Changes for page Depopulation

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,17 +2,12 @@
1		-Understood. I’ll begin compiling a full investigative report on the network of individuals, organizations, and funders involved in assisted dying legislation and advocacy, including their connections across countries, funding sources, influence on legislation, and any known controversies or ideological affiliations.
2	2
3		-This will include UK-based groups like More in Common UK and Dignity in Dying, their funders like the Hewlett Foundation and Bernard Lewis Trust, as well as linked efforts in other countries like Canada, Oregon, and the Netherlands. I will format it as a report-style exposé with full citations, quotes, and diagrams where needed.
4	4
5		-I'll let you know when the report is ready for review.
	3	+= Population Control and Assisted Dying: Key Players, Funding, Influence, and Global Connections =
6	6
	5	+== Introduction and Overview ==
7	7
8		-# Population Control and Assisted Dying: Key Players, Funding, Influence, and Global Connections
9		-
10		-## Introduction and Overview
11		-
12	12	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.
13	13
14		-## Major Philanthropic Foundations Driving Policy Agendas
	9	+== Major Philanthropic Foundations Driving Policy Agendas ==
15	15
16	16	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:
17	17
...	...	@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
27	27
28	28	**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).
29	29
30		-## Advocacy Networks and Assisted Dying Legislation
	25	+== Advocacy Networks and Assisted Dying Legislation ==
31	31
32	32	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:
33	33
...	...	@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
39	39
40	40	* **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.
41	41
42		-## Funding Streams and Influence on Legislation (“Follow the Money”)
	37	+== Funding Streams and Influence on Legislation (“Follow the Money”) ==
43	43
44	44	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:
45	45
...	...	@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
51	51
52	52	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.
53	53
54		-## Historical Controversies and Ethical Debates
	49	+== Historical Controversies and Ethical Debates ==
55	55
56	56	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:
57	57
...	...	@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
63	63
64	64	* **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.
65	65
66		-## Conclusion
	61	+== Conclusion ==
67	67
68	68	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.
69	69