Category Archives: National Vanguard

Additional N100bn for Health sectorAdvises banks to discourage large gathering of staffBy Babajide Komolafe

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Wednesday announced additional measures to address the possible impact of the Covid-19 virus on the economy, including injection of N1 trillion across all critical sectors of the economy.

The new measures also include N100 billion loan in 2020 to support the health authorities to ensure laboratories, researchers and innovators work with global scientists to patent and or produce vaccines and test kits In Nigeria to prepare for any major crises ahead

Furthermore the CBN advised deposit money banks to activate their business continuity plan as well as discourage large gatherings of staff and customers.

CBN Governor, Mr. Godwin Emefiele, disclosed this yesterday in Abuja adding that the management of the CBN will meet with the Bankers Committee on Saturday, March 21, 2020, to work out the modalities.

Emefiele also told newsmen that an Implementation Committee that will execute the private sector contribution of N1.5 trillion infrastructures funding that will link farming communities to markets as agreed at the recently concluded Going for Growth Roundtable last week will be set-up next week.

Given the plunge in the price of oil, which dropped to $25 per barrel on Wednesday with its attendant low accretion to oil revenue, the CBN Governor directed all Deposit Money Banks to increase their support to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries to enhance local drug manufacturing, increased bed count in hospitals across Nigeria, in funding intensive care as well as in training, laboratory testing, equipment and Research & Development.

In addition to the N50 billion soft loans to small businesses announced on Monday, March 16, 2020, Emefiele said the CBN would also increase its intervention by another N100 billion in loan in 2020, to support the health authorities to ensure laboratories, researchers and innovators work with global scientists to patent and or produce vaccines and test kits In Nigeria to prepare for any major crises ahead.

According to him, the apex bank will release details of how the unveiled facilities would be accessed and released, adding that the CBN had also set-up the Financial Markets Situation Room to monitor global markets and advise the bank on adequate response.

Meanwhile, Emefiele has advised all Deposit Money Banks and other regulated entities in the banking industry to trigger their business continuity plans to ensure that their staff and families are protected, and their operations remain largely undisrupted.

He further advised the banks to adhere strictly to the directives, advice, and notices from the Federal Ministry of Health, National Centre for Disease Control and other relevant government agencies on national response measures to COVID-19.

As a way of checking possible spread of the virus, he urged the institutions to ensure regular and appropriate sanitization of their premises and make available in all their locations adequate sanitization materials and also to discourage large gatherings of staff and customers.

While pledging that the CBN will continue to monitor all developments on the COVID 19 infection and design appropriate monetary response to protect the people and economy of Nigeria, Emefiele urged that Nigerians take advantage of turning what appeared to be an adversity in the pandemic into an opportunity.

Vanguard

Related

Here is the original post:

(Breaking) COVID-19: CBN to inject N1trn in additional measures to stimulate economy - Vanguard

Elder statesman, Senator Anietie Okon, served in the Senate between 1999 and 2003. In this interview, the pioneer national publicity secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, spoke on the state of the nation and the way out of the political, and socio-economic logjam among others.

Today, everything seems to have failed in Nigeria. To address the nation otherwise is an exercise in foolhardiness. The president and his club of men which I call the cabal sit in absolute detachment from the realities in this country.

Governance, as far as I am concerned, does not begin and end with the narrow perceptions of the reach and stretch of the country. General Ibrahim Babangida once said that when President Muhammadu Buhari was the military head of state they tried to tell him that Nigeria was a lot beyond his concept of what Nigeria is, that Nigeria doesnt begin and end with Katsina and a few other states in the North; that Nigeria has Lagos, Port-Harcourt, Cross River, Uyo, and other states, but as they did that they were classified as enemies. Therefore they had to remove him from office.

Even though we dont want that type of action today because to have a repeat of that action will mean destroying all the democratic institutions and various segments that go with it, we want him to see the country for what it is: a defined economic and geographical entity called Nigeria does not begin and end within the confines of his state of origin.

And we want a return to true federalism in which rather than the states going to Abuja (the centre) to collect money with handbags in a beggarly picture they will be contributing to the maintenance of the centre because they are raising money on their own.

Why do you think there is banditry in Zamfara and some other places? Because they see the federal government interfering with their mineral resources, and exploited the resources illegally. And where do these bandits get their weapons from? There are now a lot of armed gangs essentially serving certain economic interests. Those interests are the ones funding them and that is why they have sophisticated weapons.

And you hear that Boko Haram members have better weapons than the Nigerian Army. They have chosen to call it banditry but the fact remains that they are sponsored by various interests in the mining sector, yet they still come to Abuja to collect from our own contributions which I learned has continued to yield for the Republic of Nigeria.

Why are they not allowing the proceeds from exploitation of mineral resources like gold, limestone come into the national treasury? We are saying that they have to formalise the exploitation of those mineral resources but they are trying to turn a blind eye to that. Those bandits are sponsored gangs by some Mafia-like organisations.

That is the truth and until we face the truth we cant find any solution.And as far as I am concerned, there are enough resources for every state in Nigeria to be able to look after itself and contribute to the maintenance of the centre. As a state you grow at your own pace; that is what federalism means. If you see that other states are growing, you find out from them what they are doing and establish collaboration with them to grow. It is a shame that in this country today we have 20 million pupils that are out of school. And it is not a question of talking, this has been confirmed by the United Nations and all world bodies.

And they said about 95% of that is essentially from the North.

That is rubbish, and irresponsible. Where did we grow from? We started as a federation until the military took overpower. So there is no compulsion to remain part of Nigeria under the present circumstance. And you see in the national dailies recently, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo warned that Nigeria cannot afford to be plunged into another civil war. Other Nigerians are also warning that the unity of the country is in tatters, and that if things continue this way, there is no way a civil war will be averted. If we declare that we are going, we are going, because there is no law that compels us to be part of Nigeria under a repressive circumstance in which the laws of association are not respected or given any regard. We want to return to true federalism, that is why we have said that they cannot continue to fight against restructuring.

Nigerians have reasoned that bad leadership in the country is as a result of rigged elections. Do you agree?A stolen mandate has a way of responding to challenges of governance.And as far as I am concerned, some of them are just there, doing all they can to exploit the country. And for all the exploitation done out of narrow interest is now reflecting on the condition of their citizens. For instance the severity of poverty is more felt in the North.

Yes, that is true, and that is because they are driven by selfishness. How can you be in a government that continues to deny your people the basic rights of citizenship, the basic rights for development and you say nothing? Have you heard any of them make any statement that is in the interest of this region? I challenge any of them from Akpabio to Amaechi, to Sylva to come out and make statements that will help promote peaceful co-existence in this country while protecting our interest. They cannot because they are there out of selfish pursuit.

But that is not the issue here, the issue is to continue to emphasize the goals of federalism and the advantages that go with it and the fact that true federalism ensures for us as a people the right to develop at our own pace. And as I said earlier, if some states grow faster than the others, it is not their fault. Other states can seek for collaboration if they find solutions to their own problems in any state.

If they want to review the constitution by making certain enactment, they are right, provided it is meant to satisfy the yearning of the people. But when you wake up and say you want to pass a bill or create an agency that promotes the education of terrorists and insurgents abroad, what rubbish is that? The bill is proposed to encourage terrorism. And where are they going to educate them? Is it Saudi Arabia or where? It doesnt make sense. In any case I think that bill is as good as dead because I strongly believe that the leadership of the Senate have their heads properly screwed on their neck. They wont attempt such.

