By 1980 the term “cafeteria approach” became a buzzword in family planning programme and the influence of this approach continued. It may also be said that while we have more catchphrases in family planning today, the idea that the needy couples must be informed about all the methods of family planning and all methods of family planning must be accessible to them, so that they can practise one according to their own considerations continues. Broadly speaking, the different family planning methods are divided into two categories: terminal methods; and spacing methods. The former methods refer to methods which are used when couples have completed their desired family size and do not want to produce more children; they may go for male or female sterilization. The latter methods refer to those methods which are used to create gap between successive childbirths. For example, a young couple may produce a baby quickly after marriage but may like to have another child after four-five years. Then they may use condoms or IUCD. When they want a child they may discontinue the method and plan a baby. Under cafeteria approach it was thought that we should motivate younger couples to go for delayed childbirth and use spacing methods rather than focus on aged couples and motivate them to go for sterilization. In the context of high and natural fertility, the fertility impact of terminal methods may be much more than that of terminal methods.

Gradually, there has been a shift from family planning to health and human rights. Population Policy 2000 shifts attention from family planning to empowerment. This is further continued in the form of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) 2005-2010: an attempt is made to improve quality of life for all the citizens in a mission mode. NRHM “adopts a synergistic approach by relating health to determination of good health viz. segments of nutrition, sanitation, hygiene and safe drinking water” (MHFW, 2010). The new plan includes: increasing public expenditure on health; reducing regional imbalances in health infrastructures; pooling resources; integration of organizational structures; optimization of health manpower; decentralization and district management of health programmes; community participation; and meeting public health standards (MHFW, 2010).