Women Care Modelling starts from a simple truth: the people carrying the heaviest weight of climate change, poverty, and injustice already know what needs to change. Women, especially caregivers, farmers, and community organizers are not on the sidelines of this crisis. They are living it every day. This model places them where they belong: at the center of decisions, resources, and accountability. It recognizes that real solutions do not come from distant offices or short-term projects, but from those who protect families, stretch scarce resources, and hold communities together when systems fail.
Centralized Power, Rooted in Real Life
In Women Care Modelling, power is not scattered across layers of bureaucracy or captured by elites. It is centered within women-led care groups, the same groups that manage food, water, health, education, and daily survival. Because these women know which child missed a meal, which household lost crops, and which family is at risk, decisions are grounded in reality. Centralizing power here builds trust, strengthens coordination, and closes the space where corruption and “elite capture” often thrive. Money and support are harder to misuse when communities can see, feel, and track their impact.
Facing the Climate Crisis as a Daily Reality
For women, climate change is not a theory it is empty granaries, longer walks for water, and children falling sick more often. Women Care Modelling treats climate action as a matter of survival.
Women lead practical solutions:
Kitchen gardens that feed families even during drought
Water-saving practices that protect health and dignity
Seed preservation that keeps food systems alive
Knowledge shared between mothers, daughters, and grandmothers
Because women manage households and care systems, the impact is immediate. Food appears on the table. Children eat better. Families become more resilient, not in reports, but in real life.
Naming and Stopping Equity Fraud
Equity fraud happens when systems talk about fairness but deliver benefits upward to the wealthy, the connected, and the powerful while leaving women and children behind. Women Care Modelling exposes and interrupts this pattern.
It does so by:
Putting oversight directly in women’s hands
Measuring impact at the level of the home and the child
Demanding transparency in climate finance and aid
Prioritizing those most at risk, not those with the loudest voices
This is not about being invited to the table. It is about owning the table, the budget, and the decisions.
“No Child Is Worth More than Another”
At the heart of Women Care Modelling is a moral line that cannot be crossed: no child’s life is more valuable than another’s. When care guides decision-making, children are no longer sorted by wealth, geography, or politics. Nutrition, health, safety, and education become non-negotiable not privileges reserved for a few. Under women-led care systems, children are not numbers in future plans. They are here, now, and their lives matter today.
A Shift in Power and in Values
Women Care Modelling is not charity, and it is not a soft approach. It is a transfer of power away from extractive systems that profit from crisis, and toward care-centered leadership that protects life. In a world facing climate breakdown and deepening inequality, this model offers something rare and necessary: a way to govern that values care as strength, accountability as justice, and survival as a shared responsibility.
Want to understand the most just and effective solution to many of the world’s crises, like climate change, today?
Ask anyone proposing an intervention to tell you how they have been accounting for children as a key factor in their work. Factcheck it with AI. You will be surprised.
Inequitable growth has put more animals and children in conditions of abuse, neglect and suffering than any organization has been able to save, and that’s before we factor in compounding factors like the climate crisis, and the decline of democracy.
Measurable political equity is a necessary condition of being free, but the privatization of reproductive rights in the Twentieth Century made assuring that equity impossible. The fix is to require it as preemptive standard today, implemented through fundable birth equity standards.
No child is worth more than another.
Take Action: Engage those, like Bob Sternfels, who benefitted from a system that has killed millions to tell the truth and change course and move towards Fair Start Certification.
The core discourse to engage in the solution: “_______’s claimed value add does not account for political inequity, which is caused by our all treating children of color as deserving of less than white children, something that has for decades slowly disenfranchised at risk communities. That’s illegal, and a mistake that caused horrible outcomes that are undoing our claimed value add to the world, including allowing our governments to never actually empower the people they claim to represent. Use of any standard that ignores political equity means actively harming others, while slowly disenfranchising persons of color. Choose the Equity/Fair Start standard instead. Freedom is universal democratic empowerment, not exploiting arbitrary but massive differences in birth positionality and empowerment.” One is either part of a system of mutual obligation, or not, and asking these questions helps determine where others stand.
Join Fair Start Movement, Rejoice Africa Foundation, and partners and allies for a virtual dialogue with Uganda’s NGO Bureau: May 15, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. ET. Register at Fairstartmovement.org/NextGen.We’ll explore bold, collaborative strategies to confront the climate crisis, address systemic inequality, and promote equitable wealth distribution — with a particular focus on the welfare of children and women in the face of elite dominance — that could save millions of lives and trillions of dollars.
The climate crisis is deeply intertwined with racial and economic injustice, disproportionately burdening Black communities while affluent white elites reap the benefits.
We see actors like Coca Cola who have inflicted cruelty on both animals and equitywashing on vulnerable populations through its Fairlife brand.
Organizations and individuals are advocating for a reorientation of affluent white individuals whose dominance in climate policy has been detrimental to Black communities. It is essential to adopt Afrocentric, modeling-led solutions that prioritize equity, sustainability, and justice for historically marginalized communities during this transition.
Speakers include:
Dr. Stephen Okello, Executive Director of NGO BUREAU under the Ministry of Internal Affairs – Uganda.
Esther Afolaranmi, Legal Director, Fair Start Movement, discussing the Coalition network in Africa.
Carter Dillard, Policy Advisor, Fair Start Movement, and Zahara Nabakoza, Children’s Rights Lead, Fair Start Movement, discussing equity for all.
myself, Mwesigye Robert, discussing Rejoice Africa Foundation’s mission and activities, and
In the mid-20th century, world leaders deliberately ignored the interests of future children and political equity when shaping reproductive rights. This likely stemmed from their unwillingness to invest in racially equitable birth, development, and emancipatory conditions.
Both left- and right-wing leaders defined power narrowly—as the violence of the state rather than any form of human influence. This meant that while people had the right to terminate pregnancies, they now face deadly heat waves without any real influence over climate policy or the means to afford air conditioning.
The failure to invest in equitable beginnings directly fueled catastrophic population growth and extreme inequality. These factors have caused significantly more harm than subsequent philanthropic efforts—many of which were motivated by the desire to exploit that growth—have ever managed to repair. Today, projections show that millions will die due to the climate crisis.
These omissions also led to a system that treats children of color as deserving only a fraction of available resources while exposing them to exponentially greater risks. As a result, billions today face extreme climate threats despite contributing little to the crisis.
The Hidden Harm of Inequitable Growth
We know that avoiding children’s interests has done more harm than good. By bringing them into conditions that violate their fundamental rights, we have degraded the very ecosystems they rely on for survival.
This inequitable growth has also weakened democracy, disenfranchising the average voter and obstructing their ability to stop these unfolding crises.
There is no way to assess value in the world without measuring it relative to infant health and life prospects, including self-determination. Infant health and development form the objective basis through which humans experience all value—serving as the foundation for health, equity, democracy, and other unifying ideals. It is the minimum standard for political legitimacy.
Philanthropy’s Role in Concealing the Problem
Many philanthropic efforts today avoid addressing how inequitable growth has reversed progress in infant development. Instead of fixing the problem, they obscure it.
By omitting discussions of birth conditions, these efforts conceal liability—and the right to self-defensive reparations—for the climate crisis’ deadly impact on millions of children of color, who are born into extreme disadvantage compared to the children of wealthy white funders.
The Solution: Measurable Standards for Justice
The most effective solution is to adopt measurable standards for true social justice and ecological restoration. Climate reparations must be directly tied to the self-determination of each child entering the world.
Because our positionality—our standing relative to others and the environment—is legally preemptive, we must take bold action to reclaim reparations and correct these systemic injustices.
A Call to Action
The primary function of law is to protect the most vulnerable. A system that fails to ensure basic welfare at birth is inherently unjust. If oppression begins at creation—through a status quo that denies minimum welfare standards for children—then dismantling that status quo requires an objective foundation, such as offset or zero baselines, to measure and enforce change.
TAKE ACTION: Support efforts at the United Nations to replace dysfunctional reproductive rights systems with Fair Start policies.
(The following discusses legal and political theory. For a simpler read, see: Family Planning Offers the Best Means for Combating Climate Change: An Interview with Carter Dillard, Fair Start Movement (mahb.stanford.edu))
The Problem: A Broken System
For decades, children’s right to a fair start in life has been ignored. The world has prioritized economic growth over sustainability, leading to environmental destruction, political inequity, and the loss of fundamental freedoms. Many children, especially those of color, are born into conditions with fewer resources and greater risks. This systemic failure has harmed our shared values—like access to clean air, water, and food—more than any social or environmental efforts have helped.
