Last week, President Obama lifted the ban that prevented giving federal aid to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information. The ban, better known as the "Mexico City policy" or "Global Gag Rule", has been in and out of effect ever since President Reagan adopted the policy back in the 1980's. The war between pro-life and pro-choice is a serious one, and I wanted to clear up some things about this Global Gag Rule because it doesn't just cover the yes-or-no issue of whether you think abortion is morally wrong or not; the policy was a great threat to the rights and health of women worldwide.
In a nutshell, the Global Gag Rule means that no organization can receive USAID funds (Agency for International Development) or family planning assistance if it performs abortions, provides counseling and referral for abortions, or lobbies to make abortion legal or more available in its own country. Apparently, this included organizations that don't even particularly mention "abortion", but instead mention "family planning", "reproductive health", "women's rights", or "free, informed choice". One can see how this would violate freedom of speech if it applied to domestic policy and how it perpetuates an image of American arrogance - in other words, it tells poor developing countries that they would receive no U.S. help if they do not conform to the Christian right agenda. As a result, thousands of women's health clinics were forced to close, the hardest hit being those that depended on U.S. foreign aid as their primary means of funding. Women who lived in an area where there was only one main clinic within miles and miles of another were simply out of luck.
The sad thing is that regardless of whether an organization received USAID funds or not, none of those funds would have been able to be used for abortions anyway. Under the Helms Amendment of 1973, international organizations are prohibited to use US funding to "pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions." If those agencies wanted to perform abortions, they would have had to find their own way to fund the procedures. But because of the Global Gag rule, many facilities that did not even perform abortions were forced to close, stripping women from receiving services such as STI screening and treatment, HIV testing and counseling, and basic family planning and reproductive health care services. Thousands of women were denied the very services that may have prevented abortions from happening in the first place.
The World Health Organization estimated that the number of women who died from unsafe abortions every year (about 70,000) soared due to Bush's policies. Even in the Philippines, where abortion is illegal and many of the citizens are of the Catholic faith, the International Planned Parenthood Federation estimated that there are up to half a million unsafe abortions performed a year. President Bush and many of his supporters decided to exercise their political power to serve their ideology rather than really taking a look at what is going on in the world and trying to help millions of women and young girls.
There are many more instances in which President Bush took a step to reverse progress in family planning and world health. Under President Clinton, USAID was one of the 2 biggest donors of condoms in the world, since condoms have been shown as one of the most effective means of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. When W. Bush came into office, he ended the shipping of condoms and other contraceptive supplies to 16 of the poorest developing countries in the world. Those governments, along with 13 other countries that could not receive supplies from USAID because of the gag rule conditions, were only able to provide 1/8 the number of condoms necessary to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS.
To be fair, there are also many examples in which the access to abortions has had a detrimental impact to some societies. In parts of India, the natural ratio between newborn boys and newborn girls has shifted to favor boys because of sex-selective abortion. Sadly, in many areas of the world baby girls are seen as less worthy due to cultural, socioeconomic, or other reasons.
As for my own views on abortion, I consider myself pro-choice, but with that being said, if I were ever put in that situation I don't think I would ever allow myself to go through it. I don't think that all cases of abortion are morally impermissible (i.e. cases of rape, incest, if it's a threat to the women's life), but I'm also pretty uneasy about partial-birth abortions - read up on "dilation and extraction" if any of you want to know why. Anyways, I say all this because just as our personal views on this issue may not be just black or white, neither are domestic and international policies surrounding this issue. The Freedom of Choice Act is now a big story in the news as well as a source of controversy, and before you make up your mind about this policy, I really urge you to do some research on it, as I'm sure misinformation would be spewed from both sides of the spectrum. Whether you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice, it is important to look at this issue and the corresponding policies from both sides and not take anything for face-value.
*Edit* If anyone is interested in reading the text of the FOCA, see here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment