive abortion is being practiced in China is a bald-faced lie.

AID officials could hardly back up their disavowal; AID records plainly show the agency’s funding of IPPF and UNFPA, both of which have been open advocates of coercive population measures. For example, the outspoken president of Planned Parenthood, Alan Guttmacher, who was also a top official of IPPF, bluntly stated in 1969:

“Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, determining when and how it should be employed.... The means presently available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion.”28

The taxpayer-funded IPPF, says Fr. Paul Marx, the founder of Human Life International, “is the world’s largest purveyor of abortion on demand. IPPF’s model of ‘safe motherhood’ is a sterile woman with a dead baby, preferably a baby killed at one of their numerous abortion mills.”29 Author Claire Chambers, who has done extensive research on the history of the population control movement, charged in 1977:

“Since its inception, the U.N. has advanced a world-wide program of population control, scientific human breeding, and Darwinism.”30

Evidence to support that contention is plentiful. Jacqueline Kasun made the same point in her The War Against Population:

Since 1965 the United States has contributed more to foreign population-control programs than all other countries combined and has pressured other countries and international agencies to back the programs. In addition to more than 2 billion dollars in explicit AID “population assistance” appropriations to various countries and international organizations such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, the United States has made donations to the World Bank and to United Nations organizations - including the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO, UNICEF, and the International Labor Organization - that have been used for population control, with a degree of enthusiasm and dedication equal to that of the AID bureaucracy.31


UN Pushes War on Population


From the UN’s very beginning, key UN figures such as Brock Chisholm, Julian Huxley, and Paul Hoffman were promoting anti-natalist policies.32


The first director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was humanist leader Julian Huxley, who in 1947 wrote in,

UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:

Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic [controlled human breeding] policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.33

UNESCO’s quarterly journal, Impact of Science on Society, served as a regular platform for anti-natalist propaganda. In the fall of 1968, almost the entire issue of this publication was devoted to population control themes. The UN’s formal acceptance of the world leadership role for population control can be traced back at least to 1954 when a UN Population Commission recommended that every country should “have a population policy.”34


“Human Rights Day,” December 11, 1967, proved to be a landmark date. On that occasion, UN Secretary-General U Thant, President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson, and 29 other heads of state issued a Declaration on Population.

“This Declaration proclaimed ‘fertility control’ to be a new, socalled basic human right,” notes author Claire Chambers. “During the same period, various specialized agencies of the U.N. acted in concert with this edict, developing their own corresponding mandates.”35

That same year saw the establishment of the UN Fund for Population Activities by Secretary-General U Thant, a Marxist, and the subsequent organization and management of the Fund under the administration of Paul Hoffman (CFR) was another major advance for the population planners. UNFPA, says Professor Kasun, “excellently illustrates the labyrinthine financial connections of the world population network.”


She explained:

Deriving its income from the United States and other governments, it provides support to numerous “nongovernmental organizations,” including the Population Council, the Population Action Council, Worldwatch, the Population Crisis Committee and Draper Fund, and the Centre for Population Activities. These organizations in turn make grants to each other and to still other organizations.36

On November 12, 1971, the UN Population Commission adopted a resolution urging, among other things, that all member states:

  • cooperate in achieving a substantial reduction of the rate of population growth [in the countries where it was needed].

  • ensure that information and education about family planning, as well as the means to effectively practice family planning, are made available to all individuals by the end of the Second United Nations Development Decade [1980].37 This Commission further designated 1974 as World Population Year, invited all member states to participate in the event, and requested the UN Secretary-General, among other things, to:

  • study the possibilities of developing a global population strategy, including population movements, for promoting and co-coordinating population policies in Member States with the objective of achieving a balance between population and other natural resources....38

The year 1972 saw the convening of the UN’s Conference on the Human Environment, which met in Stockholm, June 5-16. Just prior to the conference, UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim expressed the opinion that the conference’s leaders “must surely link the increasing pollution of the planet with the increasing population of the planet.”39


The Stockholm conference urged that “special attention be given to population concerns as they relate to the environment during the 1974 observance of World Population Year.”40


The population conference was held in Bucharest, where, notes Professor Kasun, “The dean of the American activists, John D. Rockefeller III, addressed the assembled delegates to stress that ‘population planning’ should be incorporated into all plans for economic development.” Rockefeller added: “Population planning must be a fundamental and integral part of any modern development program, recognized as such by national leadership and supported fully.”41 The year 1994 will mark the 20th anniversary of that event.


Accordingly, plans are being laid for a Population Summit in 1994, along the lines of the 1992 UNCED Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Not that population issues were ignored at Rio. Far from it. Underlying all of the issues dear to the hearts of “environmentalists” is the matter of population, or rather, population control. In spite of disagreement on many other issues, the one thing that finds the greens in greatest unanimity is the belief that there are too many people in this world and that something drastic must be done to address the situation.

Many UNCED speakers worked population themes into their speeches. UNCED chief Maurice Strong deplored the world’s “explosive increase in population,” and warned, “[w]e have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control.” He thundered: “Population must be stabilized, and rapidly.”42 Jacques Cousteau, one of the most venerated attractions at the Rio summit, issued a dire warning that “the fuse connected to a demographic explosion is already burning.” At most, he said, humanity has ten years to put it out.


Parroting the new Paul Ehrlich population scare stories, the famed oceanographer urged “drastic, unconventional decisions” if the world is to avoid reaching the “unacceptable” and “absurd figure of 16 billion human beings” by the year 2070.43 The same theme was echoed by Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who is a member of the Socialist International and chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development; by Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program; and by many others.44


Agenda 21, one of the main documents to come out of the UN’s Rio conference, asserts that $4.5 billion per year is needed for demographic policies in developing countries and says some $7 billion per year is needed until the year 2000 to implement “intensive programmes” necessary for population stabilization.45


What that means, in plain English, is that the UN wants a lot more money to expand its population control programs of sterilization, abortion, and universal access to sex education and contraceptives.



Safe Motherhood” Scam


Much of the UN’s activity in support of its war on population comes from its World Bank. At the Rio Earth Summit, Bank president Lewis Preston (CFR) pledged to increase greatly his institution’s support for population control programs.46 He had already begun those efforts earlier in 1992 with the launching of the so-called “Safe Motherhood Initiative” that opponents were denouncing as “a policy that puts a bounty on the lives of unborn children.”

At the International Safe Motherhood Initiative conference held March 9-11, 1992 in Washington DC, Preston promised the 120 delegates from 20 developing countries a doubling of World Bank support for anti-population programs.47 Ostensibly initiated to improve the general health needs of women in Third World nations, the core of the program is population control.


The initiative is a joint project of the World Bank, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Family Care International, the U.S. AID-funded Population Council, and several other agencies - including the supposedly pro-child United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO), and UNFPA.


According to Jean M. Guilfoyle, director of the pro-family, Washington-based Population Research Institute, the Safe Motherhood program involves “the legalization of abortion surgeries and the imposition of restrictive population control policies.” She noted that there are “those among the targeted nations who dare to call this ‘economic blackmail with genocidal intent.’”48


In the May/June 1992 issue of Population Research Institute Review, Guilfoyle stated:

“Within the partnership, the World Bank is intended to provide economic compulsion and guaranteed funds to carry out the agenda forcefully.”49

Population Research Institute Review reported that, in addition to the Safe Motherhood strategy session held in March 1992 at World Bank headquarters in Washington, there had also been an earlier conference in January in Guatemala.


At this gathering, a World Bank official proposed that Latin American countries make the legalization of abortion the centerpiece of their maternal and infant health programs. Speakers at the conference claimed that large monetary savings would accrue if maternal and child health programs in both the public and the private sector were oriented toward “safe abortion” and contraception.50


World Bank officials at the conference actually pressured Latin American governments to legalize abortion and make it the center of the maternal-infant health programs. Mexican officials promptly fell in line. According to Human Life International, World Bank official Anne G. Tinker demanded that governments provide “safe abortion” in all maternal-infant health programs. Legislative changes needed to legalize abortion must be undertaken immediately, she told the gathering.51 Abortion currently is illegal in all Latin American countries except Uruguay and communist Cuba.


World Bank president Preston said the Bank will integrate the full “Safe Motherhood” agenda into its “policy dialogue” with developing countries.52 This means that developing countries must meet World Bank requirements in the area of population control in order to qualify for Bank loans. By including the “Safe Motherhood” agenda in its “policy dialogue,” the Bank is extending its tremendous financial clout into the political arena of sovereign nations, compelling those nations to legalize abortion and initiate or expand heavy-handed population control programs.

