Depopulation
Population Control and Assisted Dying: Key Players, Funding, Influence, and Global Connections
Introduction and Overview
An interconnected network of foundations, advocacy groups, and influential individuals has shaped policies on population control (family planning and reproductive health) and assisted dying (legal euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide) across the globe. Through strategic funding and lobbying, entities like the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and others have promoted initiatives in these domains. Their efforts have influenced legislation (from reproductive rights laws to assisted dying bills) and public opinion, while also sparking controversy. For example, the Hewlett Foundation has for decades backed population programs out of concern for global population growth and women’s health, and Soros has openly supported the legalization of assisted suicide worldwide, donating millions to groups promoting that cause. At the same time, organized opposition networks – often faith-based or socially conservative – have mobilized against these changes, sometimes with their own international alliances. This report-style overview examines the key entities, their funding sources, the organizations they support, their impact on legislation, and the controversies surrounding their work, including any cross-border connections.
Major Philanthropic Foundations Driving Policy Agendas
Several wealthy private foundations and donors have been paramount in advancing family planning (sometimes labeled “population control” by critics) and, to a lesser extent, the right-to-die movement. These include:
- William & Flora Hewlett Foundation: Co-founded in 1966 by HP engineer Bill Hewlett, this foundation has long made global population and reproductive health a priority. It supported a Population Program for almost 40 years with the mission of promoting voluntary family planning worldwide. Hewlett grants have bankrolled research and advocacy for contraceptive access and reproductive rights. Notably, between 2019 and 2024 the Hewlett Foundation donated about \$7.86 million to Planned Parenthood, supporting both its domestic and international programs. The foundation emphasizes evidence-based policy and adequate funding for family planning, seeing these as essential for women’s health and economic development. In addition to reproductive health, Hewlett also funds civil society initiatives; for instance, it is listed among the supporters of *More in Common*, a nonprofit researching public attitudes (including on assisted dying). Hewlett’s involvement in politically sensitive areas (like abortion access) has drawn fire from anti-abortion advocates, but it remains a leading funder for reproductive rights organizations.
- David & Lucile Packard Foundation: Established by another HP co-founder, this foundation has a similarly strong commitment to population issues. David Packard was an outspoken proponent of population control as key to environmental sustainability. *“Unless we can limit the population, the other problems are eventually going to become unmanageable,”* Packard said in 1986, arguing the U.S. must be *“more rational about birth control and abortion”* and lead on this issue. After Packard’s death, his family continued this mission: *“If you’re really concerned about the future of the human race, what it comes down to is that there are too many people,”* said Susan Packard Orr (his daughter) in 1997, adding *“we’re not shy about… the importance of family planning.”*. The Packard Foundation has poured money into expanding contraceptive and abortion services. It even provided a critical \$10 million loan to help launch Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the abortion pill mifepristone (RU-486), when no commercial investors would fund it. Like Hewlett, Packard also funds international efforts and research on population, and both foundations were instrumental in initiatives like the 2012 London Family Planning Summit and the FP2020 partnership.
- Open Society Foundations (George Soros): Billionaire financier George Soros has channeled parts of his philanthropy toward what he views as *“issues of death and dying.”* In 1994 Soros launched the Project on Death in America at Columbia University, aiming to transform end-of-life care and promote acceptance of options like hospice and assisted dying. Soros is, as one observer noted, *“a big fan of euthanasia and assisted suicide and wants to see it legalized everywhere.”* Toward that end, his Open Society Institute (OSI, now OSF) not only funded palliative care initiatives but also gave substantial grants to pro-assisted-suicide advocacy groups. For example, Soros’s foundations became a major backer of Compassion & Choices in the U.S., which promotes “death with dignity” laws. In 2010 Compassion & Choices was among the top grantees of Soros’s network, receiving about \$1 million that year. Soros’s influence in this arena is both ideological and personal – he has spoken of how his mother’s membership in the Hemlock Society (an early euthanasia group) and his father’s difficult death shaped his views. Beyond end-of-life issues, OSF also supports global reproductive rights and health. (It has funded causes like access to contraception and safe abortion in various countries as part of its human rights and public health programs, although exact figures are not always public.) Soros’s funding of progressive causes has, unsurprisingly, made him a lightning rod in conservative circles, who accuse him of “buying” policy changes from abortion to assisted suicide. Nonetheless, OSF’s grants have empowered advocacy groups worldwide with the resources to push for legal reforms.