No, it is not necessary. Let them begin to implement the recommendations of the last national conference. The recommendations are enough and I strongly believe that if those recommendations are implemented they would save the country a lot of problems and challenges it is going through today.

It is also a build up of the attack on this region so that they will continue to deny us our rights.Why has he not ordered investigation into his own expenditures? I am not holding brief for those who have run the NDDC because the commission had not been properly ran, it doesnt require any audit to establish that as a fact. So it requires finding the culprits and dealing with them, not to be telling us that they are carrying out a forensic audit. And in any case a lot of monies are still being owed the NDDC.

It is beyond time. Why are people talking about state police now? It is medicine after death.Some Nigerians have argued that adopting a regional security outfit will gradually shift administration to the regions?

And what is wrong with that? With the failure of the present federal system, everybody must look after himself. Within the laws of this country, the National Assembly can decide to create something like an ambience that could assure the people of each region when they adopt whatever they are going to adopt, of their independence up to a point, and their security. During my recent interaction with the media in the state, I made reference to people now resorting to self-help, which is a dangerous one. Of course, the federal police in Nigeria has failed. You see the outrage over the killing of that footballer, Kazeem, recently, and you can point to many cases like that. Now they said they are going after Yahoo boys.

As long as they come out and look after the security interest of the regions.

They are much more corrupt. How many people have they jailed so far? In the name of fighting corruption they have recovered so much money from looters, where are those recovered funds going into? Why is America now intervening in the repatriation of Abachas loot to Nigeria? They even had to attach conditions for them to return the over $300million loot, the money that was looted by late Sanni Abacha as a former head of state, and warned that it must not be stolen. That is lack of trust. Recently we read in the Newspapers that the US Department of Justice alleged that the Nigerian government is planning to hand over about $100million out of the money Abacha looted to Bagudu, Kebbi state governor and Chairman of the All Progressives Congress Party, Governors Forum. Did you not read the story?

The president has always conducted the business of governance of this country in such a way that it is to his whims and caprices. How can a president continue to encourage illegality? You see the appointment of Magu, the extension of the tenure and appointment of the service chiefs beyond what was contemplated in Law. So a lot of his actions are illegal and I am not surprised. What did he not promise Nigerians. He promised to fight corruption but corruption index has increased under his leadership. He also promised to restructure the economy of the country, has he done that? It was good enough to make the promises in order to get votes. I hold people like Tinubu accountable for the disasters that we are having today because if he did not partner with him there is no way he could have beaten Jonathan in 2015.

There is no doubt that this development is part of the policy of the fulanisation of Nigeria. Most of those coming down here have never been resident in this country. They come in through the borders that are thrown open. They just walk across from their own lands because of the fact that there is grant of free entry mostly to Africa of Fulani extraction.

We will not have accepted it. Let them carry it to where there is land. The siting of nuclear plant should be within 40 or more than 100 kilometres from where you find people. There is really no need wasting our time about that. Recently they came trying to convince us, but they forgot that for you to have a site for a nuclear plant, the government, the leadership of wherever it is to be sited must be aware of it. And as far back as 2015 we had kicked against it, we held a press conference to state our position on that. After that, a lot of professors also came up with their positions in addition to the position we took that Nigeria is not ready for it. We dont have the discipline or competence to manage a nuclear plant and the consequences of a leak. So we cannot allow it.

What is the allocation coming to the state and what has the man achieved so far?. People even wonder where he gets the money to do the things he is doing. He is using market forces to ensure development in Akwa Ibom. Factories are being constructed, road infrastructure are being developed and at the same time he is managing a debt which he inherited. And when they say funding? Is it the APC, that has no area where they are performing creditably. In fact their newest scam is the appointment of an Emir of Imo. My take on this is that Udom has done well, he is still doing well and he has delivered on the mandate given to him by Akwa Ibom people.

There is no way of comparing them. We went to school, we had ambitions, and we looked up to our leaders. But can my child today, look up to a man like Muhammadu Buhari. What is there to write home about him? He has failed in his promises to reposition the economy of this country.

Vanguard Nigeria News

Related

See the rest here:

STATE OF THE NATION: Nigeria toying with disintegration without restructuring Senator Okon - Vanguard

When I first wrote preliminary thoughts about the coronavirus on January 24th, the article was focused on the potential negative impact to Chinese growth, a regional pan-Asian impact to directly impacted sectors - travel/leisure, airlines, hotels, and gaming - and a negative impact on commodity-sensitive sectors given the potential for lower Chinese demand and reduced air travel.

The analog for framing the impact of the Coronoavirus was to the 2003 SARS experience, which saw a modest negative impact on Chinese growth and quick rebound. Through that experience, U.S. assets, which were still recovering from the deflation of the tech bubble and a 2001 recession, did quite well. The Covid-19 outbreak now is a global pandemic, with infections and deaths far outpacing the 2003 experience. Transmission of the virus to the U.S. has weighed on risky assets stateside. In this article, I want to provide updated thoughts on the current economic situation and market conditions. I am going to discuss the impacts in four parts: Economics, Markets, Behavior, and Long-Term Impacts.

The speed of the correction in equity markets has been dramatic and historic. Some part of that is rational given the sharp change from an economy operating near full capacity to one that could already be in recession as business activity grinds to a halt. Part of the move is irrational as fear of the unknown and the never-before-seen change in the everyday life of Americans fuel some level of panic.

The next several weeks are going to feel long. It was just Wednesday that American sports teams were playing in front of crowds. We have had the largest single-day stock loss since 1987 and the largest single-day gain since 2008 in the interim (and a welcomed weekend break).

Crises ultimately bring opportunity, but it will likely get darker before the dawn. We will very likely retest Thursday's lows. I am thinking about the market opportunity both strategically and tactically.

Strategic: For those looking to add into weakness, I would focus on a strategic rotation of some fixed income into equities. For many readers, that might mean a rotation in retirement accounts. A buy-and-hold 10-year Treasury will deliver a sub-1% annualized total return to investors; equity gains are going to be higher, even if volatility could be nausea-inducing for some over the next several quarters. While we are likely heading into recession, strangely, the prospect of positive total returns for U.S. equities 5-10 years in the future is potentially higher today than it was at the start of the year given the sharp drawdown from high valuations. A strategic shift might also mean a slow tilt towards more non-US assets for investors who have benefited from an overweight to outperforming U.S. assets in the post-crisis era. The relative outperformance for U.S. assets has again accelerated versus developed and most emerging markets. Strategic investors should keep their eye level fixed on a long-term horizon and add into weakness. Volatility is ahead though, so a judicious pace of easing into new long-term holdings is warranted.

Tactically: Some investors may look to use the historic volatility to trade more liberally. Thursday's drop would have been the fourth-worst annual drop for stocks this century (trailing only 2001-2002, 2008). Friday's rebound of 9%+ would be a solid annual return given the view of subnormal returns heading into the year. If you want to play some of this volatility to reap short-term gains, remain broadly diversified and focus on strategies that you would be comfortable owning long term. Avoid single companies with weak balance sheets - poorly functioning credit markets may turn some of those stocks into 100% losses. Broadly diversified exposures in underperforming value, small-caps, non-US developed markets, and higher-quality emerging markets may provide opportunity to buy into weakness and sell into strength. I would rather play it from the long side than the short side. Recessions end.

