The Goal of Modern Philanthropy: Eliminating the Disadvantages of Fertility

money, economy, avarice, wealth

funds, donation, money, gift, planned parenthood

For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. — Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25 (Ignatius Bible)

The most celebrated philanthropists in the world today — George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet — donate billions of dollars through their respective foundations to eradicate poverty, cure diseases, and protect the environment. They are singularly convinced that the solution to the ills affecting developing nations lies in empowering women who make up the largest percentage of the poor. They believe that lowering the maternal mortality rate, overcoming gender inequality, and ensuring women have access to economic opportunities will result in greater prosperity for all.

Unfortunately, these three men also firmly believe that these desired outcomes can only be achieved by satisfying an alleged unmet need for contraceptives and access to legal abortion for approximately 220 million women in Third World countries. Supposedly, as long as these women are “at risk” for unplanned pregnancy, they are doomed to a substandard existence.

Warren Buffett, “The Oracle of Omaha”

Currently the second richest man in the world according to Forbes magazine, Warren Buffett established what is now called the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (STBF) to manage his charitable giving. In 2004, following Susan Buffett’s death, the Foundation received her bequest of over 2.5 billion dollars to which Buffett has since made substantial additions.

Buffett is praised by journalists for his business acumen and his philanthropy, which includes educational scholarship programs. What is not widely publicized is that most of Buffett’s monies are directed to the causes of population control and expanding access to abortion. Buffett himself rarely makes public statements to that effect lest it adversely affect his business interests.  The STBF webpage provides no details regarding this aspect of its activity; the only information to be found there pertains to its education grants.

“Deeply Enmeshed In Protecting Abortion Rights”

Yet, without a doubt, as David Callahan details in an article for Inside Philanthropy , the STBF is “deeply enmeshed in protecting abortion rights.” A 2014 report from the Media Research Group’s (MRC) Culture and Media Institute detailed the STBF’s giving to pro-abortion groups using information gleaned from 2012 tax records.

Through the [STBF] …, Buffett donated $1,230,585,161 to abortion groups worldwide from 2001 to 2012. These groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Population Council, either campaign for pro-abortion legislation, perform abortions themselves, or helped develop the controversial abortion drug RU-486.

[The] $1.2 billion that Buffett gave to these organizations is enough to pay for the abortions of more than 2.7 million babies in the womb. …To put that in perspective, Warren Buffett donated enough money to abortion groups to perform as many abortions as there are people in the entire city of Chicago.

In spite of these numbers, the MRC report notes that “although ABC, CBS and NBC have mentioned Buffett in 545 broadcasts since January 2001, the three broadcast networks only once [emphasis added] alluded to Warren Buffett’s connection with abortion.”

Bill and Melinda Gates, “Impatient Optimists”

Unlike the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does not focus on abortion, but on family planning and contraception. In 2014, Melinda Gates expressed concern that abortion and family planning were becoming “conflated,” which “threatened to get in the way of the lifesaving consensus regarding basic family planning.” Consequently, the Gates Foundation stopped directly funding abortions.

The Gates Foundation family planning strategy is to make available all methods of contraception to women in Third World countries.  They particularly advocate use of long-lasting contraceptives, such as implants (Sino-Implant II), and injectable methods (Depo Provera). According to the global development website, Devex, the injectable contraceptives are very popular in developing countries.

In many areas of sub-Saharan Africa, an injectable contraceptive is often seen as the easiest option for women — if not the only one. Injected just once every three months, it is far more discreet than pills or a condom, which is important in societies where contraceptive use is still stigmatized.

“Benefits Outweigh Any Risks”

A grave threat to woman and children in developing nations is rampant HIV infection. According to, Sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected region, with an estimated 25.6 million people living with HIV. In 2015, about 66% of new HIV infections occurred there.

In April 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report reviewing research that connects the use of injectable contraceptives to increased rates of HIV infection.

While they characterized the research as “ambiguous,” the WHO changed the classification of Depo Provera from “safe for everyone” to “benefits still outweigh any risks, but …women considering … injectables should … be advised …about how to minimize their risk of acquiring HIV.”

This action by the WHO created a tension between HIV prevention advocates and the family planning community, including the Gates Foundation.