- Rockefeller Foundation and Population Council: Going further back in history, the Rockefeller family played a pivotal role in the global population control movement. In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council, providing \$1 million in its first year to research and address “unchecked population growth” in the developing world. Rockefeller viewed family planning as a means to reduce poverty and improve global development, though he framed it in humanitarian terms rather than crude eugenics. He also used his influence to put population on the international agenda: in 1967 he orchestrated a statement by 30 heads of state (including the U.S. President) declaring population growth a crucial issue and family planning a necessary solution. Notably, Rockefeller III chaired the U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (1969–1972). That commission’s report controversially recommended that abortion be legalized in the United States – *“creating a clear and positive framework for…abortion on request”* – as part of ensuring reproductive choice. This provoked a *furor*, with President Nixon pointedly rejecting his own commission’s pro-choice recommendation. Although Nixon refused those findings, the dialogue Rockefeller started fed into the broader shift in public opinion, and the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision followed a year later (1973) – a sign that ideas once taboo were entering the policy mainstream. The Rockefeller Foundation (and closely allied Ford Foundation) also funded wide-scale birth control programs in countries from India to Kenya during the 1960s–80s. While these philanthropic efforts helped expand access to contraception globally, they also drew criticism for targeting developing countries and sometimes colluding with coercive government policies (as discussed later).
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: In the past two decades, the Gates Foundation has emerged as a major funder of family planning in low-income countries, though its focus is framed in terms of women’s empowerment and public health rather than “population control” per se. The foundation co-sponsored the Family Planning 2020 initiative and subsequent FP2030, setting a goal to extend contraceptive access to 120 million more women in the world’s poorest countries. In 2017, Melinda Gates announced an investment of \$375 million over four years specifically toward family planning programs. By 2021, the Gates Foundation pledged an even larger \$1.4 billion (over five years) to expand contraceptive access and support reproductive health globally. This funding often goes to international agencies like UNFPA (the UN Population Fund) and NGOs such as International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Gates Foundation’s involvement has generally been welcomed by global health advocates, though it too faces opposition from religious conservatives (for promoting birth control and implicitly, in some cases, abortion services). Notably, Bill Gates has been the subject of conspiracy theories alleging his vaccination and health initiatives are aimed at “depopulation” – claims arising from a misrepresentation of his statements that improving child health can reduce unsustainable population growth. While those theories are baseless, they highlight the cloud of suspicion that can accompany any population-focused philanthropy.
Impact and Influence: These foundations leverage their wealth not only via grants to service providers but also by funding advocacy, research, and coalition-building. They underwrite think-tank reports, public education campaigns, leadership training, and grassroots organizing that together shape policy debates. For instance, the Hewlett and Packard Foundations have financed academic centers and fellowships to train the next generation of population scientists and advocates in the Global South. Such investment in local capacity aims to produce evidence (on links between fertility, poverty, and women’s well-being) that can inform national policies. On the assisted dying front, Soros’s OSF funded research into end-of-life care and helped mainstream the idea that *“death with dignity”* is a civil right. By bankrolling groups like Compassion & Choices, OSF enabled them to lobby state lawmakers, run ballot initiative campaigns, and mount legal challenges pushing for legalization of assisted suicide. These donors often collaborate and co-fund projects – for example, OSF and Hewlett have both supported More in Common, which researches divisive social issues (including a 2024 study on UK attitudes to assisted dying). In sum, a handful of private actors have had outsized influence: they set agendas, supply data and framing, and sustain the activism needed to change laws. This influence is not without controversy, as it sometimes bypasses traditional democratic processes (or is perceived to).
Advocacy Networks and Assisted Dying Legislation
In the realm of assisted dying, a number of organizations and individuals – often supported (directly or indirectly) by the above philanthropies – have worked to change laws in various countries. At the same time, strong opposition groups have mobilized, making this one of the most passionately debated social reforms of recent times. Below is a closer look at the key players on each side, their connections, and their impact on legislation:
- Dignity in Dying (UK): In the United Kingdom, the leading campaign for legalizing assisted dying is *Dignity in Dying*, a charity that grew out of the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society. It advocates allowing terminally ill, mentally competent adults the option to request medical assistance to end their life, under strict safeguards. Baroness Molly Meacher – a crossbench peer in the House of Lords – served as Chair of Dignity in Dying, and in May 2021 she introduced an Assisted Dying Bill \[HL] in the Lords. That bill, which would permit assisted dying for terminally ill patients with less than six months to live (subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge), attracted significant public attention. Though ultimately it did not become law, the campaign around it marked a high point in the UK’s right-to-die movement. Baroness Meacher and allied MPs emphasized the suffering of dying patients under the status quo. *“People are existing, they’re not living,”* Meacher told a Parliamentary inquiry in 2023, detailing harrowing end-of-life experiences (vomiting feces, decaying tumors) that palliative care sometimes cannot alleviate. Such testimonies, along with Dignity in Dying’s public outreach, have bolstered popular support: surveys consistently show a clear majority of Britons (65–80%) favor legalizing assisted dying for the terminally ill. Dignity in Dying has also shone a light on its opponents’ networks. In 2019, it published a report exposing that the small but vocal group of doctors blocking a neutral stance by the Royal College of Physicians on assisted dying were linked to a *“network of anti-choice activists…with links to American pro-life lobbyists.”* Specifically, Dignity in Dying revealed that Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) – a conservative Christian legal group based in the U.S. – was “expanding into the UK” and had *“welcomed”* the legal challenge those anti-euthanasia doctors brought. It also noted that a UK umbrella group, Care Not Killing, funded ads for the opposition and is a coalition largely of religious organizations formed to oppose assisted dying. Dignity in Dying’s insistence on transparency about these connections sought to frame assisted dying as being blocked by a fringe with outside (American evangelical) support, rather than by mainstream medical opinion. The campaign for law reform continues, now with momentum from a 2022–23 parliamentary inquiry. While no UK-wide assisted dying law has passed yet, Scotland and Jersey have seen serious consideration of similar bills in recent years, reflecting the growing influence of advocacy efforts and public sentiment.