Please share your own thoughts in the comments section below. This is a unique market environment, and crowdsourced opinions from people with differing perspectives and circumstances are valuable.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: Disclaimer: My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term, risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance and investment horizon.

View original post here:

Updated Coronavirus Thoughts - Seeking Alpha

Basement side Adamawa United were within five added minutes of achieving their first away result of the season at the Umuahia Township Stadium on Sunday.

The Yola based side have taken the Pantani Stadium, Gombe as home ground in their inaugural Nigeria Professional Football League (NPFL) season and although they have dropped points at home more than any team in the division, it is their failings on the road that has done them in the most.

After taking a shock lead through prized asset John-Paul Chinedu on the dot of half time, they conceded an equaliser to Yakub Hammeds header at the start of the second half before cracking at the death to Fatai Abdullahis 95th-minute penalty.

Incumbent head coach of Adamawa United Ibrahim Bariki cut a sad, lonely figure at the end of the game as defeat ensured they slipped eight points adrift of safety.

Of course I have to be disappointed, Bariki told http://www.npfl.ng after the game.

If you can be able to hold on to this far and then you lose the game, you have to be disappointed. That is the nature of the game.

Im satisfied with the performance of the players but it is sad that we could not hold on till the end and the controversial nature of the penalty too, he added.

In fairness, goalkeeper Victor Philemon was the one that stood between Abia Warriors and victory for larger spells in the game but the goalkeeper went off with a serious injury with just under ten minutes left to play.

Bariki is not going to attribute the loss to Philemons injury, insisting that his replacement Ikechukwu Obilo is a good goalkeeper too.

Its another strategy from the opponents since they have been hitting him from the first half all along. We just have to take it like that.

The substitute that replaced him is equally good, he has not had enough playing time, you could have seen how he is able to play too.

Adamawa United have remained firm favourites to return to the second-tier Nigeria National League (NNL) and Sundays loss sees their odds slashed further by bookmakers.

Bariki, himself a former footballer knows the mantra of the game being it is not over until it is over. He insists that his side will continue to fight until they can no longer fight.

The result surely piles more pressure on us in as much as in our position as a club, we know how we got here.

It is not over. It is a marathon race, you can see that nobody expected the way we fought in this match so its a marathon race and we will do it until the last match, he concluded.

npfl.ng

Vanguard News

Related

Read the original:

Adamawa United will fight still the end, says Bariki - Vanguard

Simmons First National Corporation [NASDAQ: SFNC] slipped around -0.71 points on Wednesday, while shares priced at $18.21 at the close of the session, down -3.75%. Simmons First National Corporation stock is now -32.03% down from its year-to-date (YTD) trading value. SFNC Stock saw the intraday high of $19.80 and lowest of $17.305 per share. The companys 52-week high price is 27.29, which means current price is +25.07% above from all time high which was touched on 01/02/20.

Compared to the average trading volume of 657.60K shares, SFNC reached a trading volume of 2704929 in the most recent trading day, which is why market watchdogs consider the stock to be active.

Based on careful and fact-backed analyses by Wall Street experts, the current consensus on the target price for SFNC shares is $28.00 per share. Analysis on target price and performance of stocks is usually carefully studied by market experts, and the current Wall Street consensus on SFNC stock is a recommendation set at 2.80. This rating represents a strong Buy recommendation, on the scale from 1 to 5, where 5 would mean strong sell, 4 represents Sell, 3 is Hold, and 2 indicates Buy.

Piper Sandler have made an estimate for Simmons First National Corporation shares, keeping their opinion on the stock as Neutral, with their previous recommendation back on January 24, 2020. The new note on the price target was released on January 23, 2020, representing the official price target for Simmons First National Corporation stock.

The Average True Range (ATR) for Simmons First National Corporation is set at 1.47, with the Price to Sales ratio for SFNC stock in the period of the last 12 months amounting to 2.88. The Price to Book ratio for the last quarter was 0.66, with the Price to Cash per share for the same quarter was set at 8.06. Price to Free Cash Flow for SFNC in the course of the last twelve months was 16.81.

Simmons First National Corporation [SFNC] gain into the green zone at the end of the last week, gaining into a positive trend and gaining by 9.11. With this latest performance, SFNC shares dropped by -26.25% in over the last four-week period, additionally sinking by -28.22% over the last 6 months not to mention a drop of -27.91% in the past year of trading.

Overbought and oversold stocks can be easily traced with the Relative Strength Index (RSI), where an RSI result of over 70 would be overbought, and any rate below 30 would indicate oversold conditions. An RSI rate of 50 would represent a neutral market momentum. The current RSI for SFNC stock in for the last two-week period is set at 39.98, with the RSI for the last a single of trading hit 43.49, and the three-weeks RSI is set at 38.86 for Simmons First National Corporation [SFNC]. The present Moving Average for the last 50 days of trading for this stock 23.35, while it was recorded at 17.07 for the last single week of trading, and 24.35 for the last 200 days.

Operating Margin for any stock indicates how profitable investing would be, and Simmons First National Corporation [SFNC] shares currently have an operating margin of +34.29. Simmons First National Corporations Net Margin is presently recorded at +24.10.

Return on Total Capital for SFNC is now 7.61, given the latest momentum, and Return on Invested Capital for the company is 5.53. Return on Equity for this stock inclined to 9.10, with Return on Assets sitting at 1.26. When it comes to the capital structure of this company, Simmons First National Corporation [SFNC] has a Total Debt to Total Equity ratio set at 61.43. Additionally, SFNC Total Debt to Total Capital is recorded at 38.05, with Total Debt to Total Assets ending up at 8.83. Long-Term Debt to Equity for the company is recorded at 56.42, with the Long-Term Debt to Total Capital now at 34.94.

With the latest financial reports released by the company, Simmons First National Corporation posted 0.51/share EPS, while the average EPS was predicted by analysts to be reported at 0.54/share.When compared, the two values demonstrate that the company fail the estimates by a Surprise Factor of -5.60%. The progress of the company may be observed through the prism of EPS growth rate, while Wall Street analysts are focusing on predicting the 5-year EPS growth rate for SFNC. When it comes to the mentioned value, analysts are expecting to see the 5-year EPS growth rate for Simmons First National Corporation go to 5.00%.

There are presently around $1,565 million, or 74.00% of SFNC stock, in the hands of institutional investors. The top three institutional holders of SFNC stocks are: BLACKROCK INC. with ownership of 16,199,732, which is approximately 13.654% of the companys market cap and around 1.20% of the total institutional ownership; VANGUARD GROUP INC, holding 11,139,699 shares of the stock with an approximate value of $210.76 million in SFNC stocks shares; and LANDMARK BANK, currently with $202.23 million in SFNC stock with ownership of nearly New of the companys market capitalization.