For HIV prevention advocates, the impulse is to do whatever is necessary to limit even a possible risk of increased acquisition … The family planning community, while deeply concerned about women’s health, is also protective of gains it has made in recent years [emphasis added].

The challenge for providers is how to convey …information without alienating or discouraging women from using contraceptives [emphasis added]. –

In other words, increasing poor women’s use of contraceptives is considered to be of greater importance than reducing the risk that they may contract HIV while doing so.

George Soros-“Building Vibrant and Tolerant Societies” through Philanthropy

Powerful hedge fund manager, George Soros, made headlines recently with the announcement that he donated $18 billion dollars to his Open Society Foundation,  making it the second-biggest philanthropic organization in the United States, second only to the Gates Foundation. Like Gates and Buffett, Soros is also a staunch advocate of population control.

However, the goals of the Open Society Foundation are much broader than those of Gates’ or Buffett’s Foundations. In fact, Soros is sharply critical of those foundations for promoting contraceptives and abortion only for the purpose of empowering individuals.  Soros’s goal is transformational changes in entire political and economic systems by intrinsically linking reproductive issues with other issues such as sustainability, immigration, economic, and sexual identity issues.

It is a concept known as reproductive justice.

Reproductive Justice: a Practical Strategy for Change

According to Groundswell Fund, a grantee of Soros’ Open Society Foundation, reproductive justice is “is a theoretical framework and a practical strategy for change.”

The [Reproductive Justice] movement addresses the full spectrum of reproductive issues that impact people’s lives: including the right to access affordable and high quality abortion, contraception, midwifery and doula care and comprehensive sex education; the right to be free from gender-based violence and criminal justice and immigration systems that disrupt the right to parent by tearing families apart; and the right to live and work in an environment free of reproductive toxins.

For Soros, this means

we can’t divorce the battle for abortion rights and reproductive health care from struggles against racism, economic inequality, homophobia, and transphobia—because these things also affect whether and how people are able to make decisions about their bodies, their families, and their lives. –

Soros and Ireland’s Eighth Amendment

There is a concerted effort underway by abortion advocates in the Republic of Ireland to repeal its Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. The amendment, passed in 1983, “acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and…to defend and vindicate that right.”

That repeal effort may be getting substantial financial backing from Soros.  According to an article from the Catholic News Agency, documents published by the website revealed the Open Society Foundations’ proposed 2016-2019 strategy for its Women’s Rights Program:

With one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, a win there could impact other strongly Catholic countries in Europe, such as Poland, and provide much needed proof that change is possible, even in highly conservative places.

[The Foundation] will fund the Abortion Rights Campaign, Amnesty International Ireland, and the Irish Family Planning Association ‘to work collectively on a campaign to repeal Ireland’s constitutional amendment granting equal rights to an implanted embryo as the pregnant woman (referred to as ‘fetal personhood’).

If this is true, it would be devastating to pro-life groups in Ireland, as their ability to raise sufficient funds to oppose the repeal efforts would be significantly compromised.

“A Network in Over 40 Countries and Seven Regions”

The Open Society Foundation’s alleged subsidizing of pro-abortion groups in Ireland is only one example of its global influence. According to the leaked document,

[The] Women’s Rights Program is different from most donors because it can work with “a network of locally-staffed foundations in over 40 countries and seven regions” that has “a deep knowledge of local context, opportunities, and frontline actors.” The Open Society Foundations’ network allows the program “to make cross-country/regional connectionism.” Catholic News Agency

“The Open Society Foundation works in many countries to promote full and equal rights for women, including sexual and reproductive autonomy,” an agency spokesperson said.

Only the Church Stands in the Way

The phenomenal amount of money funneled into pro-abortion and contraception advocacy efforts by Buffett, Gates, and Soros creates an ominous situation for women’s health throughout the world, but particularly so in the Third World. Concerns about HIV infection, side effects of oral contraceptives, and the dangers of intrauterine devices (IUDs), appear to be of little consequence when compared to furthering elitist causes such as population control and re-allocation of material resources.  The supportive involvement of United Nations agencies and the World Health Organization make defeating this agenda seem nearly impossible.

