By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The French government is closely monitoring the US plan to destroy nearly $10 million worth of contraceptives, primarily long-acting methods like IUDs and implants, originally intended for women in Africa through USAID programs. The US State Department confirmed a preliminary decision to destroy these contraceptives, purchased under Biden-era contracts, with incineration possibly occurring in France. French officials and rights groups are expressing strong opposition, with petitions and calls for presidential intervention to prevent what is perceived as a violation of women’s rights and a waste of resources. Belgium is also seeking a solution, and offers from organizations like MSI Reproductive Choices and IPPF to repurpose the contraceptives were rejected.
Read the original article here
France under pressure to stop $9.7m of USAID contraceptives being destroyed, and the situation feels a little absurd, doesn’t it? Here we have a significant amount of perfectly usable contraception, a product designed to help people, and the plan is to destroy it. It’s hard to wrap your head around. The core issue isn’t even directly France’s problem; it’s a private company in France that’s contracted to do the deed, and the decisions seem to be made elsewhere. But France is the location of the planned destruction, and is thus the focus of the world’s attention.
What’s particularly striking is the almost complete silence from the EU and Belgium, which is where these contraceptives are actually stored. You have to wonder why it’s come to this. Why is this happening when there are clearly people who could benefit from them? It’s frustrating to think about the waste, especially when there are so many examples of perfectly good resources being discarded while others lack access to what they need. We’re talking about things that could legitimately save lives and improve people’s situations, and yet the system seems to be set up to prevent that.
The core issue seems to stem from the origin of the funds and the rationale behind destruction instead of distribution. The argument, whether you agree with it or not, is that because the money for production has already been spent, investing more to distribute it might seem like a financial loss. This is a classic case of the “sunk cost fallacy”, where the initial investment is used to justify an otherwise undesirable action. Given the political climate in the United States, the destruction of these contraceptives comes off as a policy decision driven by ideological motivations, specifically the opposition to contraception.
The scale of the operation is also important. We’re talking about a lot of contraceptives, which may only benefit a limited number of women, or a relatively small number when compared to the total amount of product. However, this is largely dependent on the distribution network available, and on the political willingness to even attempt to find a distribution method. Many of these contraceptives still have a significant amount of shelf life remaining, which adds to the sense of needless waste.
The costs associated with destruction are also significant. Destroying something isn’t free, as there are procedures to follow to ensure that the product is dealt with safely and effectively. There have even been offers from organizations to take the contraceptives and handle the distribution at no cost to the government. This highlights the absurdity of the situation: there are willing parties ready to take on the distribution costs, and yet the decision is to destroy the products. The motivations behind this seem to be primarily political, and are less about cost and logistics.
Furthermore, the fact that these contraceptives are linked to USAID, suggests that they are likely intended for distribution in other countries, especially those in Africa. The potential impact on diplomatic relations, particularly with African nations, is also a factor. The argument that this is somehow helping China colonize African nations is speculative, though it does highlight the potential geopolitical ramifications. This decision is made by the former US administration, and it may be viewed as a way of cutting off diplomatic channels for political gain.
The whole situation brings into question the bureaucratic complexities of governmental decision-making. It highlights the red tape that can make even the simplest tasks challenging to accomplish. There are logistics to sort out and questions to be answered. Who gets access to the contraceptives? How do they reach the people who need them? Who pays for the transportation? These are all valid questions that need answers to get these contraceptives into the hands of those who would use them.
The focus is definitely on the destruction of the product and the potential impact on foreign relations and the needs of women around the globe. One of the main arguments for this course of action is political, but this doesn’t make it any more justifiable. Finding a way to redirect these resources to people who would benefit from them is a far more ethical and responsible choice. It’s something that really should be a no-brainer, yet here we are.