Human Life International president Father Marx has charged:

“The bank is misusing its enormous worldwide economic and political clout to ordain and bankroll a misanthropic effort to ‘assist humanity’ by destroying pre-born human beings, by introducing unsafe, intrusive and culturally repugnant, often abortifacient, methods of birth control and by mutilating healthy people with wholesale neutering programs.”53


“Through such initiatives,” Father Marx said, “women in the Third World are being used for medical experimentation and their offspring are the target of a massive, well-financed eugenics campaign aimed at the poorest and most defenseless members of the human family.... Here you have an array of some of the major enemies of unborn children, women and families gathered to discuss ‘safe motherhood.’”54

And the leader of those “major enemies of unborn children, women and families” is the United Nations, supported by major funding from the U.S. government.



1. Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1st ed. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1968), Prologue.
2. Statement of Maurice Strong at opening of UNCED in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, June 3, 1992, in release by UNCED, p. 3.
3. Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1977), p. 3.
4. Rev. Paul Marx interview by author, August 12, 1992.
5. Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990).
6. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1st ed., Prologue.
7. See, for example: Colin Clark, Population Growth: The Advantages (Santa Ana, CA: R. L. Sassone, 1972).
8. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, pp. 88, 135.
9. Paul R. Ehrlich, “World Population: Is the Battle Lost?” Stanford Today, Winter 1968, quoted by Chambers, p. 9.
10. Chambers, p. 9.
11. Ibid.
12. Donnela H. and Dennis L. Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth, a report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind (New York: Universe Books, Publishers, 1972).
13. Gerald O. Barney (Study Director), Global 2000: Report to the President of the United States: Entering the Twenty-First Century (New York: Penguin Books, 1982).
14. Meadows, p. 196-7.
15. Julian L. Simon and Herman Kahn (eds.), The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000 (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1984), p. 34-5.
16. Christopher Freeman, “Malthus with a Computer,” in H. S. D. Cole, et al. (eds.), Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1975), p. 5.
17. Barney, Global 2000, Letter of transmittal from Thomas Pickering and Gus Speth.
18. Simon, p. 45.
19. Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 50.
20. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace National Commission on America and the New World, Changing Our Ways: America and the New World (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1992), p. 41.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Kasun, pp. 90-91.
24. Steven W. Mosher, “A Mother’s Ordeal,” Reader’s Digest, February 1987, p. 55.
25. Peking, New China News Agency, July 11, 1987, FBIS-CHI-87-133, July 13, 1987, p. A1, quoted by Stephen W. Mosher, “Chinese Officials Invade Family Life,” HLI Reports (Human Life International, Gaithersburg, MD), October, 1987, p. 5.
26. Kasun, p. 90.
27. Ibid.
28. Chambers, p. 330.
29. Father Paul Marx, “World Bank puts bounty on lives of unborn children,” news release of Human Life International, Gaithersburg, MD, March 30, 1992.
30. Chambers, p. 3.
31. Kasun, p. 79.
32. See, for example, Chambers, pp. 8, 239.
33. Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (Washington DC: Public Affairs Press, 1947), p. 21.
34. Chambers, p. 337.
35. Ibid., pp. 337-38.
36. Kasun, pp. 200-201.
37. Chambers, p. 338.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., p. 339.
40. Ibid.
41. Kasun, p. 167.
42. Statement of Maurice Strong at opening of UNCED in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, June 3, 1992, in release by UNCED, p. 3.
43. Jacques Cousteau, quoted by Vivek Menezes, “Cousteau’s warning: ‘Demographic tsunami,’” Earth Summit Times, June 6, 1992, p. 3.
44. Statements by Gro Harlem Brundtland and Dr. Mostafa K. Tolba at the opening of UNCED in Rio de Janeiro, June 3, 1992 - text provided by UNCED at the Earth Summit in Rio.
45. Luis Cordova, “How to guarantee well-for a population growing by the second?” Terraviva (Brazil), June 10, 1992, p. 9.
46. Lewis Preston, remarks at Earth Summit, June 1992.
47. Marx, HLI news release.
48. Jean M. Guilfoyle, “World Bank Safe Motherhood Initiative” Population Research Institute Review, May/June 1992, p.1.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Marx, HLI news release.
52. Guilfoyle, p. 3.
53. Marx, HLI news release.
54. Ibid.

Back to Contents