The Babies of the Tea Party

What consequences will the tea party have on the world? It’s too soon to tell. Nonetheless, there are a few things that have become clear. The members of the tea party recently elected to the U.S. Congress will have a lot of influence, defend very conservative ideas and, like the rest of the candidates, spoke very little during the electoral campaigns about international issues.

There is also something else that we already know, which until now has not been discussed and has immense repercussions internationally: The tea party doesn’t like family planning. Rand Paul, who just became a senator, has criticized policies that try to control the population growth. According to Paul, these policies exist because governments fear having “too many breathers,” i.e., humans. Sarah Palin, the queen of the tea party, rejects any type of sexual education for teenagers unless they are programs that promote abstinence before marriage.

What does this have to do with the rest of the world? The United States is the main source of financing for sexual education programs, family planning, reproductive health and contraceptives to the countries that most need them. And the new Republican congressmen have announced that they want to cut the funding for these programs.

Let’s put this in a wider context. In any given moment, in any given place, one day a very symbolic baby will be born: With his birth, the population of the planet will have reached 7 billion inhabitants. Some countries are shrinking while others are experiencing a population boom. In Eastern Europe — including Russia — the population will drop from 296 million in 2005 to 219 million in 2050. On the other hand, 60 percent of humanity lives in countries with high rates of population growth. Elizabeth Leahy Madsen, an expert from Population Action International (a nonprofit organization that doesn’t accept government donations and over whose board I preside) calculates that a billion people live in impoverished countries. In these countries, women have an average of four children, which means that its population doubles every 35 years. It is in these countries where there is the highest rate of population growth. Citing data from the United Nations, Leahy Madsen reveals that if the fertility rate is not reduced, the population of the 49 poorest countries will exceed that of all developed countries in about 15 years. In Uganda, each woman has an average of six children, and in 2009 the country generated only 100,000 new jobs. If the current rates are not reduced, the Ugandan economy needs to create a million and a half jobs each year for the next two decades. This would be a miracle. On the other hand, there is no doubt that, unless the current fertility rate is lowered, Uganda will produce more than a million new unemployed people annually for the next 20 years. The consequences in terms of human suffering, poverty, violence or international migration are obvious — and startling.

And there’s more. When access to programs for reproductive health, sexual education and contraceptives are cut, the number of teen pregnancies and the mortality rate for women increases very quickly. Every study demonstrates that there is no investment with greater social output than that dedicated to preventing youth pregnancies. Within adolescent mothers, education is lower, unemployment is higher and the number of children is greater. Those children, moreover, have worse health and lower average weight and height.

Perhaps the most tragic part of all this is that it is perfectly avoidable. But not to the tea party.