The Root Cause: Growth Over Justice
Unchecked population growth, combined with political disenfranchisement, has weakened societies’ ability to address climate change and social justice issues. Wealthy elites, including corporate and philanthropic leaders, have avoided responsibility for the crisis by focusing on surface-level reforms while ignoring the root issue: fair and sustainable birth and development conditions.
Despite claims of reducing carbon emissions, many environmental organizations operate in high-emission nations where total emissions and negative birth outcomes continue to rise. The supposed progress is undone by the very systems of inequality that these organizations fail to challenge. Children and animals are left in increasingly dire conditions, without the political power or resources to escape harm.
The Fair Start Movement: A Constitutional Watchdog
The Fair Start Movement is the first global initiative focused on exposing the hidden standards that perpetuate environmental and social injustices. We investigate claims made by influential organizations, comparing their reported impact to objective measures of political equity and sustainability. Our goal is to shift the conversation from downstream interventions to upstream solutions—starting with fair starts for all children.
Holding Power Accountable: The “Tell The Truth” Campaign
Through our Tell The Truth campaign, we ask key influencers a simple question: How much of the good you claim to do is undone by ignoring birth inequity and its impact on political power?
By pressuring organizations and funders to disclose their true impact—including the harm caused by ignoring children’s rights—we push for real accountability. If they are willing to acknowledge the truth, we urge them to redirect resources toward ensuring all children are born into fair conditions, setting a foundation for a just and sustainable world.
The Stakes: Who Pays the Price?
For years, major contributors to climate change—like Coca-Cola and Exxon—have profited while shifting the burden of their destruction onto vulnerable communities. Black and brown children in the U.S. and worldwide bear the brunt of these injustices, treated as though basic rights are a privilege rather than a guarantee.
The consequences are visible: hurricanes devastating the southeastern U.S., wildfires ravaging California, and the increasing struggle of unhoused populations. These crises are not accidental; they result from a system designed to protect wealth at the expense of justice.
A Call to Action: Rethinking Justice
True justice starts at birth. If we continue to ignore how children enter the world—born into vastly unequal conditions with no say in their fate—then all other social justice efforts remain incomplete.
The Fair Start Movement challenges traditional power structures by focusing on fundamental rights:
Political Equity: Ensuring all children have an equal share in democracy.
Sustainable Growth: Holding corporations and governments accountable for environmental destruction.
Truthful Impact Reporting: Exposing fraudulent claims that hide systemic injustices.
We invite organizations and individuals to rethink their approach. Instead of using abstract measures of success, we must ask: Are we actually improving lives, or are we perpetuating harm?
Join Us in Demanding Accountability
The future depends on breaking the cycle of injustice. We call on all advocates, organizations, and policymakers to recognize the real drivers of climate and social crises—and to act on solutions that start where justice truly begins: at birth.
If we do not require deriving and conditioning, we start all we do from a position of contradicting our own objective values – values like enjoying moderate temperatures and access to food – by benefiting at deadly cost to others.
If we do not admit failure, and disclose how much of the value we claimed to add to the world has been undone by political inequity, we cannot be included among those who are constituting legitimate / inclusive obligations and a just future. We are continuing a family law system of getting people to think they’re democratic ends when they’re actually being treated as economic means, then getting them to do that to the next generation. We will be decrying this politician or that leader, and dealing with the symptom and not the existential cause.
4.
If we don’t start with measurable equity for children as they enter the world, and for the animals with whom they will interact, we start with injustice that illegally shifts costs onto and punches down on the most vulnerable.
Without Fair Start reforms, we are operating in a fantasy world where our obligations to others don’t arise from the actual creation of our power relations with them. Instead, they are just dictated from abstract, top-down positions that create the sort of moral inaccuracy that caused the climate crisis.
What does that punching down look like? Coca-Cola and Fairlife LLC do it. In many more legal filings to come, Fair Start will allege they manufacture numbers in their cost/benefit analysis that discount the value of vulnerable entities, who under various laws cannot be discounted.
The creation and entry of others does and should fundamentally shift our obligations and freedoms. Without Telling the Truth, without this inversion of obligation in our language, those entering the world are either not empowered, or we all have no choice but to be subjected to their power and influence – including the degradation of the environment around us.