The only institutions standing in the way of these campaigns are religious organizations, particularly the Catholic Church. The Kenyan Catholic bishops, and Obianuju Ekeocha and her organization, Culture of Life Africa, have spoken out strongly against the Gates Foundation. Austin Ruse and the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM) preserve the Catholic pro-life voice at the United Nations. However, it must be the mission of every Catholic to stand up against the unholy trinity of Buffett, Gates, and Soros to ensure that the Church’s message of the sanctity of all life is heard.

“Indeed, besides the earth, man’s principal resource is man himself.” Pope St. John Paul II, Centesimus Annus




Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

11 thoughts on “The Goal of Modern Philanthropy: Eliminating the Disadvantages of Fertility”

  1. Sticking to the point about birth control for the moment, I think it needs to be made clear that women in countries such as Africa do not live in anything remotely the same as America and other similar countries. It is highly patriarchal and the rights of women are culturally disadvantaged. This is not to say I am advocating for birth control, but such women live on the whim of their male counterparts. Women cannot deny their husbands sexually when their family has grown too fast. Often times as well husbands are not monogamous and put women at risk of diseases. Their lives are not even remotely similar to American women and issues they face will not be helpful with the same solutions here. So we are comparing apples to spoons so to speak. Issues in these countries need responses within their own cultural context, not a western response. Education for women as well as the ability to provide for their families is a great start to decrease poverty when the father/husband is unable to do so.

    Then of course I must address these “philanthropists”. They do not benevolently help people in areas that are desperate for basics of life. What they are really doing is exercising their own beliefs, agendas, power over at risk populations. While there are incidental good occurring, they nevertheless direct services in the manner they see fit simply because they have the money to do so. In some ways it could be seen as a manifest destiny on the desperate by manipulation a kin to missionaries of the past who in spreading christianity promised food to the starving after they participated in an evangelization program. I wonder if these “philanthropists” include everyday local people to have a voice in what direction this assistance goes. Tribalism is also a factor is what goes where and why.

    1. Have you ever met an African woman? Sorry, you have succumbed to another of the myths put about by the likes of Soros. African women have children because they WANT them. It’s good for a society to be patriarchal and it doesn’t mean women don’t have rights. The great majority of African husbands love their wives and would not think of raping them even if they could get away with it. And all wives have ways of getting their husbands to do what they want.

    2. Then you have even less excuse for repeating the mythical racist stereotypes of the hyperaggressive sex-maniac negro man and his mousishly hypersubmissive wife, whose famiiy “grows too fast”.

    3. The beautiful thing about the African people is their love of life and the importance of family. That’s why we must work to preserve their culture against people like Soros and Gates who wish to make it like the “enlightened” West with our selfishness, greed, and disregard for life.

    4. Google “how many countries are there in the continent of Africa?”, and google will tell you that Africa consists of 54 countries that are home to a combined population of 1.27 billion people. So how can a sentence that includes a presupposition about ‘the African people’ have any validity? What African people from which community in which African country are you talking about?

    5. Thank you so much for your comments. I absolutely agree that education is the answer, new schools for the children are the best way to combat the poverty. They also need to increase the number of programs that teach African women how to start their own businesses and become self-sufficient. I cannot comment on your generalizations about the patriarchy and whether “women live on the whim of their male counterparts”. I think that may be a cultural stereotype from our Western perspective. However, you are correct when you say we can’t approach this situation with only American culture in mind. That is the “ideological colonization” that Pope Francis rightly warns about. The African people must be part of the solution.

    6. Yes, as long as the education in those schools isn’t modelled on the anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-life, pro-fornication, pro-sodomy curriculum which is forced on children in western government-run schools.

    7. You might want to watch some of Obianuju Ekeocha’s videos, so you can get it from the perspective of someone who actually lives there.

  2. Good article. Through it I couldn’t help but think how the un-holy trinity is acting and doing what Hitler would have done to cleanse the races had he had billions instead of just ovens! Sooo awfully sad!

    1. Thanks for taking the time to comment, Annette. It is amazing how people can’t (or refuse) to see that much of this “philanthropy” has, at its core, a lust for power and an indifference to the lives of those who are deigned inferior, just like Hitler.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign Up for the Catholic Stand Newsletter!

%d bloggers like this: