Category Archives: Human Rights

Female sterilization not an answer to global contraception

The last week of September marks two days dedicated to improving reproductive health: World Contraception Day  (September 26) and Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortions  (September 28).  Both days are committed to improving the reproductive health and choices of women worldwide. With the vision of making every pregnancy a wanted pregnancy, World Contraception Day aims to help the estimated 225 million women in developing countries who have an unmet need for contraception.

Reports such as the UN’s 2015 Trends in Contraceptive Use Worldwide include somewhat promising data, such as 64% of married or in-union women use a modern contraceptive method. This figure is lower in developing countries, including 17 countries in Africa where modern contraceptive use is below 20%.

Sterilization is the most widely used form of birth control, accounting for a third of modern contraceptive use. Sterilization is heavily weighted toward female sterilization, 18.9% versus 2.4% male sterilization globally.  In certain countries, the prevalence of female sterilization as modern contraception is much higher.  Female sterilization of sexually active women aged 15 to 49 is most prevalent in Latin America.  The Dominican Republic leads the pack at 47%  followed closely by Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Puerto Rico.  China (29%) and India (36%) are also front runners.


Sterilization is a popular choice in the developed countries of Europe and North America, though male sterilization tends to be more prevalent than in the developing world. When practiced safely, sterilization offers many benefits because it is a one-time procedure with no follow-up or maintenance.  While sterilization might be the best choice for some individuals or couples, unsafe, involuntary, or otherwise coercive female sterilizations are altogether too common and an affront to human rights.

China’s “one child” policy  – perhaps one of the more infamous anecdotes in mandated family planning – has relied on sterilization to meet its goals.  In the heyday of the 1980s, neighbors became informants on so-called “out-of-plan” pregnancies.  Offending families were fined and possessions stolen, and local bureaucrats oversaw countless forced abortions and sterilization. 1983 alone saw over 20 million sterilizations. China’s Communist Party has recently relaxed its one-child policy  to allow each couple two children, but many in China, including activist Chen Guangcheng don’t see the difference as stated in this tweet:

This is nothing to be happy about. First the #CCP would kill any baby after one. Now they will kill any baby after two. #ChinaOneChildPolicy

Lesser known is an Uzbekistan policy that assigns gynecologists a sterilization quota of up to 4 per month.  In a report by the BBC, rural women who have had two or more children are the main target of this campaign.  It is estimated in 2011 alone that 70,000 Uzbek women were sterilized, some voluntarily and some involuntarily.  Unlike China’s policy to slow population growth, Uzbekistan’s goal is to manipulate its once abysmal infant mortality ratings.  Fewer infants means fewer infant deaths, and Uzbekistan’s infant mortality rate in 2012 is half of what it was in 1990.

India has received much attention for its sterilization camps.  The name alone conjures images of the Nazi eugenics movement.  In 1951, with Malthusian ideology in mind, an Indian demographer set out across rural India to complete a census.  His prediction – that India’s population would reach 520 million people by 1981 – was both incorrect (India’s population in 1981 was 683 million ) and the catalyst for a mass sterilization program.  This led to compulsory sterilization in 1976  that lasted for 21 months and effectively sterilized 12 million men and women, often rural, poor, and of low caste.  Employment, wages, and even running water were withheld from individuals and whole villages until 100% compliance was met.

Today, while technically voluntary, sterilization in India is incentivized. In the past, men were promised transistor radios in exchange for a vasectomy.   Male sterilization is now considered culturally unacceptable.  Women are the target of sterilization campaigns and can receive up to $23 US – a month’s income – to submit to a tubal ligation.


Women undergo sterilization operations at the Cheria Bariarpur Primary Health Centre in the Begusarai District of Bihar. A few dozen women were sterilized in one day. Although India officially abandoned sterilization targets years ago, unofficial targets remain in place, according to people working on the ground. One Primary Health Centre doctor says the targets in themselves are not necessarily the problem, arguing instead that itÕs the lack of a good healthcare infrastructure in some places that makes it difficult to safely meet those targets. SARAH WEISER

Indian women arrive at sterilization camps by the jeep load.  In makeshift operating theaters –  with no electricity and running water – neither gloves nor equipment are changed between the five-minute operations.  Expired antibiotics given to some women are found laced with rat poison.  In 2014, Dr. R.J. Gupta, self-described as performing 300 tubal ligation in one day, was arrested after women he and an assistant sterilized either died or were hospitalized.  The current government regulation is that no one doctor should perform more than 30 sterilizations a day.  On the day in question, Gupta’s six-hour spree resulted in 83 tubal ligation.  It is believed that Gupta was trying to reach a government-set target of 220,000 sterilizations in one year.

On September 14th of this year, India’s Supreme Court ordered a close of all sterilization camps within three years.  That is an unsettling time span in which over a half a million more women could be sterilized and many more deaths and hospitalizations could occur.  Even after the dissolution of government-sanctioned sterilizations camps, women will continue to be subject to this dangerous procedure.

What are low cost, accessible, and humane forms of birth control for the developing world?  A promising alternative might be Sayana® Press, a lower-dose presentation of the three-month injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera® in the Uniject™ injection system.


A village health worker counsels a client in family planning and administers Sayana Press. Phiona Nakabuye (left), village health worker trained by PATH’s Sayana Press pilot introduction program, with Carol Nabisere (right), age 18, who chose to receive Sayana Press after being counseled in the various forms of contraception, Kibyayi village, Mubende district.

Original trials of the injectable contraceptive were successful in Florida, New York, and Scotland, and the same seems to be holding true in Uganda.  Most women were able to self-administer the drug after just one training session and again at the next dose, three months later.  Designed for single use, Sayana® Press reduces reliance on needles and needle sharing  which is essential in the fight against HIV/AIDS and women only need to travel to a clinic once to get a year’s supply.

There is so much to consider when it comes to global family planning.  It would be remiss not to mention the impact that the HIV/AIDS epidemic has on sterilization rates in some regions of the world and you can read more here, here, and here.  Organizations such as USAID have been implicated  for funding so-called fertility reduction programs that include mass sterilization.  What can be done to ensure all women have access to contraception?

@USAID Video: Just Bring a Chair

In today’s video, USAID shares a message of hope amidst the horrors experienced by 2.4 million Syrian refugee children.  Along with displacement from home, Syrian children experience an interruption in education from which they might never recover.  Ms. Maha, a principal for a girls’ school in Jordan, answered the desperate pleas of Syrian parents as she welcomes us and their children into her school with the sentiment: “Just Bring a Chair.”

Video Description:

“In Jordan, where the Syrian crisis has led to around 635,000 additional people taxing already overburdened schools, hospitals and social services, some people still find reasons to open their arms and make it work. Ms. Maha is one of those people.”

Without access to education, the future is bleak for many of the youngest Syrian refugees.  A recent report by Human Rights’ Watch found that nearly one-third of refugees in Jordan are between the ages of 5 and 17.  Of these children, 56% are not enrolled in school.  Lebanon is also struggling to accommodate the inundation of refugee students.  Soon, school-aged Syrian children could outnumber their Lebanese peers.

Unfortunately, the problems do not end once children are in school.  A report by UNICEF highlights the unique educational concerns of refugee children, citing violence while traveling to and from school, abusive teachers and classmates, and separation anxiety while at school.  The same report finds that even when the school is located within the refugee camp, 75% of children do not attend.

So what’s the solution?  I think an inclusive environment like Ms. Maha creates in her school is key.  Money for teachers, educational materials, and space are paramount for educating this generation of Syrian youth.  2015 saw fundraising efforts by members of the UN fall short of the $8.4 billion goal.  Will 2016 see more Syrian children returning to classrooms?

Read Ms. Maha’s story here.

One Humanity

The World Humanitarian Day is today August 19th, 2016 and the theme for this year is “One Humanity”. The day was designated in 2003 to honor the lives of 22 humanitarian workers who were killed in  a terrorist attack in Baghdad, Iraq.

Currently, there are 130 million people who are living in crisis and face impossible choices. All wars, conflicts and internal displacements disrupt the strong social, economic and cultural support systems that people have built and cultivated over the years. This decimation of all forms of support has a direct impact on people’s mental and physical health. The consequences also extend to our colleagues who put their lives in danger to serve people in many conflict zones. You will recall the loss of lives from the many acts of violence against hospitals and clinics.