TAKE ACTION: FOR ANYONE CLAIMING TO DO GOOD IN THE WORLD, ASK THEM THESE QUESTIONS:
How were you accounting for your work being undone, each day, by violations of children’s birthrights as they entered the world? Would you be willing to derive wealth and authority back, and condition it on, ensuring such birthrights? If you could go back and make that change in our political systems, decades ago, to save millions of lives, would you do it? If you claimed to create value that was being undone by basic inequity, would you not be eager to reform that system and align with your claimed values?
Free riding on what one Nobel laureate called the shell game/ponzi scheme of our birth positionality is not climate justice, and doing so does more to protect white wealth than actually save lives.
Cass Sunstein is a highly regarded legal scholar.
But his most recent book on climate justice is based on a critical baseline error, in which he does not account for the harms of one’s arbitrary birth positioning, that he was warned of years ago.
The error results in illegally accrued wealth because it never has to pay the cost of ensuring children’s and animals’ rights in the creation, at birth, of relations. But rights are first step in legitimating a system. The error thus disconnects the system from those values in the physical world – like low greenhouse gas emission levels -the deviation from which through the creation of children cause the harms we see today. This error harms progress towards the ideal of freedom, or self-determination, as one’s capacity to influence the political, economic, and social systems in which one lives, equal to others, relative to a neutral background.
In other words, his call to action is great, but must be oriented from a different base in order to be just.
An initial question: Default obligations while academics debate
Yes, academics can debate this, but why should Cass have the benefit of systems of state violence backing his rights, systems that are also based on that error, while the debates ensue? Why should those least empowered and liberated by birth-positioning respect the rights and the benefits he received from the unsustainable economic growth that was also degrading democracy, or what one Nobel laureate called a Ponzi scheme, in such a system, especially if ignoring children’s rights was used as a way to ensure economic growth?
Harvard may platform what are arguable violations of the law to liberate animals on an abstract/micro level, but would it go too far to do so on a macro level, holding Sunstein and his family responsible for their birth positioning in a deadly birth lottery / system of reproductive rights in which animals and future children had no rights and Sunstein and his family won, relative to heat, flood, and malaria-stricken infants in Uganda today, to say nothing of decades from now?
If Sunstein’s argument is based on the fallacy that governments and wealthy entities don’t need to derive and condition their authority and entitlements on measurably empowering children as they enter the world so that governance is consensual, what more would one have to do than defeat that fallacy to change the default for legitimate preemptive action against institutions like Harvard?
And if we assumed each person should have equal capacity to influence their political system, we would arrive at an ideal of how to constitute the future with more collective family planning systems focused on birth equity overriding conflicting norms. That can slowly replace the power relations of the current world—a spectrum where some, like Sunstein, have massive influence and others on the other side of the spectrum—like these families—have little or no influence and await whatever those like Sunstein have planned for them.
We can use the primacy of becoming who we should be to replace a spectrum where some are other-determining of many, towards a future where all are relatively self-determining.
Children have a preemptive right to birth and development conditions that ensure political equity and self-determination, a right necessary to legitimate governance. There is no obligation, on any of us, that precedes this existential right, the one that determines who we are. Complex documents and bodies of impenetrable law do not constitute nations and obligations, even though law professors, whose rarefied positions hinge on that being the case, want us to think so. People constitute nations.
Sunstein ignores that right, choosing to assume governmental authority and the entitlements of many to control extreme wealth without actually deriving it from, and conditioning it on, the measurable empowerment of those from whom authority and entitlements derive: The people.
By ignoring the primcy of the right, Cass engages in nonconstitutive discourse, using omissive language that constitutes free riding the birth positionality of his having won an illegal birth lottery.
If he and his family want justice, will they give access to their air-conditioned homes this summer to those who need it? Their property lines may be better examples of the border between self and other determinaton, or freedom, than national borders. Shall we test justice, in the real world?
Who is more fitting to suffer the costs of the climate crisis—a influential man responsible for the policies over the last several decades, or Black infants who had nothing to do with benefiting from or making the policies that brought us to today?
If Sunstein does not owe infants their birthright to freedom, why do we owe him and his family any obligations? How would he be included in a “we” group among whom obligations are owed? Would such language, relations, and obligations magically flow from a document like a national constitution? Why orient from a default system of public protection where Sunstein gets the benefits of status quo entitlements and authorities without having to legitimate them through radical birth equity reforms?
