Does Africa need subsidized abortion? The West's new 'civilizing mission'

In 2006, at the instigation of the British government, the Safe Abortion Action Fund (SAAF) was established, a foundation linked to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) with the stated aim of "building a global movement to expand access to safe abortion." SAAF presents itself as the first and still only international organization dedicated exclusively to promoting abortion in low- and middle-income countries.

Behind the euphemistic terms — access , reproductive health , informed choices — lies a real cultural war supported by huge amounts of capital, directed in particular towards sub-Saharan Africa, a continent that alone receives 45% of total funds.

But does Africa really need this? Is this its priority?

Who decides Africa's needs?

The question isn't rhetorical. In a continent marked by structural poverty, political instability, rampant youth unemployment, and chronic lack of infrastructure, healthcare, and education, it's fair to ask what logic underlies the systematic investment of millions of dollars in promoting abortion and gender ideology.

In the three-year period from 2022 to 2024 alone, the Safe Abortion Action Fund has provided over $12 million to more than 240 NGOs in 86 countries. The funding is not aimed at improving healthcare facilities, reducing infant mortality, or empowering mothers; rather, it supports ideological campaigns, political lobbying, public demonstrations, and school and media activities that normalize and legalize abortion.

The question arises spontaneously: why would such a cultural war machine, orchestrated by Western elites, invest so heavily in a “right” that, in much of the African continent, represents neither a felt need nor a democratic priority?

An ideological agenda disguised as “rights”

The stated goals of the SAAF and the IPPF reveal a much broader project than simply liberalizing abortion: it involves shaping social norms , overturning taboos , redefining identity , and dismantling cultural and religious traditions . The goal is not to support women, but to re-educate populations , starting with local communities and using NGOs as outposts of the new dominant thinking.

The systematic inclusion of “LGBT+ communities” and the promotion of an inclusive language that grants the right to abortion also to “people with different gender identities” — as happened in recent laws in Latin America — clearly show how abortion is only one piece in a broader strategy: the anthropological reformulation of the human being according to Western ideological canons .

A new “civilizing mission”?

The West, which once exported schools, hospitals and missionaries, today exports pre-packaged cultural revolutions , imposed from above on societies that often still retain a vision of life profoundly tied to family, religion and community.

The same powers that promote multiculturalism at home, that claim to respect cultural differences and the rights of peoples, in Africa seem to act in the opposite way: they seek not to understand, but to convert; not to support, but to reform .

On the other hand, the West's geopolitical choices are never neutral: wherever resources are invested, influence is also sought. Shaping African societies according to new paradigms means not only creating "cultural allies," but also subjecting those peoples to an updated form of domination: no longer colonial, but ideological .

What development? What freedom?

In light of all this, it's fair to ask: what kind of freedom are we talking about? What kind of development? And to whose benefit?

Perhaps Africa doesn't need another "abortion fund," but rather the ability to decide for itself how to address its challenges, without external pressure disguised as philanthropy. Perhaps true respect for diversity—much called for in international forums—should begin precisely with the recognition that every people has the right to protect its own identity, its own values, its own vision of life and of the individual.

The real question then becomes: Who authorized the West to reshape humanity in its image and likeness? And above all:

How far can this experiment be pushed before the world begins to reject it?