Positions in Simmons First National Corporation stocks held by institutional investors increased at the end of January and at the time of the January reporting period, where 120 institutional holders increased their position in Simmons First National Corporation [NASDAQ:SFNC] by around 20,176,588 shares. Additionally, 78 investors decreased positions by around 2,244,765 shares, while 39 investors held positions by with 60,308,283 shares. The mentioned changes placed institutional holdings at 82,729,636 shares, according to the latest SEC report filing. SFNC stock had 25 new institutional investments in for a total of 11,508,289 shares, while 24 institutional investors sold positions of 819,882 shares during the same period.

Continued here:

why Simmons First National Corporation [SFNC] is a Good Choice for Investors After New Price Target of $28.00 - The DBT News

Reasoning:Extreme Right, Hate Group, Propaganda, Conspiracy

Notes:Founded in 2005, National Vanguard is analt-rightwhite supremacy organization founded and run by Kevin Alfred Strom, who is a former member of theNational Alliance, which is a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and white separatist political organization. Kevin Alfred Strom, according to NBC29 and ABC News,on January 4, 2007 he was arrested on charges of possession of child pornography and witness tampering. Charlottesville Newspaper,The Daily Progress reports in 2008, Strom was sentenced to 23 months in prison on a child pornography charge.

In review, National Vanguard uses loaded emotional language in their articles and headlines such as: Chicago: Blacks, Fleeing Authorities, Try to Hide in Police Station. They also use other extreme right white extremist blogs as their sources such as modernheretic3000. Further, theSouthern Poverty Law Center lists National Vanguard as a white supremacist site. Due to poor sourcing and hate language we rate National Vanguard as a Questionable source. (M. Huitsing 9/29/2017)

Special Note:We provide a link below to their website for the purpose of our Chrome Extensions, which requires a link to the website in order to display on Facebook and the Chrome task bar. We recommend not clicking the link. (D. Van Zandt)

Source:https://nationalvanguard.org/

Continued here:

National Vanguard - Media Bias/Fact Check

Vanguard University students, officials and community members gathered in Costa Mesa Thursday morning to pray together and raise awareness about human trafficking.

The crowd of nearly 400 packed Newport Mesa Church to pray for survivors of labor and sex trafficking and for the violence to come to an end.

The Pray for Freedom event, hosted by Vanguards Global Center for Women and Justice in partnership with Faith Alliance Against Slavery and Trafficking and KWVE radio, is held annually in recognition of National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.

Sandra Morgan, director of Vanguard Universitys Global Center for Women and Justice, speaks at the conclusion of the annual Pray for Freedom event on Thursday.

(Kevin Chang / Staff Photographer)

Vanguard also will host a Justice Matters Conference Sunday morning and an event called Slam Demand next Thursday to educate university athletes about modern-day slavery.

Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.

Link:

Vanguard University event raises awareness about and prayers for victims of human trafficking - Los Angeles Times

Abortionnot many topics stir up equal passion, matched by high levels of private funding. Forty-seven years after Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents are making historic gains, energized by Republicans in office and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, U.S. philanthropies continue to spend hundreds of millions each year defending sexual and reproductive care and rights. Pro-abortion funders and advocates fighting to preserve past victories are maintaining their footing and gaining new ground on quickly shifting political terrain.

Government funding for sexual and reproductive health does not meet the needs of the many people who seek services. As with most enormous social or medical issues, philanthropy cannot (and many would say, should not) take on full responsibility for this issue. The political controversy surrounding some forms of reproductive healthcare is not likely to be resolved anytime soon, sayas Gretchen Ely, Ph.D., who studies access to reproductive healthcare at the University at Buffalo. She says the U.S. should cover all forms of healthcare, including reproductive health, and that, while advocacy toward this goal is underway, philanthropy can play a very important role in bridging the gap between unaffordable care and people who need the care.

Some of Americas biggest foundations have long worked on abortion access and reproductive health and rights in the U.S., including the foremost player in this space, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (STBF), as well as the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Today, these and other grantmakers operate in a landscape thats seen dramatic change in recent years. Abortion advocates face daunting political setbacks, but are also energized by growing and diverse grassroots leadership. While grantmakers support for reproductive health, rights and abortion fell in 2018, interviews with funders and policy experts underscore that private philanthropys involvement in one of the most contested issues of our time remains expansive. (Well also examine anti-abortion funding in an upcoming article.)

Abortion in the United States: a Mercurial Landscape

In 2017, Trump reinstituted and broadened the scope of the global gag rule (GGR), which denies U.S. funding to groups abroad that provide, refer or counsel patients for abortions. We previously covered how some funders stepped up in response, and how philanthropies like the Gates Foundation and STBF, with billions to draw from, could potentially do even more.

Then in 2019, the Trump administration banned organizations receiving Title X federal funding from providing or referring patients for abortions, initiating what some call the domestic gag rule. Since 1970, Title X funding has supported health centers that provide free or low-cost annual exams, screenings, birth control and other health services to about 4 million people with low incomes annually.

A 2019 report from the nonprofit Power to Decide found at least 900 clinics have now lost their Title X family planning funding. Planned Parenthood, which served over 40 percent of all Title X patients, exited the program in response to the new rules, as have all recipients in five states. According to the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), people of color make up about half of Title X patients, and 32 percent of these patients identify as Hispanic.

The people most harmed by abortion restrictions are women of color, and poor and low-income women, says Christine Clark, Hewlett program officer for family planning and reproductive rights grants.

A growing wave of state abortion bans and restrictions have been introduced and passed, though some have been temporarily blocked. Other states responded by enacting abortion protections. Axios is keeping a running list of legislative developments.

Clark predicts the trend of states limiting abortion access will continue and accelerate, and that private philanthropy will not be able to meet the rising demands. She says that as the landscape continues to shift, the greatest challenge for providers and funders [is] to be ready to rapidly respond equipping providers in states where access remains to help many more people, making sure women can get where they need to go, and making sure there are effective communications channels so women know where they can go.

Many 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have voiced support for both codifying Roe v. Wade and repealing the Hyde Amendment. In 2018, about three-quarters of Americans said they did not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, NPR reported.

However, Jethro Miller, PPFA and PPAF CDO, says, Biased politicians have kicked their efforts into high gear to control the narrative on abortion care, spreading misinformation and fear. He adds that the Supreme Court has taken up an abortion case on a law in Louisiana, and their ruling could have dire consequences for abortion access across the country. Several pro-abortion organizations (and their funders) are already directly addressing this upcoming case.

The Biggest Players in the Abortion Funding Field

Sorting out abortion-specific funding in the U.S. can be tricky because it falls within sexual and reproductive health and family planning services, as well as reproductive, womens and gender justice initiatives. Sometimes, its given by funders who also support these causes abroad. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), a leading grantee in this field, reports abortions only make up about 3 percent of its services. And it has numerous local branches, a global division and an Action Fund (PPAF), its 501(c)(4) political advocacy arm. To further complicate things, many abortion funders donate through donor-advised funds (DAFs), shielding their giving from scrutiny.

In the Foundation Centers database, abortion funding is a subcategory of reproductive healthcare funding, and well mainly focus on these two funding streams. Reproductive rights, a separate funding filter that turns up some of the same funders and grants, will be addressed, as well.