- Compassion & Choices (USA): In the United States, the right-to-die movement has been spearheaded by *Compassion & Choices*, a nonprofit that emerged from the merger of the Hemlock Society and Compassion in Dying. This organization has had a tangible impact on legislation: it was directly involved in drafting and campaigning for Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (approved by voters in 1994, making Oregon the first U.S. state to legalize physician-assisted suicide) and later for Washington state’s similar law via a 2008 ballot initiative. In the Washington campaign, Compassion & Choices and its allies spent heavily – over \$4 million was raised by the “Yes on I-1000” committee in 2008, including contributions of about \$1 million each from Compassion & Choices itself and from the Oregon-based Death with Dignity fund. Major individual donors (such as former WA Governor Booth Gardner, who gave \$470k) and groups like the ACLU also supported the effort. This well-funded advocacy helped overcome opposition and win 58% of the vote for legalization in Washington. Similar strategies, backed by Compassion & Choices, succeeded legislatively in states like California (2015), Colorado (2016, by referendum), Maine (2019), and New Jersey (2019), among others – bringing the total to 11 U.S. jurisdictions by 2023 with legal medical aid in dying. A key figure in Compassion & Choices’ history is Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society. Humphry was a controversial pioneer: he authored the how-to suicide guide *Final Exit* and his first wife ended her life with his assistance, as did his later ex-wife – facts the organization downplays after rebranding. (Indeed, *“changing the name…was the first step”* to shed the baggage of Hemlock’s image.) Under leaders like Barbara Coombs Lee, Compassion & Choices professionalized the movement, framing it as a matter of personal autonomy and compassion rather than fringe radicalism. Soros’s funding bolstered C\&C’s credibility – by 2010, legislators knew that supporting “death with dignity” initiatives meant access to substantial campaign resources. One Connecticut op-ed noted, *“Lawmakers have already promised to push \[assisted suicide] forward. They know there is a payoff for promoting this bill, much of it coming from George Soros through Compassion & Choices.”* In other words, Soros’s philanthropy helped create a well-financed advocacy front, countering the once-prevailing narrative that assisted suicide efforts were isolated or lacking popular support. Compassion & Choices has also partnered with medical and hospice professionals to reassure the public that safeguards can work. However, critics accuse it of orchestrating an “illusion” of grassroots support, when in their view the movement’s progress is actually driven by elite donors and PR campaigns. Regardless, the end-of-life choice has undeniably gained legitimacy – a sea change from the days when it was considered a fringe idea.
- More in Common: A somewhat unexpected player in this debate is *More in Common*, an international non-partisan nonprofit that researches polarization and public attitudes. With offices in the UK, US, France, Germany, and elsewhere, More in Common is funded by philanthropic organizations committed to democracy and social cohesion – including Open Society Foundations, the Hewlett Foundation, the Robert Bosch Foundation (Germany), and others. In late 2024, as the UK Parliament’s assisted dying inquiry was underway, More in Common UK released a comprehensive report titled “Proceeding with Caution: Britons’ Views on Assisted Dying.” This report, based on polling over 15,000 people and focus groups, found that a majority of Britons support legalising assisted dying (around 65%) but that *“their support is conditional on robust safeguards.”* It revealed nuanced views – for example, broad agreement on allowing it for terminal illness, but strong opposition to extending it to cases like mental illness or non-terminal suffering. The very commissioning of this research by an internationally funded group underscores the global connectedness of the debate. More in Common’s involvement suggests that the issue is seen not just as a medical or moral question, but as a matter of social consensus and polarization – something that can divide societies if not handled carefully. The organization’s research aimed to inform policymakers how to navigate the issue in a way that maintains public trust. The fact that its funders (like OSF and Hewlett) are also engaged in related issues (human rights, civic discourse, etc.) shows how philanthropic networks coordinate on overlapping societal challenges. In sum, while More in Common doesn’t advocate a position on assisted dying, it contributes by mapping public opinion and recommending ways to frame the conversation. This reflects a broader strategy of the philanthropic network: use data and dialogue to create an environment in which contentious reforms (be it assisted dying or reproductive rights) can be discussed based on values and evidence, hopefully reducing polarization.
- Allied and International Groups: The right-to-die movement and its opposition are both transnational. On the pro side, organizations from different countries collaborate and share lessons through bodies like the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, founded in 1980, which now counts 45 member groups from 25 countries. Dignity in Dying (UK), Compassion & Choices (USA), Dignitas (Switzerland), End-of-Life Choice societies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., all interact via international conferences and federations. They often cite each other’s successes to build momentum: e.g., campaigners in Britain point to the experiences in Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada – where assisted dying has been legal for years – to argue it can be done safely. (Notably, a delegation of British MPs traveled to Oregon and Canada to study how the law works there as part of the recent UK inquiry.) On the opposing side, religious and “pro-life” organizations also coordinate globally. The example of ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom) is illustrative: ADF, a U.S.-based conservative legal advocacy group, not only fights abortion and LGBTQ rights in America but has a presence in Europe and supported cases in the UK to stop even modest moves toward neutrality on assisted dying. Likewise, the Catholic Church wields considerable influence: Catholic bishops and institutions from Ireland to Latin America to the Philippines have campaigned against both abortion and euthanasia. In the UK, the Catholic hierarchy has lobbied Parliament (e.g., the Catholic Bishops of England & Wales and of Scotland have issued joint letters urging MPs and worshippers to oppose assisted suicide proposals). In the U.S., the Church (along with groups like *National Right to Life* and *Patients’ Rights Council*) has funded opposition campaigns in state referenda – often emphasizing the sanctity of life and potential for abuse. Humanists and secular groups tend to side with the pro-assisted dying camp (indeed, Humanists UK members were visible among the demonstrators supporting Baroness Meacher’s bill). Meanwhile, disability rights advocates form a unique constituency: though not universally against assisted dying, many prominent disability rights groups argue these laws put disabled and elderly people at risk of subtle coercion or societal devaluation. Their activism has been influential in shaping safeguards and sometimes in swaying lawmakers to vote down bills out of caution. These international and cross-group linkages mean that a development in one country (be it a court ruling, a scandal, or a successful policy model) can quickly reverberate elsewhere through the network of aligned organizations.
Funding Streams and Influence on Legislation (“Follow the Money”)
Both the population/family planning and assisted dying causes have relied on significant funding, and that funding often correlates with policy influence – sometimes openly, other times behind the scenes. Here we detail how money flows into advocacy and what impact it has on lawmaking:
- Financing the Family Planning Agenda: The private foundations discussed (Hewlett, Packard, Gates, Ford, MacArthur, etc.) pour hundreds of millions of dollars into reproductive health worldwide. This funding has helped underwrite everything from free contraceptive distribution and clinic services, to public relations campaigns countering misinformation, to lobbying efforts aimed at policymakers. For example, Planned Parenthood – both in the U.S. and its international arm – has been a major beneficiary of private grants. In addition to government funding, Planned Parenthood received large private contributions such as nearly \$5 million from the Hewlett Foundation and over \$5 million from the Packard Foundation in recent years. These funds strengthen Planned Parenthood’s capacity to advocate at the state and federal level (for instance, fighting against restrictive abortion laws or for favorable provisions in health bills). Another concrete example: the Packard Foundation’s funding of Danco Laboratories enabled the rollout of the abortion pill in the U.S., which in turn affected the landscape of abortion access by providing a non-surgical option. Internationally, partnerships between foundations and governments have influenced policy commitments: at the 2021 launch of the FP2030 initiative, major donors (Gates Foundation, UNFPA, etc.) collectively pledged \$3.1 billion for family planning over five years. Soon after, countries like Kenya, Nigeria, and India made specific policy and budgetary pledges toward family planning. In this way, philanthropic money helped leverage and shape government action – essentially using dollars to encourage policy reforms in line with population and gender equity goals. It’s worth noting that policy influence doesn’t only mean passing new laws; it also includes preserving favorable policies. For instance, U.S. foundations have quietly funded advocacy to repeal the “Global Gag Rule” (which cuts off U.S. aid to any foreign NGO that even discusses abortion) whenever it’s in place, and to support UNFPA when U.S. administrations withhold funds. In some developing countries, NGOs supported by these foundations work to reform outdated reproductive laws (such as colonial-era anti-abortion statutes) – recent examples include successful legalization efforts in Benin and Mexico, where international funding and expertise provided crucial support to local women’s rights groups. Opponents argue that this amounts to cultural imperialism or bypassing public opinion; supporters contend it is defending fundamental human rights and public health against politically motivated restrictions.
- Lobbying and Legislation – The Assisted Dying Campaigns: On assisted dying, campaign funding has often determined success or failure in legislative efforts. In the U.S., as noted, Compassion & Choices’ ability to fundraise (augmented by Soros’s grants and wealthy donors) gave it a decided edge in states where the issue went to a public vote. For example, the financial advantage of the “Yes” campaign in Washington (outspending opponents roughly 5:1) is cited as a factor in Initiative 1000’s passage. Similarly in California, the euthanasia bill had stalled for years, but in 2015 it passed after a coalition of advocates – backed by tech philanthropists and aided by the emotional testimony of Brittany Maynard (a young woman with terminal brain cancer who moved to Oregon to utilize its law) – swayed enough lawmakers. We also see targeted philanthropy at work in places like Connecticut: when an assisted suicide bill was proposed in 2013, Soros funding flowing through Compassion & Choices was explicitly used to persuade and reward lawmakers for their support. One article observed that if Connecticut’s legislature had passed it, it would have been *“the first state legislature to do so… Lawmakers have already promised to push it forward. They know there is a payoff… much of it coming from George Soros.”* (In the end, that bill did not pass, but similar ones have since passed elsewhere.) In the UK, direct lobbying by charities like Dignity in Dying is tightly regulated (and these groups have more limited budgets than their U.S. counterparts, since UK campaigns cannot rely on huge advertising spends in the same way). However, *private funding still plays a role*: wealthy individuals (such as entrepreneur Terry Pratchett, the late fantasy author, who was a prominent patron of assisted dying) have contributed to the cause by funding documentaries and public campaigns. On the opposition side, financing comes from different sources: rather than big foundations, it’s often religious institutions and small donors. For instance, during referendums in U.S. states like Massachusetts (2012) and Colorado (2016), the Catholic Church and allied groups spent substantial sums on advertising highlighting the dangers of assisted suicide, sometimes narrowly defeating the measures. In Massachusetts, the Church was reported to have spent over a million dollars to help defeat the “Question 2” initiative in 2012. In New York and Connecticut, well-funded disability rights organizations and medical associations have lobbied legislatures to stop bills, emphasizing patient safety and potential for abuse. Meanwhile, in Canada, where Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) became legal in 2016 via a Supreme Court decision and subsequent legislation, the role of funding is seen more in implementation: government and health system budgets had to incorporate assisted dying services, training, and oversight mechanisms. Interestingly, Canada’s rapid expansion of eligibility (now including some mental health conditions and potentially “mature minors”) has drawn criticism that the system is saving money on care by offering death – a claim seized upon by opponents who note the relative cost of an assisted death vs. long-term care. (There is *no evidence of an official cost-saving motive*, but anecdotes of individuals seeking MAID due to poverty or lack of services have raised ethical alarms.) This feeds into the broader debate: are vulnerable people being subtly pressured to choose death because it’s cheaper or more convenient for society? Advocates vehemently deny this and call for better social supports *alongside* the option of assisted death. Nonetheless, such controversies show how economics and funding (or lack thereof for care) intersect with assisted dying in practice.
- Think Tanks, Research, and Public Persuasion: A significant portion of advocacy funding goes toward shaping the narrative and informing policymakers. Foundations fund think-tank reports – for example, the Brookings Institution and Center for Global Development have received Gates and Hewlett grants to research the impact of family planning on economic outcomes, producing data that supporters then cite in legislative hearings (e.g. linking contraception access to GDP growth or women’s education levels). In the assisted dying arena, philanthropically funded research like More in Common’s report helps identify what messages resonate with the public (e.g. appeals to autonomy and compassion) and what fears must be addressed (fear of elder abuse or “slippery slope” scenarios). Advocacy groups on both sides also use funds to amplify personal stories: proponents find sympathetic cases (terminally ill people who want the option) and often support them in speaking out or traveling to testify; opponents do likewise (finding, for instance, disabled individuals who felt pressure or families who opted for more care and are glad they didn’t hasten death). These storytelling efforts, while not “funding” in a traditional sense, are facilitated by the organizations that philanthropy supports. The success or failure of legislation often hinges on which side’s narrative gains the upper hand. For example, when California’s bill passed, it was after Brittany Maynard’s story – a 29-year-old with aggressive brain cancer who publicly advocated for assisted dying – went viral (with strategic help from Compassion & Choices). Conversely, in places where bills have failed, it’s often because opponents convinced lawmakers that risks to the vulnerable outweigh individual autonomy – frequently referencing well-funded *palliative care improvements* as the humane alternative. (Notably, Soros also gave millions to palliative care partnerships, prompting some to observe that he was funding both pain relief and assisted dying avenues, perhaps seeing them as complementary in improving end-of-life experiences.)
In summary, money matters in these debates. Philanthropic funding has enabled advocacy groups to professionalize, conduct research, mount media campaigns, and lobby effectively – all of which heavily influence legislative outcomes. This has led to significant policy changes (e.g., dozens of countries liberalizing abortion laws since 1994’s UN Cairo conference on population, and a growing number of jurisdictions allowing assisted dying since the 2000s). However, the infusion of private money also raises democratic questions. Critics ask: *Who mandated these billionaires to reshape society’s values?* On the other hand, supporters respond that these issues involve fundamental rights and alleviating suffering, and that philanthropy often steps in where politics is paralyzed. As we’ll see next, some of the biggest controversies around population and assisted-dying initiatives indeed center on ethics and public trust – often exacerbated by memories of past abuses or fears of unintended consequences.
Historical Controversies and Ethical Debates
Efforts in both population control and assisted dying have generated controversy, sometimes due to the very “successes” achieved and sometimes due to past excesses that cast long shadows. Here we outline several major points of contention, with a focus on how they relate to the networks and funding discussed:
- Eugenics and Racial Bias in Population Control: One of the darkest clouds over the population/family planning movement is its entanglement with eugenics in the early 20th century. Many early birth control advocates were motivated (at least in part) by eugenic ideas about improving the genetic “quality” of the population. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, exemplifies this complexity. Sanger was a pioneering feminist who wanted women (especially poor women) to have access to contraception, but she also espoused eugenic views common in her time – advocating selective breeding and sterilization of those deemed “unfit.” She even started a project in 1939 to expand birth control in Black communities (the “Negro Project”), which, though intended to serve African-Americans, was framed in patronizing terms and has been criticized as racist. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at NYU has acknowledged that Sanger *“was a supporter of eugenics, a now-discredited practice of selective breeding,”* and that aspects of the Negro Project *“smack of racism.”* Sanger once wrote, *“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,”* not because she intended genocide, but because she feared that misconception; nonetheless, the very need to say that speaks volumes. Today’s reproductive rights organizations have repudiated these historical attitudes – Planned Parenthood even removed Sanger’s name from its Manhattan clinic in 2020, citing her “racist legacy”. Still, opponents frequently invoke Sanger’s eugenics or the fact that abortion rates are disproportionately high in minority communities as a way to discredit contemporary family planning efforts. Moreover, the Rockefeller-funded Population Council and others in the 1960s were sometimes enthused about demographic engineering in developing countries, which critics in the Global South likened to a new form of imperialism (aiming to curb births in “Third World” populations). This history makes it imperative for modern population programs to emphasize voluntarism, rights, and women’s empowerment, rather than demographic targets. It also explains why terms like “population control” have fallen out of favor, replaced by “family planning” or “reproductive health and rights.” The philanthropic actors in this field have had to work hard to distance themselves from eugenics. For instance, the Hewlett and Packard Foundations explicitly frame their grants in terms of improving women’s well-being and voluntary choices. Nonetheless, lingering suspicions remain in some quarters that efforts to spread birth control or legalize abortion in Africa, Latin America, or among poor communities are tainted by a desire to reduce the numbers of certain people.
- Coercion and Abuse in Population Programs: Related to the above is the very real history of coercive population control policies, often executed by governments with support (financial or tacit) from international organizations. Two infamous examples are often cited: India’s mass sterilization drive in the 1970s and China’s One-Child Policy from 1980 onward. In India, during a state of emergency in 1975–77, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s administration (particularly her son Sanjay) set sterilization quotas to curb population growth. Over 8 million sterilizations (mostly vasectomies of poor men) were performed in a single year, many under pressure or force, with tragic results – public backlash and many botched operations. It later came to light that international institutions like the World Bank, UNFPA, and even U.S. aid had been funding India’s family planning infrastructure; while they did not fund forced sterilization per se, the atmosphere of urgency around population at the time arguably contributed to officials’ willingness to take draconian steps. Similarly, in China, the Communist government enforced strict birth quotas (one child per family in most cases, with rural exceptions) through the 1980s and 1990s, often via forced abortions and sterilizations and heavy penalties. Western funders were put in a dilemma: UNFPA and IPPF chose to engage with China to promote voluntary practices and ease coercion, but critics accused them of abetting human rights abuses. In 2002 the U.S. government under President George W. Bush cut off all funding to UNFPA, alleging it was complicit in China’s forced abortion regime (a claim UNFPA denied). UNFPA’s funding was restored under later administrations, then cut again by others – a political ping-pong reflecting how polarizing the issue is. This backdrop means that organizations like the Population Council, UNFPA, and donor foundations must constantly stress consent and human rights in their programs. Indeed, since the mid-1990s (the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development in 1994), the official paradigm shifted from demographic targets to “reproductive rights” – focusing on individual choice, education, and health rather than numerical population goals. Many consider this a positive, if overdue, course correction influenced by women’s rights activists and developing countries’ demands at Cairo. However, some skeptics argue that even today, pressure to achieve certain indicators (like increased contraceptive uptake) can lead to subtle coercion or incentive schemes that are ethically gray. Any scandal (for instance, reports of poor women in some countries being given cash or food in exchange for sterilization) can quickly become a flashpoint in the global debate, reinforced by those historical memories of the 1970s.
