Russia’s Vladimir Putin has sparked an international outcry by suddenly banning adoptions of Russian children by American families.
The legislation had been passed by the Russian Duma. Putin signed it into law on Dec. 28, the feast of the Holy Innocents. The action immediately halted the departure of hundreds of Russian orphans about to board planes to journey to a new life.
Condemnation has been swift and strong.
"Russian Adoption Ban Will Hit Disabled Children," noted a Washington Post headline. A headline at the Daily Beast described the ban as "cruel and vindictive to all." David Kramer and Arch Puddington of Freedom House dubbed it "a display of callousness unusual even by Vladimir Putin’s standards." They called the children "pawns in Putin’s power play."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., deemed the move "cruel and malicious" and "shameful and appalling," adding: "To punish innocent babies and children over a political disagreement between our governments is a new low, even for Putin’s Russia."
The U.S. State Department said it "deeply regrets" Putin’s move.
No country adopts as many Russian children as the United States. According to the U.S. State Department, there have been 60,000 adoptions by American couples since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. That has now suddenly ended.
Why would Putin do this? The main reason seems to be retaliation against America for a recent U.S. law (the Magnitsky Act) aimed at human-rights abuses by Russia’s corrupt government. The act is named for a 37-year-old Russian lawyer named Sergei Magnitsky, who worked to expose the murders and massive fraud committed under Putin’s regime. Magnitsky was beaten and left to die in prison. He is a symbol of the widespread persecution during Putin’s reign.
The Magnitsky Act bans Russian officials who have committed abuses from entry into the United States. Putin and his cronies have mightily protested the act.
The ban on American adoptions by Putin and the Duma appears to be retaliation.
Yet there is a possible added motivation that has not been mentioned by anyone. It might be a factor in Putin’s mind.
The reality is that Russia continues to hemorrhage its population. For about a decade and a half now, projections have been that Russia’s population will plummet from 140-150 million to 104 million by 2050. And what are the chief causal factors in this?
There are several notable health scourges in Russia, including epidemic levels of alcohol abuse that at one point in the 1990s lowered male life expectancy to an astounding 56 years, compared to 70 for women. In 1996, the life expectancy in the U.S. for men was 76 and 79 for women.
Two other blights, however, stand out as most responsible for Russia’s literal shrinkage: abortion and contraception — which occur in Russia at frighteningly high levels. Putin has tried to reverse both, but has failed to do so.
A little background: Abortion was legalized in Russia by the Bolsheviks shortly after they seized power in October 1917. Vladimir Lenin made good on his promise for an "unconditional annulment of all laws against abortion."
In short order, the number of abortions skyrocketed. By 1934, Moscow women were having three abortions for every live birth. The toll was so staggering that an appalled Joseph Stalin, the legendary mass murderer, actually banned abortion in 1936, fearing a vanishing populace.
In 1955, Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, reconstituted legalized abortion. By 1958, there were five million abortions per year in the Soviet Union. (For the record, this contradicted Margaret Sanger’s optimistic prediction that "neither abortions nor contraception will be necessary or desired" once the Soviets’ "functioning communistic society" was in full bloom.)
By 1965, abortions peaked at 8.2 million in the USSR, dwarfing the worst years in America post-Roe v. Wade. By 1970, some 3,000 full-time abortionists in the Soviet Union were performing roughly 7.2 million abortions per year. By the 1980s, Soviet citizens comprised 5%-6% of the world’s population — but 25% of the world’s abortions.
No country on the planet achieved abortion deaths like the Soviet Union.
The Cold War and communism ended in Russia in the 1990s, but the runaway rates of abortion — as well as contraception — did not. Those rates continued into the Putin era, with the election of Vladimir Putin in March 2000.
An illuminating article in The Washington Post in February 2003 reported that about 5 million Russian couples (13%) are infertile, with more on the rise.
"In nearly three out of four cases," said the article, citing Russian health experts, "infertility is attributed to the woman, typically because of complications from one or more abortions." The Russian Health Ministry reported 1.7 abortions for every live birth, compared to a 1-to-3 ratio in the United States. That ratio was actually an improvement for previous decades, but only because contraception is being more widely used; together, it still adds up to a decline in overall population.
With rampant death at both the beginning and end of life, Russians are in a precipitous decline.
In response, Putin has taken major measures to try to stem this tide. In 2003, he implemented the first restrictions on abortion in Russia in almost 50 years, limiting abortions to within 12 weeks of gestation. Exemptions were allowed only for rape or the imprisonment, death or severe disability of the husband.
Remarkably, Putin’s Russia has even gone so far as to initiate a National Fertility Day, aimed at getting the culture to reproduce and make more children — more Russians.
Unfortunately, none of this has really worked much. Russia’s population drain remains.
And so, how might the adoption ban fit into this? Well, adopted Russians by foreigners — especially by Americans, who adopt more Russians than any other country — means more Russians leaving Russia. By banning adoptions, however, Putin’s country can retain more Russians. Less adoptions to Americans, and less Russians leaving the country and leaving Russian citizenship, means less of a loss of Russian population — Putin’s top priority.
Thus, for Putin and the Russians, there may be a measure of pure Russian demographics and nationalism behind this decision. In fact, the adoption ban was championed in the legislature by the nationalistic United Russia party, even before it got to Putin.
To be sure, I cannot say for certain that this inspired Putin’s decision; clearly, the Magnitsky Act seems the main issue. But as someone whose career has been spent studying Russia, including Putin, I suspect that this is quite possibly an added compelling factor. Consider these additional facts:
According to the State Department, in 2011, there were 3,400 Russian children adopted by foreign families, with roughly a third going to American families. The number adopted that year by Russian citizens was 7,400.
Putin is now promising a presidential decree to "modify the support mechanisms for orphaned children." In other words, he is implementing plans to apparently try to make up for lost adoptions to American parents, which he presumably hopes to shift to Russian parents.
Thus, overall, Putin’s adoption ban would have two "benefits," in his mind: It retaliates against the U.S. Magnitsky Act, and it retains more Russians in Russia.
If this is truly Vladimir Putin’s thinking, then we can’t rule out abortion and contraception as handmaidens to this horrible situation.
These two "evils" that the Catholic Church has long condemned so often have a host of unpredicted grave consequences. Once again, these handmaidens of the culture of death may have come knocking.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include
The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,
The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand, and, most recently, The Communist.
Comments
Post a Comment
Good insight. Too bad Governor Cuomo of NY and President Obama aren’t as well versed on this impending situation of negative population growth. Those two fools (and many others in their camp) simply can’t get enough abortion and birth control pills in the hands of Americans. With the US birth rate now below replacement levels, we are going down the same path as Russia. So too is Europe, Japan, South Korea, and most of the rest of the world.
Interesting article. This past weekend with half a million protesting in the cold against the abortion atrocities here in the US - CNN and the NYTimes didn’t cover it (in any prominent place I could see). Does anyone know (besides the NCRegister, a newspaper covering US events that’s not hostile to Catholics ? Thanks..
“Man plans - Man cries”
All the contraception given out in NYC are twofold. I read STD in four of the five boroughs, except S.I., are at epidemic levels. The aver. cost to treat STD there, per patient, is $400,000. and will grow under government run (“No Cost”)/Obamacare.
Under the prior President, Education in absinance was increasing.
Now it seems to me there is an attitude that the goverment will handle all personal indescretions too, even abortions at Georgetown Law.
People that believe a government, that sells the fact that they can be all things to all people, wanes citizen responsibility.
As long as we’ve been reminded of the “Land of Lincoln” so often recently, we should consider:
“It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time;
you can even fool some of the people all of the time;
but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
We should also remember, “how short our citizen’s, and voter’s, memories are expected to be”. We must then need to take more notes.
> For the record, this contradicted Margaret Sanger’s optimistic
> prediction that “neither abortions nor contraception will be necessary
> or desired” once the Soviets’ “functioning communistic society” was in
> full bloom.
Before we go throwing about the term “Communism” we should know what it means.
Mrs. Sanger was not contradicted because there never was a “functioning communistic society”. The Soviets never really got to (much less through) the Dictatorship of the Proletariat phase of history posited by Communist Theorists. The few remaining Communist Theorists today will make a claim something like this: “Communism has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult to achieve, and remains untried.” Apologies to GKC. What might be said is that revolution on the Marxist model has been tried and found wanting—it never achieved the glorious end in Communism it promised. It never came close—it only changed the old boss for a new one just like him. It failed miserably, on its own terms. Without a radical conversion to Christ, nothing remotely resembling a “functioning communistic society” ever could be in full bloom. The New Soviet Man would have to be a Christian saint and so Soviet Communism wouldn’t be Communistic on the definitions of the Communist Theorists. But the Soviets were trying to achieve this without Christ. They’re still trying to achieve order without Christ. You’d think we Americans would learn from their errors, and reaffirm America as a Christian country.
Here is what Mrs. Sanger got right: she knew it is normal for people to want a family, and the conditions normal people need to tranquilly fulfill this want were not in 1900 present in American cities (especially) and perhaps nowhere in Russia. She thought Communism would create these conditions. She was wrong if she thought that Communism was possible.
It remains the case that the conditions normal people need to tranquilly fulfill this want are not present in America in 2013 and perhaps nowhere in Russia. In America it has gotten worse. Hence contraception and abortion here and there. And hence the need for The New Evangelization.
t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man
Has Russia truly been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Church says “yes” but the statistical facts state NO.
Vladmir Putin went to venerate the sacred relic of a cloth belt believed to be worn by The Blessed Mother. He, along with thousands who came long distances and stood in frigid temperatures, kissed the belt enclosed in a glass reliquary. It was to invoke The Blessed Mother’s intercession for an increase in the number of births. Hardly any babies are available for adoption in the U.S. because of contraception and abortion. Couples are forced to go to other countries. I wonder why Russia has so many babies for adoption if contraception and abortion is a bigger problem there than in the U.S.?
I haven’t researched it, but they may be special needs kids that are available. Most of the babies available in China and eastern Europe are various levels of special needs.
recently I viewed a programme on EWTN titled “Demographic Winter” that speaks to the decline in population in nearly all countries. It is a real “eye opener” as they say. Everyone should see this film. Also, I read a book years ago, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Republic”, I forget the author, it detailed the slow demise of France. Starting at the end of the 1700’s and proceeding through WWII, if it were not for imigration France would be devoid of people by now. Even in predominately Catholic countries the birth rate is below replacement levels, contrary to the stereotype of Catholics being baby making machines. As if to make matters worse, the United States is racking up huge amounts of debt that will have to be paid for by the next generation and the one after that, except there will be fewer of them. So, the amount of debt per person will be two to three times higher than the amount projected. With fewer people to pay into the retirement system it will certainly collapse. I don’t know if the Church has consecrated Russia to Mary or not, but it wouldn’t hurt to do it again, (or for the first time). And I don’t mean some vague/generic whole world type of thing. I mean a specific consecration of Russia to Our Lady. At least I am doing my part for the population I am up to six, with several grandsons and more on the way…lol. At this rate everyone in my Parish will have the same last name as me in about 20 years..lol.
While adoption is a very selfless act, and many couples struggle with adoption sometimes at a tremendous cost, perhaps it would be better if we made our own babies? Or keep our babies at risk due to abortion? We are falling behind the “replacement rate” of our nation, where more are going into the coffin than into the cradle. Why don’t people quit “planning” their families and let the Holy Spirit have as He will. Demographics now are presenting a bleak picture of the efforts of population control - a total failure in the new future. Sad but true. Amseicans should be producing 4 - 5 children each family, but as on of the favorite TV programs presented babies and children, they are nothing but “rugrats”.
How demeaning. Are we anti-natal?
Mr. Duckworth see http://www.novusordowatch.org
@Richard Mackin. I was reading some articles on a Catholic website, I think it’s the Blue Army website at the tiime of Sister Lucia’s death, that she had instructed all of the popes in our time that they still needed to fullfill Our Lady of Fatima’s request to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. From what I read in that article, our Blessed Mother’s request has never been fulfilled. I understand it was one of the last wishes of Sister Lucia before she died.
See the abortion mentality factored in to the series “Growing In Love” with imprimatur taught in parochial schools:
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/12/6/ - Part 1
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/15/6/ - Part 2
Putin’s decision could be an act of Grace. The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary had been attained. But the work of the Spirit continues. The Malthusian Equation is at work in both Russian and American abortion policies, despite the capacity of both countries/economies to feed and nurture their own people. In the case of Russia the Malthusian converse, which requires population to catch up with development, could be impinging on policy. The Sanger Prescription upon the Russian soil could be coming to an end. The Russian sense of discipline, destiny and concept of the sacred is factored in by the Spirit. Mary’s Spring in Russia is at hand.
Crispin, When was the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary done?
This is not a movement of a holy spirit. Putin is desperate! I’m quite certain communist Russia tried to pay women to have babies who were aborting about 5 or 6 babies or more for each female. Paying women to be mothers doesn’t work. It’s been tried in other countries literally sliding off the face of the earth due to lack of people. It never works to pay women to be willing to procreate. Nor is it God’s design.
For ‘Valentines’ day, Putin invited the American Rock Group, Boys to Men, to give a concert in Moscow. He also made it known that he wanted Russian men to impregnate someone at that time (of course no mention of being married was involved). To add incentive, he then let it be known that any Russian woman that delivered a child within 9 months of “Valentines’ day would have their names entered into a contest to win a refrigerator !!!! Russian ‘love’, so inspiring ! One commentator rebutted: “Russian women all look like ‘janet reno’, Putin is expecting way too much”.
I just picked upwards my tin today also walmart: D. can someone tell me how we know if u convey a loot card, today was my first ages of collecting wow trading side. buy wow gold news http://www.agayworld.com/index.php?do=/blog/11343/mcdonalds-hen-mcwrap-to-become-added-to-long-lasting-selection/
Interesting blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple tweeks would really make my blog stand out. Please let me know where you got your theme. Thanks a lot pl site http://supcato.waw.pl/add/
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.