According to the Foundation Center data currently available for 2018, foundation funding for reproductive healthcare in the U.S. that year was about $477 million. This constitutes a decrease in this vein of funding; in both 2016 and 2017, it was over $600 million. And reproductive healthcare funding rose almost every other year since 2010, when it was $247 million. U.S. abortion and reproductive rights funding also fell in 2018 after rising for several years prior. While the 2016 election and resulting Trump presidency spurred donors to give, it also created an increased state of competition among NGOs, as many progressive groups found their causes threatenedperhaps this heightened culture of need created the recent lag in reproductive health funding. The needs in this area certainly havent diminished.

Between 2003 and 2018, foundations targeting U.S. programs gave about $5.8 billion in total for reproductive healthcare, $1.2 billion for reproductive rights and about $495 million for abortion.

STBF lead the pack for U.S. reproductive health funding, awarding about $1.5 billion between 2003 and 2018 (future stats refer to this time frame unless otherwise noted). The Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation came in second, but this was due to a single large grant in 2015 relating to infant care.

Gates was third in all U.S.-centered reproductive health funding, in the ballpark of $278 million. But much of Gates funding in this realm supports U.S.-based research institutions and NGOs that work on international issues, like an $11 million grant to Johns Hopkins University in 2018 to support data collection to effect change in policies and programs relating to women and families health in Africa and Asia.

Fourth in U.S. reproductive health funding was Hewlett with $240 million granted, followed by Packard at $181 million. STBF, Hewlett and Packard are also within the top 15 funders in the U.S. overall by grant dollars awarded. STBF was the top grantmaker in the U.S for abortion specifically, by far, at $344 million, followed by Packard at $39 million and Hewlett at $19 million. We previously identified these three as top givers for reproductive health and abortion, and well look at their work in more detail below.

When the funding filter is shifted to reproductive rights, the top grantmakers were STBF ($565 million), Ford ($103 million), Packard ($85 million) and Hewlett (about $79 million). Ford was also among the top 10 funders of reproductive care and abortion. Fidelity Charitable, the Huber Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, PPFA and Groundswell Fund were also in the top 10 for reproductive rights funding, each giving more than $15 million.

The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundations Monumental Impact on Abortion Access and Reproductive Health

STBF doesnt publicize its grantmaking beyond its scholarship activities in Nebraska and is not responsive to media requests. (Were working on a separate article exploring its funding, following up on earlier coverage.) The foundation was created by billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett and his wife, the late Susan Thompson Buffett, as the Buffett Foundation in 1964. It was renamed for Susan after she died in 2004. STBF focuses on preventing unintended pregnancy and ensuring people can get safe abortions in the U.S. and abroad.

STBF has given out more than $5 billion overall, including hundreds of millions to the various branches of Planned Parenthood. The foundation receives annual infusions of Berkshire Hathaway stock from Buffett, with such gifts also going to the Gates Foundation and the three foundations controlled by his children. So while STBFs assets stood at $2.4 billion in 2018, it received $259.7 million from Buffett that year and granted about $624 millionmaking it one of the largest grantmakers in the world, ahead of the Ford Foundation. While many grants range from $100,000 to $500,000, STBF regularly awards millions.

The global nonprofit Population Services International received the largest single grant in 2018 of about $32 million. In terms of domestic funding, STBF gave major support to the Society of Family Planning in 2018 through several grants totaling about $28 million. This Philadelphia-based nonprofit is currently focused on increasing access to pharmaceutical abortion. STBF backed this group in the past, funding that tracks with earlier support for research aiding the development and approval of RU-486, known as the abortion pill or Mifeprex (the brand name for mifepristone).

Other 2018 and repeat grantees include the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the professional association of abortion providers; Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, and Guttmacher, a major sexual and reproductive health and rights research and policy organization.

The National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) received about $3.4 million from STBF in 2018. Abortion funds remove local financial and logistical barriers to abortion access. And STBF gave almost $3 million to the Groundswell Fund, which coordinates a movement of reproductive and social justice organizations led by communities of color. Here, we see the foremost private U.S. abortion funder investing in grassroots-based organizations, a trend we see with other major funders in this realm, like Hewlett and Packard, lately, as well.

One of STBFs most powerful contributions has been funding research that advances reproductive healthcare and/or influences policy. Starting around 2007, in an effort to ramp up the usage of IUDs, it funded studies, new device development and statewide free distribution trials of the devices. We will look at this contribution in more detail in our forthcoming story on STBF.

STBF also backed research that influenced the Supreme Court case, Whole Woman's Health V. Hellerstedt. STBF funded the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP), which gave the court an analysis of the Texas abortion law (HB 2) at the center of the case. Known as a TRAP Law (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider), HB 2 introduced new abortion hurdles and restrictions that were found to be unconstitutional. The TxPEP research was cited in the ruling. And an STBF grantee, the Center for Reproductive Rights, argued the case.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, a 2014 law in Louisiana, Act 620, requires identical admitting privileges to HB 2. The Supreme Court scheduled a case relating to Act 620 for March 2020. The Center for Reproductive Rights, TxPEP and another STBF grantee, the University of California at San Franciscos Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), have already filed documents with the high court, taking the first steps to respond to the Louisiana law as they did with HB 2.

In recent related news (and a potentially foreboding blow for reproductive rights advocates), in December 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Kentucky law that requires doctors to perform and show ultrasounds and play fetal heartbeats to patients before abortions. Then, in early 2020, more than 200 members of Congress sent the high court a brief asking it to uphold the Louisiana law in the spring and consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

Packard Focuses on the U.S. South

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation was established in 1964. At the start of 2018, it had assets of about $7.9 billion, and it granted about $324 million that year. Its reproductive health and justice giving is focused in the United States (Mississippi, Louisiana and nationally), Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and globally. Sex education, contraception, abortion, advocacy and policy are among its focuses.

Packard grants for reproductive issues range from the tens of thousands to the millions. It has long backed Planned Parenthood and gave about $10.5 million in total to several of the organizations branches in 2018. It has also funded the NAF, NARAL, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Women's Law Center.

Packard focuses much of its state-based reproductive-centric philanthropy in the U.S. South, particularly in Louisiana and Mississippi. Both states passed fetal heartbeat laws banning abortion at 15 weeksin a win for abortion supporters, Mississippis law was blocked by a federal appeals court in late 2019. Packard invests in local advocates and movement builders, including women of color-led organizations with strong community connections in these states, says Tamara Kreinin, Packard director of population and reproductive health.

And Packard makes a point to include young people, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive sex ed and services for youth, along with youth advocacy. Young people know what works best for their lives, [but] too often, they are under-represented, Kreinin says. She discusses the importance of supporting youth-led groups and reproductive care access centered around a young persons life and goals.

The Womens Foundation of Mississippi is a repeat Packard grantee, receiving $150,000 in 2018 to increase access to reproductive care. Packard has backed NNAF for several years, including with $100,000 in 2018 to support abortion fund infrastructure in Mississippi. Teen Health Mississippi was another grantee, and One Voice received support for the Sisters Helping Every Woman Rise and Organize (SHERO), a black womens reproductive justice collective.

In Louisiana, recent grantees also range in size and approach, including the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center ($1.2 million), for a program working with adolescent sexual and reproductive health; the Foundation for Louisianas New Orleans Youth Organizing and Leadership Fund; and the Vietnamese American Young Leaders Association of New Orleans, in support of sex ed for young people in Vietnamese, Latino and LGBTQ communities.