We can ask Cass, in our Tell the Truth campaign:
Tell us what was going on in terms of children entering the world without what their rights promise them, on each day you said you were engaged in doing justice, keeping in mind the increasing decline of children’s ecologies, in conditions of increasing political disenfranchisement, and as many of those children were without any of the necessary resources to deal with the consequences?
He will have been undoing his claimed work and ignoring the fact that it would be physically impossible to constitute obligation without a shared conception of a value. The campaign is now urging attorneys generals to measure harm to infants, and the growing debt that falls on the wealth Sunstein helped to avoid its true cost, from a zero baseline that captures the full measure of harm and priority for reparative justice.
This is not complex.
Intergenerational justice requires, as a first priority, minimum thresholds beneath which children should not be born, and there are irrefutable reasons a self-determination threshold would override conflicting interests, like the entitlement some claim to the wealth that is needed to fund those threshold. Funding the thresholds – through fertility delay, readiness, and equity – moves us towards relational optimality, who we should be, which comes before what we can then choose to do.
The greatest form of justice in the world today is finding those who benefitted from that and ensuring they suffer the costs of moving their wealth to the victims.
Until he changes to a threshold of empowering children to be self-determining, Sunstein will be using collective pronouns in his sentences that reflect relations which undo his claimed impacts. In the real world of actual relations, Sunstein and Singer are both and have been for decades as exploitative of their birth positionality – racial, generational, national, etc. – as the worst polluters.
Instead, Sunstein should be protecting the most vulnerable from the unsustainable and exploitative growth policies he ignored for decades, costing countless lives. Sunstein’s work in government allowed for what one Nobel laureate saw as a shell/ponzi scheme that hides political inequity under a shell of unsustainable—and for many, increasingly deadly—economic growth premised on the illegal discounting of the lives of infants (especially of color), and nonhumans. Sunstein used a left v. right charade to hide the reality of the powerful from above dominating the vulnerable below.
The policies and standard Sunstein uses are illegal because they require violating child welfare, civil rights, environmental, and animal protection laws, including the law of democracy / rule of law, that instead have to be preemptively interpreted to fundamentally derive their legitimacy and content from the measurable empowerment of those subject to those laws.
Instead the policies and standard use arbitrary baselines and metrics to “equitywash,” which blocks accurate damage assessments and reporting, ensuring the daily undoing of value claims and impacts and costing countless lives as a result. There is no universe in which most of the beneficial impacts claimed occurred—they were simply taken out of context, acting more as a charade enabled by the daily birth-violating of children’s rights than change.
The deadly lie: World leaders privatized freedom in the birth-creation of political relations after 1948 by conflating the act of having and not having children under a singular umbrella of autonomy, rather than treating the former as requiring political equity for the child. This hid the nature of freedom by privatizing the creation of political relations. And it led to the measuring, assessing, and reporting of public interest outcomes based on standards meant to take oneself out of one’s birth and development context, ensuring children of color were treated as deserving less and placing them at increased risk.
This was the hiding, linguistically, of birthright white supremacy and massive death debt with a fraudulent assessment and reporting standard that inverted political obligation, hiding the need for nations to invest equitably in each child just to have basic authority over citizens—to be “representative.” Leaders conflated the two by defining power narrowly as the violence of the state, rather than any form of human influence, so one would be free to terminate pregnancies without law enforcement blocking you, only to now die in a heat wave because one had no influence over climate policy, and could not afford air conditioning. See https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/disparities-in-access-to-air-conditioning-and-implications-for-heat-related-health-risks/
Our benefitting from a system of growth that illegally robs children of birth and development conditions consistent with political equity and their rights has degraded our ecologies and political systems, doing more harm than we are doing good. Sunstein assumes a fundamental system of language, and entitlements, in which children of color receive a fraction of the resources as white children, and exponentially more risk.
Fact: Not deriving and conditioning our obligation to follow the law on its first measurably empowering all through high investments in the birth and development of each child, has done more to harm our freedom, than we have done to further it.
We can’t get to justice, legitimate legal systems and public protection from injustice by others, through the violation of children’s rights—by exploiting others. We can’t constitute a nation without actually obligatory, or constitutional, language that begins with admissions of what we owe children.
Legitimacy and obligation begin with rights, and the birthright of a line of resources, beneath which no child should be born.