As global/public health professionals, it is our duty to take a stand and commit today to move the needle on the 7 core commitments that were identified at the World Humanitarian Summit that happened in May 2016.

Source: LEARN, World Humanitarian Summit

At a minimum, we can do these few things listed below, learn more about these here (scroll down to the bottom of the page):

  • Support the Agenda for Humanity
  • Take the Humanitarian Quiz and see the impossible choices people face
  • Tweet your country’s leader and ask them to commit to action
  • Donate to the UN’s Emergency Response Fund
  • Sign Up to Messengers of Humanity so you can stay involved
  • Start Impossible Choices to walk in the shoes of a refugee

If you are in the mood to learn about some of the horrendous choices people in conflict zones have to make, take the “Would You Rather” quiz here.

This post has been cross posted to my own blog as well.

APHA’s Georges Benjamin writes a letter on health workers in Syria

APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin has written a letter to the members of the UN Security Council to enforce a resolution to end attacks targeting health care workers in Syria. You can read the text below.

Dear United Nations Security Council members:

On behalf of the American Public Health Association, a diverse community of public health professionals who champion the health of all people and communities, I write to call on the United Nations Security Council to enforce resolution 2139 to put an end to the attacks on health workers and facilities in Syria.

In over four and a half years of conflict in Syria, nearly 700 health workers have been killed and more than 300 medical facilities have been attacked. According to well-documented reports, the Syrian government is responsible for over 90 percent of these assaults. The disruption of health services is being used as a weapon of war. This year, by the end of October, attacks on medical facilities in Syria had already surpassed the number of attacks for any other year since the conflict began in 2011.

The attacks have decimated the country’s health system. In Aleppo, only 10 hospitals remain of the 33 hospitals that were functioning in 2010. About 95 percent of doctors have been detained, killed or have fled leaving one doctor for every 7,000 residents. There are shortages of medicine and necessities such as clean water and electricity. Hospitals are overwhelmed with patients needing emergency care for conflict-related injuries and patients are dying from treatable conditions.

In February 2014, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2139 demanding that all parties immediately end all forms of violence. The resolution strongly condemned attacks on hospitals and demanded that all parties respect the principle of medical neutrality, and that medical personnel, facilities and transport must be respected and protected. Passing the resolution was a critical first step, but now almost two years have passed since it was adopted and the attacks have continued. We urge the Security Council to take immediate steps to ensure that the resolution translates into meaningful progress to protect health workers and their patients in Syria.


Georges C. Benjamin, MD
Executive Director

More HIV discrimination from the ROK government: Korea disqualifies students with HIV from receiving scholarships

A few regular readers might be familiar with the Korean government’s ongoing misrepresentation of its HIV-related immigration restrictions: while it continues to receive undeserved recognition from the UN for being a country free of HIV-related travel restrictions, it mandates HIV tests for native-speaking English teachers, EPS workers (manual laborers), and entertainment workers. Despite claims from KCDC and Korea’s ministry of foreign affairs that immigration restrictions have been lifted, one English teacher won a discrimination case with the UN CERD earlier this year, and another case is pending with the ICCPR. Our Section was even successful in pushing through a resolution on immigration restrictions tied to HIV status at this year’s APHA Annual Meeting that called Korea out specifically for its double-talk.

Now there more evidence of discrimination to add to the list. The Korean Government Scholarship Program, which provides funding and airfare for non-Koreans interested in pursuing post-graduate degrees at a Korean university, is open to a small number of foreign nationals each year and is actively advertised on Korean embassy websites and even featured on several university websites for current undergraduates who might be interested. The program “is designed to provide higher education in Korea for international students, with the aim of promoting international exchange in education, as well as mutual friendship amongst the participating countries,” and the payment includes tuition, airfare, a monthly allowance, a research allowance, relocation (settlement) allowance, a language training fee, dissertation printing costs, and medical insurance. Which sounds lovely, except:

Applicants must submit the Personal Medical Assessment (included in the application form) when he/she apply for this program, and when it’s orientation, an Official Medical Examination will be done by NIIED. A serious illness (For example, HIV, Drug, etc) will be the main cause of disqualification from the scholarship.

It is also worth noting that pregnancy can disqualify candidates as well.

The best part is that this information is not even hidden: a Google search on the above line pulls up dozens of results, and the restrictions on prominently featured on the websites of Korean embassies to the US, the UK, Australia, Malaysia, plus the Korean Education Center in New York, GWU’s Sigur Center for Asian Studies, and even Seoul National University (DOC), the most prestigious university in the country.

At least one Congressman is being reasonable about Syrian refugees

In response to an online petition, Dr. Amy Hagopian, our Section’s Nominations Committee Chair, received the below thoughtful reply from her Congressman, Adam Smith (D-WA). The petition asked that U.S. welcome refugees from Syria, despite opposition from xenophobic governors around the country. Here’s a link to a petition YOU can sign!

Dear Amy,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the situation in Syria. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

The civil war in Syria is a highly complex struggle between Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime and the fragmented groups that oppose it. As the conflict in Syria has become more violent and protracted, radical elements that directly and seriously threaten our and our allies’ security have become more powerful. It has also become an enormous humanitarian catastrophe. Since the unrest and violence began in 2011, the number of Syrians seeking refuge in neighboring countries or Europe has increased above 4 million. The United Nations Refugee Agency reports that 12.2 million people inside Syria have been affected by the conflict, with nearly 7.6 million displaced internally.

The tragic terrorist attacks in Paris have complicated the situation even further. Our number one priority must be protecting the United States and the American people from terrorist attacks. In the strongest possible terms, I condemn the cowardly attacks in Paris and send my deepest sympathies to the victims. I also welcome the French government’s increased efforts to combat terrorists in Syria. It is important that as we fight terrorism, we must stay true to the values enshrined in our Constitution, remember that we are a nation of immigrants, and not let terrorist groups define or change who we are.

Amidst the conflict, radical groups – like Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – have established safe havens and where, they have attracted substantial financial resources. The strongest and most violent group, ISIS, has continued a campaign of terror and has launched violent and deadly attacks in Northern and Western Iraq. ISIS victories over the Iraqi armed forces have made them a real and dangerous threat to the government in Baghdad and the region. Additionally, the civil war in Syria has attracted a large number of foreign fighters, including from Europe, many of whom are fighting with forces affiliated with ISIS or al Qaeda. As we have seen, these foreign fighters may eventually return to their home countries or go to others where their new combat skills and increased radicalization can be used to subvert other governments.

The civil war in Syria has devolved into a protracted conflict that is dangerously destabilizing. The increasing flows of refugees to neighboring countries place a real strain on already over-burdened public services. Sectarian tensions are on the rise and can lead to further displacement of refugees as host communities become increasingly frustrated with the length of their stay. The humanitarian crisis is quickly shifting from being a consequence of the Syrian conflict to being a potential driver of conflict itself, threatening regional stability. Additionally, the increased activity of Hezbollah, the Iranian-allied militia within Lebanon, and its involvement in the Syrian conflict has escalated tensions between Lebanon and Israel, presenting a great security risk.

The United States has not turned a blind eye to the hurt and suffering of the Syrian people and has been the largest contributor of humanitarian assistance to the crisis, providing over $4.1 billion between Fiscal Years 2012 and 2015. These funds have been used to provide critical, lifesaving services for internally displaced populations within Syria and refugees in neighboring countries, including Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt. Channeled through United Nations (UN) agencies and non-governmental organizations, U.S. emergency assistance provides Syrian families with food, medical care and supplies, shelter, and funding for water, sanitation, and hygiene projects.

Due to the worsening refugee situation and immediate need for increased assistance, on July 31, 2015, the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID) announced an additional $65 million in emergency food assistance. These funds are for the UN World Food Program (WFP), which serves approximately 4 million people inside Syria and 1.6 million refugees in neighboring countries every month.

To help address the refugee crisis, I have taken a number of steps. I supported increased funding for refugee-related program in Fiscal Year 2016 so that resettlement agencies have the resources necessary to help these refugees. I believe that helping our partners in the region and European allies cope with this stressful and destabilizing situation is in our national interest and ultimately helps keep this crisis from devolving into further chaos. I also joined a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson asking them to increase the number of people eligible to apply for refugee status. I have also called for the Department of State and Homeland Security (DHS) to improve coordination of the lengthy security check process for those applying for asylum, as well as informing families when some but not all of their members have been cleared. Finally, I have joined other members in advocating for the U.S. to increase the number of refugees we are admitting through our resettlement program from 70,000 to 85,000 per year.

To date, of the millions of law-abiding Syrian refugees, less than 1,800 have been resettled in the United States. Applicants for refugee status are held to the highest level of security screening through which we evaluate travelers or immigrants to the United States. If as a result of the security process, U.S. security agencies cannot verify details of a potential refugee’s story to that agency’s satisfaction, that individual cannot enter the United States. I will continue to pursue ways to make sure our vetting process is effective, without unduly burdening bona fide refugees fleeing the terrible situation in Syria and Iraq.

To be very clear, the United States thoroughly vets all refugees. Refugees are subjected to an in-depth interagency vetting process that includes health checks, verifications of biometric information to confirm identity, and multiple layers of biographical and background checks. Moreover, applicants get interviewed in-person. Members of the interagency team includes the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, DHS, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Defense. The background check process takes between 18-24 months, happens before an application is approved; and occurs long before a refugee would be able to enter the United States.

The American SAFE Act of 2015, H.R. 4038, which was brought to the House floor for a vote by House Republicans on November 19, 2015, would effectively shut down resettlement of refugees from the Syria and Iraq region. It is wrong to deny asylum to refugees on the basis of inaccurate assumptions, fear, and prejudice, and that is why I voted against it. We must continue to stand strong as an international community and remember that refugees are fleeing terrible conditions and persecution. As we move forward, let us unite to use the tools at our disposal – diplomatic, military, intelligence, and development – to defeat extremism and the terrorism it breeds.

I have also heard several concerns regarding U.S. military involvement in Syria. I am acutely aware of the great cost we incur in both blood and treasure when we ask our men and women in uniform to secure our interests abroad. I share your concerns about becoming militarily involved in another costly conflict in the Middle East. Any consideration of the use of U.S. military force is not one to be taken lightly – especially considering our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and the limited ability to affect certain outcomes in those countries. Ultimately, this is a fight between the Syrian people about who will control the future of their country.

The best way to protect ourselves and our allies in the region from the chaos in Syria is by building the Syrian moderate opposition’s capacity so they can stand their ground and fight this war. There is no easy way to identify those elements in the opposition that we can work with, although we have some developed some local allies, such as the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds and some local Sunni allies and are working to identify additional such forces that we can support. By helping those who are fighting ISIL, the U.S. can ensure moderate elements have a chance at playing a role in the creation of an inclusive transitional government, if a peace deal were to be reached in the future.

Due to the extremely concerning developments in Syria and Iraq, the President has taken a number of actions. First, the United States has conducted literally thousands of airstrikes intended to degrade ISIS in Syria and Iraq, reduce their ability to raise money, and to support the local allies we have identified. We are also currently retraining and equipping a number of brigades in the Iraqi Army and Congress has provided over $1 billion for this process. The President also decided that training and equipping moderate elements of the opposition was necessary in Syria. On June 26, 2014, he requested $500 million as part of a supplement to the budget request known as “overseas contingency operations.” These funds would be used to train and equip vetted elements of the Syrian armed opposition to help then fight against the Assad regime. As you may know, this training program did not meet expectations nor objectives and the training portion has been suspended. Since that time, however, the approach has transitioned to equipping moderate elements in hopes of empowering them in this fluid situation, and the President has announced that fewer than 50 U.S. Special Forces will be deployed to Syria to help accomplish this goal. I will continue to monitor developments in the region, understanding that there are always risks involved in conflict and I do not take them lightly.

Moreover, I support the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts to find a political solution to the situation in Syria that respects the rights of people. While those efforts have not yet produced any sort of agreement that would lead to an end of the war in Syria, I believe that it is helpful to have the major international countries that are involved in the conflict in Syria discussing possible ways to bring about a political transition and end to the civil war. Hopefully, such a course forward would also address the underlying causes of the refugee crisis. Until a solution can be found, we must continue to help those seeking refuge. We cannot let what happened in Paris cloud our judgement, drive policy or destroy the fabric of what America stands for. We need to be strong and smart to fight terrorism. If we turn our backs on refugees, then we risk making ISIS stronger.

Again, thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding these important issues.. Rest assured that I will closely follow the continuing developments as they arise. Should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me again.


Adam Smith
Member of Congress

Amnesty International votes to decriminalize sex work; controversy ensues

Note: This was cross-posted to my own blog.

At its International Council Meeting in Dublin on Tuesday, human rights organization Amnesty International adopted a resolution allowing the organization to develop a policy toward the decriminalization of sex work, with the goal of strengthening human rights protections for sex workers around the world.

The resolution recommends that Amnesty International develop a policy that supports the full decriminalization of all aspects of consensual sex work. The policy will also call on states to ensure that sex workers enjoy full and equal legal protection from exploitation, trafficking and violence.

The research and consultation carried out in the development of this policy in the past two years concluded that this was the best way to defend sex workers’ human rights and lessen the risk of abuse and violations they face.

The violations that sex workers can be exposed to include physical and sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, extortion and harassment, human trafficking, forced HIV testing and medical interventions. They can also be excluded from health care and housing services and other social and legal protection.

The policy has drawn from an extensive evidence base from sources including UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, UN Women and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health.

It was a pretty big deal – the story has been covered by most major news outlets and was even on NPR this morning – and the decision comes after two years of discussion and debate within the organization.

To call the vote controversial might be somewhat of an understatement. Last week saw a feminist firestorm erupt over the issue, joined by celebrities like Meryl Streep and Lena Dunham on social media, leading up to the vote.

Last week’s internet melee is just the most recent boiling-over of a decades-long debate on the “problem of prostitution.” When I first saw Humanosphere’s reporting on the story in my RSS reader last week, I skimmed over it but did not mentally bookmark it until I came across a post from “Sex Work Research” from the same day. The post links to a 1994 article by Annette Jolin from the journal Crime and Delinquency called “On the Backs of Working Prostitutes: Feminist Theory and Prostitution Policy” (a full-text link to the article is available in the post). It is a decent read, providing the historical background that informs the current debate and breaking down the feminist split on the issue without getting too heavy on feminist theory.

Modern feminists have been unable to resolve questions of this sort: Is it sexual or economic inequality that keeps women from attaining equality? Should protecting women from male sexual subjugation entail restricting women’s ability to make choices?

In fundamental terms…feminists divide into two broad groups regarding the role of prostitution in women’s fight for equality:

  1. Women who stress emancipation from male sexual oppression (prostitute as victim) as the primary equity issue in the prostitution debate – the sexual equality first (SEF) group; and
  2. Women who stress freedom of choice (prostitute as worker) as the primary equity issue in the prostitution debate – the free choice first (FCF) group.

The paper goes on to explain each position in more detail and outline what Jolin sees as the flaws and fallacies on each side. While most of the commentary on the AI vote is shorter and potentially more accessible than the article, it is essentially all a rehash of what Jolin’s paper outlines.

The modern concern with decriminalization (as opposed to legalization, which would allow states to regulate the industry and which AI does not support) is that it will protect traffickers; opponents advocate for what is commonly referred to as the “Swedish model,” in which pimps and purchasers are targeted but the sex workers themselves are not subject to prosecution. However, sex workers and their advocates have pointed out that this model presents a whole different host of problems, including disdain and abuse from police officers (which the model is designed to prevent). What surprised me most was that anti-trafficking advocates and feminists who oppose decriminalizing do not seem to be listening to sex workers themselves, who have very vocally advocated for decriminalization for years – both in the developed and in the developing world.

It can be difficult to strike a balance between principle and “realities on the ground” when it comes to policy, but what ultimately steered AI to its decision was the evidence – mounting research that decriminalization is the most effective way to protect sex workers’ rights to health, work, and choice. As a public health and HIV advocate myself, I cannot help but agree.