Kreinin says, The deep history of racial discrimination and health inequities across these states, coupled with the current void of political support and lack of resources, make [advocates] work especially critical. Of its grantees in Louisiana and Mississippi, she says, These leaders know their communities best and are essential advocates.

Hewlett Embraces Grassroots and Youth Power

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation launched in 1966. At the end of 2018, its assets were approximately $9.8 billion and it granted about $417 million that year. It supports family planning and reproductive health abroad, especially in East and West Africa, and in the U.S. The domestic program gives out about $10 million annually and has three general goals: to prevent unintended pregnancy, ensure abortion access, and integrate family planning into efforts to improve womens lives and stabilize families. Research and policy advocacy are key stated strategies.

Every year, Hewlett supports Planned Parenthoods programs in the U.S. and abroad, including with about $2.5 million in 2018. Other past grantees include Medical Students for Choice, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (also known as Power to Decide), NAF, NNAF, National Women's Law Center and Center for Reproductive Rights.

Hewlett recently expanded its grantee portfolio in an effort to be more representative of grassroots organizing and the leadership of women of color. Clark says women of color and those who have less wealth are the most likely to lose access and face the greatest obstacles. Unlike middle- and upper-middle-class women, who have the means to get to places where they can get an abortion, poor women cannot. For them, abortion is an economic issue, as well as a health issue.

We heard a similar message from Rachel Jones, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute (who was not referencing philanthropy). When we talk about the inequities of access, were talking about who is able to overcome [barriers]; who can afford to take time off work, [transportation, a hotel or child care]. As the number of restrictions increases, those inequities grow, too.

In 2018, Hewletts U.S. reproductive health and rights grants ranged from the tens of thousands up to several million. The Education Fund at UltraViolet, a feminist advocacy nonprofit, received $25,000. Hewlett granted Boston University $100,000 in support of research on women's empowerment. On the other end of the grant spectrum, Groundswell received $2.5 million. The Guttmacher Institute received more than $3 million.

Building on its inclusion of grassroots advocates within its grantee pool, Hewlett also has a new focus: the next generation of leaders from historically underrepresented communities. Citing the political engagement of #BlackLivesMatter, Dreamers, climate strikers, Parkland students and other young advocates, as well as the growing youth vote, Hewlett is in the midst of a three-year (2018-2021), $2.5 million funding strategy to strengthen youth engagement and leadership around reproductive health and justice. A few current grantees are the Alliance for Youth Organizing, Advocates for Youth (specifically, the Young Women of Color Council Program) and SPARK Reproductive Justice Now.

Hewlett grantee Groundswell has numerous youth-led grantees itself. Groundswell program officer Naa Hammond says young people are the lifeblood of every progressive movement, often pushing for the boldest strategies that leave no one behind Yet their leadership is often taken for granted by organizations and funders.

Fords Commitment to Reproductive Rights

The Ford Foundation gave about $103 million to reproductive rights groups between 2003 and 2018, and about $4.8 million in 2018 alone. It was the sixth largest funder of reproductive healthcare during this ~15-year-span (giving close to $153 million), and the eighth biggest funder of abortion, at about $3.5 million. PPFA is a leading grantee for Ford.

In 2018, in terms of reproductive rights, Ford supported the NLIRH (with about $2.4 million); In Our Own Voice, National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, and Sisterlove, which formed in the late 1980s as the first womens HIV/AIDS and reproductive justice group in the Southeast. An anticipated outcome of its reproductive and gender justice program is that leadership on these issues is more representative and includes women of color, low-income women and gender non-conforming people who begin to influence the agenda of the larger movement.

Brook Kelly-Green, program officer in Fords Gender, Racial and Ethnic Justice portfolio, tells us many of their grantees, working with strong coalitions, have had a significant impact on policy, especially at the state level. She says state-based organizations are crucial to the reproductive health and justice movement, because they know their members and constituencies best and how to contact, connect and motivate [their] civic engagement. She says Ford backs this kind of work by funding Groundswell, the Astraea Foundation and Ms. Foundation, which have expertise and longstanding relationships with [state] grassroots and policy groups.

The foundation also backs All Above All through its host, the New Venture Fund. All Above All is a reproductive justice coalition and advocacy campaign co-launched by NNAF (another Ford grantee) and NLIRH. Kelly-Green points out that advocacy by All Above All and others was influential in Illinois passing of its Reproductive Health Act in 2019, protecting multiple reproductive rights.

According to data provided by Funders for LGBTQ issues, Ford was the top funder of LGBTQ+ sexual and reproductive rights and justice in 2017an important category well look at, as well.

Other Key Abortion and Reproductive Health and Justice Philanthropies

Back to U.S. reproductive health funding: Big philanthropies like the Kellogg and JPB foundations were also among the top 10 funders, giving approximately $134 million and $70 million, respectively. PPFA was a repeat leading grantee for JPB in this realm, while Kelloggs largest grants in this area went toward maternal-child health. The Harold Simmons Foundation, PPFA, Open Society Foundations and others also gave tens of millions for reproductive health.

The California Wellness Foundation was the 10th-largest U.S. funder of reproductive healthcare at $61 million. Other health grantmakers who were heavily invested in this cause include the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (at $51 million) and California Endowment ($20 million).

If we zoom in to U.S. abortion specifically, the fourth-biggest giver was the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, which gave close to $7 million. The fifth biggest was the Education Foundation of America, a family foundation launched by Richard Prentice Ettinger (who co-founded Prentice-Hall Publishing) and his wife, Elsie. Its given about $6 million to this cause. The private Huber and Irving Harris Foundations were also among the top 10 abortion funders.

We dont see corporate philanthropies among the top funders of reproductive health, justice or abortion care. And we know the controversial nature of these issues is a large part of the reason STBF works to maintain a low profile. Of course, private foundations with iconic industry names like Buffett, Hewlett and Ford link their brands to these causes through their giving.

The Bank of America Charitable Foundation gave approximately $1.2 million for reproductive healthcare, including to Planned Parenthood. A few other corporate funders that gave less than a million to this cause include the GE, Pfizer, Prudential and Liberty Mutual Foundations, among others.

The Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation makes contributions from associate's donations, and gave about $648,000 to reproductive health, including to Planned Parenthood. Some other companies supported reproductive health through their corporate giving programs with grants in the tens of thousands, including Kaiser Permanente and Altria Group. Companies whose corporate giving programs supported abortion include Microsoft, Maritz and Voqal.

As we mentioned, DAFs play a big role in abortion fundingFidelity Charitable, Schwab Charitable and the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program funneled tens of millions to PPFA. Fidelity Charitable, the second-biggest U.S. funder overall behind Gates in terms of dollars granted, is a standout in particular. It gave about $109 million for reproductive healthcare (making it the eighth-largest funder of this broad issue) and close to $5.7 million specifically for abortion.

Community foundations with a womans giving program or an interest in reproductive health, and womens foundations, funds and giving circles can all play a crucial role in supporting local reproductive wellness and movement-building. While we cant explore all of their contributions in-depth, below are a few examples.

The Silicon Valley Community Foundation, a DAF powerhouse and the largest community foundation in the world, is the ninth-largest U.S. abortion funder, having given close to $3 million. The Philadelphia Foundation is the only other community foundation in the top 15 abortion fundersit gave about $1.7 million to the cause.

The Foundation for the Carolinas, Greater Kansas City Community Foundation, Community Foundation of Greater Memphis and Coastal Community Foundation of South Carolina, along with others, gave tens of millions to reproductive health causes. The New York Community Trust gave in the range of $13 million to reproductive healthcare, including consistent support for Planned Parenthood of New York City (PPNYC)

Irfan Hasan, NYCT program director for Health and Behavioral Health, says the trusts support for this group helped advance the passage of New Yorks Reproductive Health Act and earlier this year, [we] gave [PPNYC] a grant to develop and test a sex education curriculum for young people with developmental disabilities.

The Womens Fund of Greater Omaha gave close to $9.5 million to reproductive healthcare. The Ms. Foundation for Women has given close to $6.8 million for reproductive healthcare and about $1 million for abortion. Groundswell has given about $1.4 million for abortion.

American Abortion Funds

The National Network of Abortion Funds has received backing from STBF, Packard, Ford and Hewlett. Its a coalition of about 70 abortion funds that remove barriers to abortion access. An abortion fund may pay for an abortion directly or provide support such as transportation, translation, child care or accommodations. The Yellowhammer Fund in Alabama and Holler Health Justice in West Virginia are examples of state funds. The Third Wave Fund supports Yellowhammer. And before its own Emergency Abortion Fund closed in 2011, Third Wave aided more than 2,000 people seeking abortions throughout the U.S.

Abortion funds, much like giving circles or bail funds, allow groups of people to pool resources to assist specific communities and causes, and build political clout. They can shift money and power to populations that experience greater barriers to wellness and/or justice in the U.S., including in the realm of sexual and reproductive health. NNAF Development Director Debasri Ghosh says the funds use private philanthropy to weave together a compassionate, community-led and values-driven social safety net, which she says is necessary because the government does not provide adequate services to the nearly 1 million people who have abortions each year. She says the funds rely primarily on individual donations and grassroots campaigns like an annual Bowl-a-Thon, through which abortion funds raised $2.4 million in 2018.

Ely of the University at Buffalo studies abortion funds, and her research found people served by one national fund got an average of $1,000 in combined financial aid each to help pay for abortions that cost about $2,000, on average. She says these findings prove the importance of the funds for people with lower incomes.

NNAF provides its member funds with infrastructure and organizational support, and leadership development, while also partnering with networks and groups on advocacy agendas. Its political priorities include ending all abortion coverage bans, including the Hyde Amendment. NNAF co-launched the All Above All campaign with NLIRH in 2011. All Above All centers on a four-part BOLD Action Plan, that calls on activists across the country to educate themselves, get involved in local and creative advocacy, contact lawmakers and support and share the movements agenda on social media.

Supporting LGBTQ Sexual and Reproductive Health

Members of LGBTQ+ communities often face barriers to healthcare. As one meta-study pointed out, heteronormative attitudes imposed by health professionals can make care-access more difficult. According to Human Rights Watch, Many LGBT people are unable to find services in their area, encounter discrimination or refusals of service in healthcare settings, or delay or forego care because of concerns of mistreatment.

The American Cancer Society stated that lack of insurance for unmarried or domestic partners is another roadblock. These barriers also exist and can grow more complex within the territory of sexual and reproductive healthcare. Cultural biases and misinformation, such as the perception that only cisgender women seek access to abortions and other forms of reproductive care, can make it more difficult for LGBTQ+ communities to experience sexual and reproductive wellness.

Kelly-Green of Ford, the top funder in this area, says the foundation centers traditionally marginalized communities, like women of color, trans and gender non-conforming people. She says many of their grantees [expand] the definition of who needs access to reproductive services and work to ensure that access.

After Ford, Groundswell and Borealis Philanthropy are the top funders of LGBTQ+ sexual and reproductive rights and justice, Funders for LGBTQ Issues Vice President of Research and Communications Lyle Matthew Kan says. In 2017, we recorded a record high in funding for [these issues] of $2.9 million, he says. Funding was at $1.9 million in 2014, but dropped to $1 million in 2016. I think it's too soon to see if this increase indicates a trend that will continue, but its encouraging, nonetheless, he says.

Ryan Li Dahlstrom, program officer for the Fund for Trans Generations (FTG) at Borealis Philanthropy, says Borealis supports reproductive justice organizing led by LGBTQ+ people of color, who are often the most impacted by healthcare barriers and discriminatory policies.

Dani Martinez, Borealis Transforming Movements Fund Officer, says this fund backs advocates for reproductive care for vulnerable communities, especially in the U.S. South. And again, we hear a funder discussing youth engagement; she says the fund supports the bridging role young, queer leaders play across social movements.

Avoiding Reproductive Coercion

Historically and on a large scale, reproductive health and rights have often been tied to complex and controversial issues of global development and population. Within reproductive health and justice advocacy and philanthropy, the question persists of whether services are ever pushed on women, particularly those who already face societal injustice.

A 2014 report from Guttmacher explores the history of coercive practices related to contraception, especially those targeting disadvantaged groups. It discusses a spectrum ranging from involuntary sterilization programs as recent as the 1970s to the Norplant controversies of the 1990s, when legislators in multiple states introduced bills to give women receiving public assistance financial incentives to obtain an implant or even mandate its use. In 2015, a Republican state representative in Arkansas proposed a bill to pay unwed mothers on Medicaid $2,500 to use an IUD.

One important consideration, whether its a philanthropist or a government, is to avoid reproductive coercion, Liz Borkowski, a researcher in the Department of Health Policy and Management at George Washington University, recently told Vox in an article on philanthropy and reproductive care. Advocates like NNAF and Groundswell state it is essential that reproductive services be readily available but not coercive, with a focus on choice and bodily autonomy.

Kreinin of Packard says, Every individual, no matter their age, race, marital status [or] income, should have access to quality reproductive health information and services, and be able to make decisions that are right for them without stigma or interference.

The most important thing we can do to make sure reproductive healthcare is available but not coercive is listen to the people receiving the care, Clark of Hewlett says. She says the foundation has funded several research projects recently in an effort to better understand womens wants and needs in this area.

When private individuals and organizations with vast resources wield enormous influence over vital aspects of others lives, concerns of abuse are natural. One potential way for reproductive health and rights philanthropies to build just relationships with grantees and the people they serve is by supporting diverse leadership and grassroots movement-building, which we see more funders doing. This leads to our final topic: what reproductive health and justice philanthropists should do with their money.

Where Reproductive Funding is Needed

Miller of PPFA calls philanthropists who fund sexual and reproductive wellness vanguard defenders of comprehensive healthcare. But where are their defenses best constructed? Where do abortion rights grantmakers need to go on the offense? We asked advocates, funders and researchers which populations were underserved in this arena, and where reproductive health and justice funding dollars should be spent. Most concentrated on three intersecting areas: supporting direct services, especially for people most often lacking access; backing advocacy movements led by the people most impacted by abortion restrictions and other compounding inequities; and getting more people engaged in achieving long-term political progress.

Its clear that many people who face abortion barriers face other societal obstacles, as well. Diana Greene Foster, Ph.D., ANSIHR director of research, tells us the following populations are currently underserved by Americas abortion services: women who live in rural areas, far away from abortion providers, and/or in states with multiple abortion restrictions; undocumented women and women of color; and those with complex medical conditions or drug dependencies. She also mentions young women who live in states with parental involvement laws but no strong organization facilitating judicial bypass, and women who discover pregnancy later (who tend to be young).

