Re: Family Planning Summit

by Andrew Stuttaford

Austin, it’s a little unfair to say that I “skipped over” Lant Pritchett’s findings on “unmet need” (which are indeed interesting). What I did was both refer (very briefly) to those findings and link back to your post in which you had already discussed  them  in more detail (I also linked to Pritchett’s full paper). What I wanted to do in my post was to highlight something that you had “skipped over” (if I may say so), namely the fact that the professor whose paper you had cited (favorably) had in the same paper, made clear his belief that (a) his  findings  were “no reason for governments to limit the availability of contraception” and that (b) that “the expanded availability of modern contraception has greatly improved human welfare”. You can agree or disagree with those beliefs, but given the context in which they were stated, I thought it would be of interest for our  readers to see them.