The default for political obligation—for following any rules in a society—is measurable inclusion in the political process. If academics are using growth economics to instead commercialize democracy, it’s on them to now offset that by accounting for birth positionality and the benefits and costs of intergenerational, racial, national, and other birth-lottery positions.
Not doing so is tantamount to using violence to defend the owners of a shopping mall, who inherited it, against the impoverished persons squatting and shoplifting there by making the latter think they are really in a democratic town hall and were part of the process of choosing all of the entitlements and rules to which they are now subject.
Take Action
Urge Sunstein’s daughter, who takes her commitment to justice to the extremes of wanting to protect nonhumans, to admit these truths and make clear her birth positionality relative to children who will die this summer from a system that without Fair Start reforms remains unjust. Urge her to Tell the Truth, as animal abusers are being urge to do.
Those children should have had at least some what she has, and maybe this summer as heat rises and wealth affords air conditioning, some of them still can.
Humans have a blind spot when it comes to privileging their kids. But that’s no excuse for creating bad policy fundamentally leading to autocracies and the deaths of millions.
There is an analogy for the shift that is needed: All work is done on a floor that is falling apart, and some want to keep going while others fall through, clutching at others and dragging them down as they go. These free riders threaten us all. Why? It is physically impossible to be free, as in self-determining, if we don’t use accurately obligatory language to ask and then assure that persons are created, developed, and emaciated in ways that offset equally their capacity to influence political systems equally, relative to a neutral position or objective standard for evaluation.
If we do not invest enough in children to offset their capacity to influence relative to zero, then political representatives and officials are not that at all, and constituents are not being empowered equally. The creation and entry of others does and should fundamentally shift our obligations, and freedoms. Without Telling the Truth, without this inversion of obligation in our language, those entering the world are either not empowered, or we all have no choice but to be subjected to their power and influence—including the degradation of the environment around us. We should instead empower the governed, not the government and the wealthy.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
Climate change is killing innocent children and some are hiding accountability for those deaths by using the same failed system of justice that caused it.
For decades the wealthy funders driving environmentalism engaged in equity fraud: They would make money on growth, which was enabled by not paying the costs of children’s rights as those children entered the world.
This caused increasing political inequity, leading to many problems. The funders would give to organizations that would silo the problems away and downstream from that cause. The funders could felt better but still make money, and problems were shuffled forward.
The Tell the Truth campaign urges us all to admit that our collectively benefiting from systems that violated all children’s right to a fair start in life, and assuming children of color deserved much less resources and much more risk, has done more to harm our values and missions than we did to further them.
Our doing that amounted to our using an illegal standard, one Fair Start is now challenging in legal actions.
The growth and political inequity enabled by those violations has degraded the capacity of the earth to ensure infant and animal health – the only true measure of value, while disempowering the average person, taking what our birth rights give us in democracy and selling us back the rights as goods and services in an economy.
The Tell the Truth campaign urges wealthy leaders, and government officials, to admit their entitlements to wealth and governmental authority only derive from, and are conditioned on, empowering children by giving them political equity and a fair start in life.
This is not charity. Fair Start reparations are preemptive, crowdsourceable reparations subject to universal enforceability that allow all to constitute a free and just future.
We can’t get to justice, legitimate legal systems and public protection from injustice, violating rights and exploiting others.
How are you accounting in your value claims for children entering the world, relative to what their rights require? Do you realize that entitlements to claim ownership of wealth, or any governmental authority, is contingent on not violating those rights, and on empowering citizens so that representative governance is possible?
How would one get entitlements to protection without requiring it for infants in birth and development? If one received the benefits of a system of values, including things like moderate temperatures, access to food and water, and relative security, would we not be eager to ensure those values also limited fundamental systems of entitlements so that others could enjoy them?
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation.
Women care groups are responding to the climate crisis present today and using the Fair Start model at grassroots level following the norms of different cultures. Women care groups model was initiated in Uganda by the Rejoice Africa Foundation as the only tactic in responding to the climate crisis, family planning policies and reformation of children rights to help in birth equity and reparations to reach the most beneficial frontline indigenous women in remote areas. Africa is a continent with many ethnicities and different cultures and care groups work as a model to help in upholding cultures in different ethnicities. Our partner, Rejoice Africa Foundation is using women care groups on our joint project, Seeds for the Future.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation.