Jones of Guttmacher says the institutes data underscores abortion-access inequities in the Midwest and the South. Along with several groups already mentioned, she says people with disabilities are an underserved community.

Kreinin of Packard says that in the short term, as abortion restrictions grow, especially for women of color, low-income women, young people and people with limited mobility, there is a need to cover the full cost of abortion care including travel, lodging and child care. In the long term, she says investments in movement building and civic engagement are needed.

Third Wave also favors support for both reproductive health service access and grassroots movement-building. Co-Director Kiyomi Fujikawa says, We need to be funding local service providers on the ground, like abortion funds, and also, the movement-building work of cis and trans women of color, and trans and gender non-conforming people of color is key. Third Wave recently provided a list of abortion access and reproductive justice organizations at the end of this blog post.

Dahlstrom of Borealis suggests funders in this realm back the work of black and brown trans and gender non-conforming communities, particularly trans women of color and femmes, as well as people with disabilities, currently and formerly incarcerated people, and people with substance use issues.

Ely of the University at Buffalo says, It is young people who are primarily impacted by a lack of access to reproductive healthcare. Hammond of the Groundswell Fund calls on grantmakers to back youth advocacy. She says foundations must resource and support youth activists, who [shine] a bright light on the path forward for this country and for reproductive freedom."

Ely recommends support for many of the populations named above, and also says funders should back reproductive health providers, NNAF and local abortion funds, advocacy groups like All Above All or the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and independent community family planning clinics. But she cautions abortion-rights donors to educate themselves and not support resource centers that are religious and provide no contraception, or crisis pregnancy centers, which do not support abortions.

Before the midterm elections of 2018, Mark Rosenman, a professor emeritus at Union Institute and University and nonprofit activist, wrote that nonprofits and funders must concentrate more on organizing and advocacy, instead of forever trying to fill public shortfalls with private philanthropy. He mentioned family planning as one area where this strategy is particularly urgent.

[Now] is the moment for foundations and other donors to support nonprofits doing the grassroots organizing and education work that will help Americans fight back against dangerous and mean-spirited policies when they go to the polls, he wrote.

While the 2018 midterms have passed, yielding some progressive wins and a Democratic House, Rosenmans focus on big-picture advocacy and widespread political change remains relevant.

Ghosh of NNAF says abortion care access and movement-building are intertwined. The central charge of abortion funds is to fund abortion and build power, and we encourage philanthropists to do just that. These two go hand-in-hand because funding abortion is inherently political work. When people have their needs met, they're primed to join and lead movements against injustice.

Read the original here:

Vanguard Defenders: What Top Foundations Are Doing to Protect Abortion Access - Inside Philanthropy

Despite the S&P 500 gaining 31.5% in 2019, active U.S. equity funds experienced a sixth year of net outflows during the decade-long bull market, a new report notes.

That reportcomes from Morningstar, Inc., which notes that while those actively managed funds suffered $41.4 billion in outflows, passive U.S. equity funds had $162.8 billion in inflows, finishing the year with 51.2% market share based on total assets. (Morningstar estimates net flow for mutual funds by computing the change in assets not explained by the performance of the fund.)

The report notes that this was the third consecutive yearly decline in passive U.S. equity inflows, reflecting the decreasing demand for U.S. equity funds overall. Meanwhile, active U.S. equity funds had outflows of $204.2 billion in 2019 but because of 2019s powerful rally, active U.S. equity assets hit a new record of nearly $4.6 trillion, up from $3.7 trillion at the end of 2018. As the reports authors explain: Theyre not dead yet.

In December, investors directed $25.3 billion of inflows to passive U.S. equity funds but $23.5 billion of outflows from actively managed U.S. equity funds. Among the 10 largest U.S. fund families, Vanguard saw its best month of the year in December, with inflows of $22.3 billion. Its $183.3 billion in inflows for 2019 topped 2018s $162.9 billion, and the firms long-term assets grew by $1.1 trillion to $5.3 trillion a 25.7% market share. But while its $183.3 billion in 2019 inflows was better than its $162.9 billion in 2018, that was still down from its calendar-year inflows from 2014 through 2017.

The report also notes that long-term funds drew in $414.6 billion in 2019, more than double 2018s $168.3 billion, and money market flows received $547.5 billion in inflows, the groups best year since 2008s record $593.6 billion.

The strong long-term inflows in both December and for all of 2019 were due almost entirely to record inflows for both taxable bond and municipal bond funds, which collected $413.9 billion and $105.5 billion respectively for the year, and $50.3 billion and $10.2 billion respectively for December. With greater 2019 flows than their active counterparts, passive taxable-bond funds now have a third of that market.

Vanguards Total Bond Market Index II saw the greatest inflows of 2019, with $29.7 billion, although the report notes that this fund is only available to investors through target-date funds. The same dynamic probably propelled the $29.0 billion of inflows into Vanguards Total International Bond Index.

Read the original post:

Money Still Fleeing Active Funds - National Association of Plan Advisors

Finance Minister_Zainab Ahmed. PHOTO: Getty Images

THE implementation of the new Finance Law 2020 has started with the Value-Added Tax increase set to kick-off next month.

The Federal Government had ignored suggestions by informed analysts to reconsider some of its provisions. We now address the necessary palliative measures that should be taken to reduce its negative impacts on the people.

The lead provision of the law is the 50 per cent jerk up in VAT to 7.5 percent. The Federal Government had stated that the law was specially designed to support the implementation of the 2020 Federal Budget. This means the government just wanted more money to spend despite other provisions of the law that tended to address some fiscal systems inefficiencies.

But we would want the government to rebalance its thinking on the implementation of the new law in such a way as to provide fiscal counter-balance to the observed negativities of the law.

For instance, the VAT increase will impact adversely on businesses from the cost pressures perspective. Margins would be affected, depending on the extent to which additional costs could be passed to consumers. The worry is that we are operating in a high cost environment.

We recommend that government should specifically apply the revenue accruals from the new VAT regime to economic infrastructure and services such as roads, electricity and communications which have traditionally carried the largest chunk of the cost components in companies statements of account.

We also have to worry about the provision on minimum tax. It is inappropriate to compel loss-making firms to pay tax, no matter how little. This amounts to erosion of capital.

We recommend that this provision should be adjusted to deferred tax, which can be collected when the companies affected start making profit.

Despite the hypes about the tax-exempts provided in the new VAT regime for small businesses, it is regrettable that the eventual VAT increase will have a negative toll indirectly on all businesses, small businesses inclusive.

It will result to higher inflation, interest rate hike, and decline in demand for goods and services irrespective of who produced them.

It will hurt workers if take-home pay remains constant. This will further impoverish the personal income of consumers, especially the poor. It will affect market operations, mostly the formal sector.

An increase will discourage consumption (people will tend to buy fewer items to save cost). This will hurt businesses and affect employees.

Since the revenue windfall from this law will also accrue to states and local governments, we call for the inclusive implementation of the national minimum wage law by all tiers of government.

We also ask the government to prevail on the private sector to enhance wages at the backdrop of the inevitable spike in cost of living.

VANGUARD

Related

Continued here:

As the new Finance Law takes off - Vanguard