- “Slippery Slope” in Assisted Dying: On the assisted suicide/euthanasia front, the biggest controversy is the slippery slope – the fear that what begins as a limited, compassionate option for a few will expand to endanger many. Opponents point to countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, which legalized euthanasia two decades ago under strict criteria (e.g. incurable illness and unbearable suffering), but have since broadened eligibility. Belgium now allows euthanasia for minors (with parental consent and capacity assessment) in rare cases of terminal illness; the Netherlands is considering protocols for euthanasia of terminally ill children under 12 and already permits it for severe newborn deformities under the Groningen Protocol (with parental consent). Furthermore, both countries – as well as Canada – allow assisted death not only for terminal illness but also for chronic conditions and even psychiatric illnesses (in Canada’s law, mental illness will be included as of 2024, though amid intense debate). There have been headline-grabbing cases: in the Netherlands, some patients with dementia have been euthanized on the basis of an advance directive; in Belgium, a physically healthy but depressed young woman obtained euthanasia (raising questions about alternatives); in Canada, multiple reports emerged of disabled or impoverished individuals seeking MAID essentially because they *cannot afford* proper care or housing, which is profoundly disturbing if true. For instance, in 2022, a 51-year-old Canadian woman with chemical sensitivities was granted MAID after failing to get accessible housing; another disabled woman in Toronto applied for MAID citing unbearable poverty on disability benefits. Such stories have led critics (even some who supported the initial law) to accuse Canada of effectively euthanizing the poor and vulnerable instead of fixing its social safety net. Advocacy groups in other countries seize on these examples to warn *“this could happen here.”* Proponents counter that these are outlier cases or misapplications, and that the answer is to improve social services in parallel with offering assisted dying – not to ban assisted dying altogether. They also note that most people using these laws are genuinely terminal or suffering, and that safeguards can be tightened in response to new insights. The “slippery slope” debate often boils down to differing worldviews: opponents believe allowing doctors to intentionally end life, even in hardship, crosses a moral Rubicon that inevitably leads to normalizing death as solution (hence they use terms like *“culture of death”*). Supporters focus on individual autonomy and relief of suffering, arguing those values can be upheld while still protecting against abuse. Empirical data from places like Oregon (over 25 years of Death with Dignity Act) show no evidence of widespread abuse or coerced deaths – the profiles of users remain mostly cancer patients in hospice, and usually well-educated and insured (suggesting they aren’t economically coerced). Nonetheless, the *perception* of a slippery slope, fueled by media stories and ideological framing, has significantly influenced legislative prospects. For example, in Australia, when Victoria state debated its 2017 assisted dying law, a major concern was preventing any future expansion; the law included over 60 safeguards and reviewers explicitly noted it was among the world’s most conservative. In the UK, fear of the slippery slope is a key reason many lawmakers (especially in the House of Lords) oppose assisted dying bills – they frequently cite how Canada’s initially limited law broadened and warn that legalizing here, even narrowly, could open a door that can’t be closed. Thus, even as the advocacy network pushes for change, they often have to accept stricter conditions to allay these fears (for instance, limiting to terminal illness, or adding requirements like High Court approval as Baroness Meacher did). The debate will likely continue to grapple with this tension between compassion for a few and protecting the many.
- Transparency and Trust: Both issues suffer when there is a lack of transparency about who is influencing policy and why. That’s why Dignity in Dying’s exposé of the *“network of anti-choice activists”* behind opposition was significant – it called out connections to U.S. groups like ADF, implying an *imported agenda* not reflective of UK public opinion. Conversely, organizations on the other side have been criticized for not fully disclosing their funding or for using neutral-sounding fronts. In the U.S., Compassion & Choices was once attacked for supposedly hiding its Hemlock Society lineage; it responded by openly embracing its mission and rebranding, which ultimately gained more trust. In the population arena, international NGOs have to be careful to partner with local leaders and communities, to avoid the image of rich outsiders imposing solutions. Any whiff of clandestine or elitist planning can trigger public backlash – for example, conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines being a population control measure took hold in part because of a mistrust of global health elites (Gates Foundation figured centrally in those theories). The lesson learned by many in these networks is that openness about goals, inclusion of diverse voices, and respect for ethical boundaries are crucial for sustaining progress. When controversial quotes or actions surface (e.g., a rogue comment about reducing healthcare costs via assisted death, or a decades-old statement about eugenics), they can erode public confidence in an instant, undoing years of advocacy.
