International Rescue Committee

International Rescue Committee (IRC) is a charitable organization that primarily works with refugees and those in crisis zones. At the time of this report’s preparation, IRC initiated a program to assist Ukrainian refugees during the ongoing conflict with Russia.  Because of this, IRC is currently taking out advertisements on social media to build support for the organization.

Following a careful examination of IRC’s programs, initiatives, and organizational philosophy, we have concluded that IRC is NOT SAFE as a recipient of funds from Catholics.  The reason is that IRC is a major supplier and promoter of all forms of contraception, and it promotes “safe” abortion.

It would be redundant to provide an exhaustive list of the ways in which IRC provides and promotes contraception, so a few examples found on its website will suffice.  Under the heading, “Reproductive health at the International Rescue Committee,” IRC very clearly states  that “Increasing access to voluntary contraception services is our priority.“ IRC then boasts that 95,000 girls and women began using new forms of contraception due to IRC programs.

On that same webpage, IRC also notes that all types and methods of contraceptives, including abortifacient injections and implants were provided:

Family planning is the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions, maternal deaths and pregnancy-related disabilities. In 2019, the IRC provided modern contraceptive methods including pills, injectables, implants, IUDs and permanent methods, which prevented an estimated 56,453 unintended pregnancies and 19,807 unsafe abortions. [emphasis added]

One program produced and implemented by IRC, aimed at adolescent girls, is called “She Knows Best,” and one of its main objectives is the early development of a contraceptive mentality.  This four-page flyer on “She Knows Best” explains everything one needs to know about the morally corrupting nature of the program.

On page 3 of the flyer, IRC explained how the pilot of this program had a huge impact on young girls:

As a result of this pilot program, the number of adolescents who adopted new methods for family planning/contraception increased from 67 in March 2017 to 156 in December 2017, totaling 1,176 adolescents in a 10 month period. This increase was unique to the adolescent age group, indicating a strong likelihood that it was a result of project activities. By the second month of the project, over one-third of contraception clients were adolescent girls and 89% of adolescent clients accepted long-acting methods during this 10 month period.

Accompanying this statement are the two following graphs illustrating the dramatic impact the program had on leading young girls to adopt the use of abortifacient contraception.

IRC also notes in this program report that it is looking to move beyond just post abortion care (PAC) to “safe” abortion care (SAC):

There is a latent demand for comprehensive abortion care services. Adolescents reported that girls in their community sought abortions through existing, informal networks, including medication to self-induce an abortion from local pharmacists, a practice that can be prohibitively expensive. Providers also mentioned that after the availability of adolescent-friendly services was made known, several adolescents presented to the health center seeking abortions. As an immediate next step, the IRC is currently working to strengthen the quality and use of PAC services among adolescents. In addition, the IRC is identifying opportunities to integrate SAC into existing health programming in DRC to better meet the comprehensive sexual and reproductive health needs of girls and women. [emphasis added]

To understand what is meant by “safe abortion care,” this 2019 document produced by IRC titled, “Not All that Bleeds is Ebola” provides the answer.  In the executive summary, beginning on page 4, IRC makes a series of “recommendations.”  Recommendation 3.2, found on page 6, says:

3.2. Reduce unintended pregnancies and increase access to comprehensive abortion care at public health facilities and TC/ETCs for women and girls who choose it.

On page 49, IRC expounded on this recommendation, saying:

“The teams should be trained on and familiar with the methods for safely completing abortions and managing complications, and appropriate instruments and medications should be available at all facilities. ETCs should have staff trained in counselling pregnant EVD survivors on whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. Safe abortion care should be available at the ETC (or referral to a facility with adequate IPC in place) for women who choose to end the pregnancy.”

In short, SAC is the provision of what is commonly called a “safe abortion,” followed by the services for any complications which may follow.

Conclusion

The IRC is spreading the message of contraception, distributing all forms of contraception, and promoting abortion.

Because of IRC’s work to promote these grave moral evils, no Christian could ever, in good conscience, support, provide funds or a clean image for this organization.