Compiled by GayToday
Population Action International
Since 1995, family planning opponents in Congress have sought to enact new abortion-related restrictions on U.S. population assistance known as the "Global Gag Rule." These restrictions, similar to the Mexico City policy in effect from 1984 to 1993, would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy objectives, to family planning programs in developing countries and to women's health.
The Global Gag Rule
- The Global Gag Rule aims to force foreign organizations to renounce abortion-related activities as a condition of receiving U.S. family planning funds. Foreign aid legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives since 1995 has sought to deny U.S. family planning assistance to private organizations overseas if they use other, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services or to participate in policy debates over abortion in their own countries. Family planning supporters call this the "Global Gag Rule" since it seeks to restrict free speech as well as the provision of abortion services. However, because of Senate and administration opposition, the Gag Rule has not become law.
- The Global Gag Rule is similar to the so-called Mexico City policy. The policy was named for the site of the 1984 international population conference where the United States announced it would end support to private family planning programs overseas if these programs had any involvement in abortion, even with non-U.S. funds. The restrictions were never enacted into law but were enforced as executive branch policy from 1984 until President Clinton repealed them in early 1993.
No U.S. Funds Support Abortion
- Current law already bars U.S. taxpayers' funds from paying for abortions overseas. Since 1973, the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion services. Biomedical research and lobbying on abortion were banned in 1981. The U.S. foreign aid program strictly enforces these prohibitions. Even abortion opponents agree that there is no direct funding of abortion. However, proponents of the Global Gag Rule argue that providing funds for family planning activities to organizations also involved in abortion frees up their other funds for abortion-related activities. Funds for family planning, however, are no more or less fungible than any other foreign aid funds.
Conflict With U.S. Foreign Policy Goals
- The Global Gag Rule would undermine key U.S. foreign aid objectives. These objectives include protecting human health, especially by improving access to family planning and reproductive health care, and stabilizing world population size. Under the proposed Gag Rule, comprehensive maternal and child health programs could be ineligible for U.S. family planning funds if they cooperate with health facilities or practitioners involved in abortion. In addition, Gag Rule proponents have linked approval of the measure to U.S. funding for key international organizations, undermining U.S. global leadership, security and economic interests.
|
Related Articles from the GayToday Archive:
Family Values & Population: A Reply to the Contraceptive Critics
Tracking HIV Infections
Water Supplies Shrink
as World Population Grows
Related Sites:
Population Action International
GayToday does not endorse related sites.
|
- Such policy restrictions also undermine the effectiveness of U.S. population assistance. Many developing country leaders interpreted the Mexico City policy as a sign of U.S. disengagement from its long-standing commitment to international population assistance. Moreover, in countries such as India where abortion is legal, the Mexico City policy made it difficult for U.S. organizations receiving foreign aid funds to work with the most innovative, effective and committed private family planning organizations. Such groups often saw the quality of care and needs of their clients subordinated to these U.S. policy restrictions. The Global Gag Rule would likely create a similar situation in over 40 developing countries where abortion is legal in circumstances broader than the exceptions approved by the House.
Violation of Democratic Principles
- The Gag Rule restricts the freedoms of speech and association of foreign organizations. Recently proposed restrictions on advocacy are much broader than the Mexico City policy, and would prohibit participation in meetings or dissemination of information on "alleged defects in abortion laws." According to Gag Rule proponents, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would violate the restrictions if they spoke to government health officials about the adverse health consequences for women of unsafe abortion or participated in conferences or workshops which include discussion of such issues. In the United States, such restrictions on public policy debates would be unconstitutional. They also conflict with U.S. foreign policy goals of promoting democratic values overseas.
- The restrictions would discriminate against private organizations, contrary to U.S. efforts to promote their role in civil society. Like the Mexico City policy, the Global Gag Rule would not apply to governments receiving U.S. foreign aid, but it would prohibit foreign private organizations from engaging in abortion-related activities, even if financed with non-U.S. funds and in a manner consistent with local laws, policies and standards of medical practice. Again, this runs counter to official U.S. policy of encouraging broad participation in the political process.
Harm to Women's Health
- Cutbacks in family planning services would likely contribute to an increase in abortions. Today, the Gag Rule could have its greatest impact on women in countries such as Russia, where U.S. foreign aid has contributed to a significant increase in the use of modern contraceptives and a concurrent decline in abortions. Many health facilities could be ineligible for U.S. family planning assistance because they provide both fledgling family planning services and long-standing abortion services. Research from Russia and several other countries shows that higher levels of contraceptive use (reflecting greater access to family planning services) are associated with lower reliance on abortion. With less money, organizations would have to scale back family planning services—denying some women access to contraceptive services and, ironically, leading to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
- At the clinic level, such policy restrictions interfere with appropriate medical care. The Mexico City policy prohibited NGO family planning workers from providing information on abortion to women found to be pregnant during initial screening for contraception or in cases of contraceptive failure, even where abortion was legal. Although sponsors of the new Gag Rule are not seeking a ban on counseling or referral for abortion, U.S. restrictions can have a chilling effect beyond the scope of the regulations themselves. Under the Mexico City policy, for example, some family planning groups were reluctant to treat clients following septic or spontaneous abortions, fearing that any association with abortion made them vulnerable to withdrawal of U.S. funds. The policy also contributed to a rigid separation of abortion and contraceptive services, limiting access to contraceptive services for women following abortion and impeding efforts to prevent repeat abortions.
- The Mexico City policy resulted in the withdrawal of U.S. funds from two major family planning networks. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) refused as a matter of principle to impose the U.S. restrictions on their partners in developing countries. The U.S. government cut off funds to both organizations, resulting in a major cut-back in family planning services. Fearing the loss of all U.S. funds for family planning programs serving millions of men and women, other family planning organizations reluctantly agreed to accept the Mexico City policy.
- IPPF and some other groups would likely face another cut-off in funds if the Global Gag Rule were to become law. In 1993, USAID resumed support for IPPF, the largest network of private family planning organizations in the world. Today, IPPF spends less than one-half of one percent of its central budget—and no U.S. funds—on abortion-related activities. But as a federation of national family planning associations, IPPF cannot impose U.S. policies on 188 affiliates in countries with very different abortion policies.
Silence on Unsafe Abortion
- The Global Gag Rule would suppress public debate and the exchange of information about unsafe abortion. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, it is widely practiced around the world. Abortions performed under unsafe conditions remain a major public health problem; about 75,000 women die each year from septic and incomplete abortion, many of them leaving behind young children. Tens of thousands more suffer serious illness or injury. While the Mexico City policy was in effect, there was no evidence of any reduction in the number of abortions, the stated purpose of the policy. However, some organizations discontinued research on abortion as a public health problem, including the collection of basic information on its incidence. In addition, several medical and demographic journals receiving U.S. funds excluded all discussion of abortion.
- Compliance with a Global Gag Rule would undermine recent efforts to address unsafe abortion. The Mexico City policy created a climate where many governments, NGOs and individuals were reluctant to address the problem of unsafe abortion. Subsequently, the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development helped stimulate more open debate on the consequences of restrictive abortion laws, the burden of which generally fall on poor rural women. The restrictions on advocacy in the Global Gag Rule would almost certainly undermine ongoing efforts in a number of countries to review abortion laws and policies with the goal of preventing deaths from unsafe abortions.
|