Conclusion
In examining the landscape of population control initiatives and assisted dying campaigns, we find a web of interconnected entities – from billion-dollar foundations to grassroots groups – each playing a role in steering policy. The names behind these efforts (Soros, Hewlett, Packard, Rockefeller, Gates, Meacher, Humphry, Wootton, and many others) have wielded significant influence, whether through funding, political clout, or moral persuasion. They have achieved notable changes: more people than ever have access to family planning, and more jurisdictions than ever recognize some form of assisted dying. Their support has also enabled research and dialogue on formerly taboo subjects, arguably leading to more informed and compassionate policymaking. Yet, as a *double-edged sword*, their influence has at times fueled public skepticism and controversy. Large funding streams and international networks can prompt accusations of undemocratic agendas or cultural intrusion. Historical missteps – from eugenics-tinged family planning programs to overly broad euthanasia practices – continue to cast shadows that current advocates must consciously dispel.
What emerges is that these debates are not isolated within national borders or singular issues: they are global and deeply interrelated with questions of human rights, social values, and trust in institutions. A philanthropic foundation in California might finance contraceptive clinics in Nigeria; an American legal group might quietly assist opponents of an assisted dying bill in London; a British polling project on euthanasia might be funded by donors from Germany or Poland. Such connections mean that strategies, successes, and failures are shared and often replicated across countries.
The report-style “exposé” perspective reveals both inspiring and troubling facets. On one hand, we see individuals and organizations driven by genuine concern for human well-being – be it preventing maternal deaths through family planning or preventing agonizing end-of-life suffering through legal choice. We see rich and powerful actors using their resources to tackle issues governments avoided, arguably advancing freedom and dignity. On the other hand, we also uncover how power dynamics and money can shape narratives: a cause can be well-funded into reality or conversely stymied by well-funded fear campaigns. We see that in matters of life and death, *transparency* and *ethics* must be paramount. Quotes from the players themselves encapsulate the ethos: *“the most important question… is population control… the United States should be a leader in helping with this problem”* (David Packard), versus *“their opposition appears to have links to faith-based, anti-choice agendas… not representative of the majority”* (Sarah Wootton of Dignity in Dying) – two viewpoints highlighting, respectively, a conviction to act for the future and a call to scrutinize hidden influences.
As societies move forward, the balance between individual rights and collective safeguards remains the crux. The networks described in this report will undoubtedly continue to evolve. We may see new players (for example, tech billionaires or global health alliances) entering the field, and new connections forming (perhaps collaborations between environmental climate efforts and population programs, or between disability advocates and assisted dying law drafters to find common ground). Each entity’s history – their funding, alliances, and controversies – will inform how credible they are in the public eye. Ultimately, understanding these intricate connections and the flow of support and opposition arms us, as citizens and stakeholders, with knowledge. It allows for a more nuanced debate beyond slogans – appreciating, for instance, that a call for “voluntary family planning” can be both a liberating health measure and carry historical baggage, or that providing a dying patient the choice to end life can be seen as an act of mercy by some and a dangerous abdication of duty by others.
By combining everything we have learned about the entities, funding, influence, connections, history, quotes, and controversies, this overview underscores that these policy arenas are complex and often emotionally charged. They sit at the intersection of philanthropy, politics, ethics, and personal experience. While this expose-style account has shed light on many hidden or little-known aspects, it is by no means the final word. However, armed with this information, one can better navigate the ongoing discussions – be it in a parliamentary committee, a courtroom, or the court of public opinion – about how we control our population and how we control our dying. The hope of those championing these causes is to improve quality of life and autonomy; the fear of opponents is that we may lose something precious in the process. The conversation, enriched by transparency and deep research, continues.
Sources:
- Hewlett Foundation – Population Program Strategic Plan (2004)
- Open Society/First Things – Soros on assisted suicide funding
- Washington Examiner – *“Selling suicide with Soros’ money”* (Soros \$ to C\&C, Connecticut)
- Dignity in Dying (UK) – Press release on anti-assisted-dying network (ADF links)
- Reuters Fact Check – Margaret Sanger’s support of eugenics acknowledged
- PRB Profile – John D. Rockefeller III and Population Council (abortion recommendation furor)
- InfluenceWatch – David Packard’s quotes on population and family planning, Packard Foundation funding RU-486
- More in Common – *“Proceeding with Caution”* report (UK public opinion on assisted dying)
- The Guardian – Molly Meacher quote to Commons committee (suffering without assisted dying)
- The Guardian – Baroness Finlay’s warning of 5,000+ potential cases and elder abuse (opposition view)
- OpenSecrets – Washington State I-1000 (2008) campaign top donors (Compassion & Choices, etc.)