Implementing policies such as the Global Gag rule to initiate a political shift in family planning forces women to go without access to reproductive health services, and/or forces them to seek unsafe reproductive health alternatives. This policy is yet another way where the government tries to control women's bodies under the rouse of the United States' moral compass. I'm not sure if politicians are unaware of these issues or just don't care, but I'm also not sure which of those options are worse. My argument raises concerns among whether or not the government is looking into projected long term effects of the policies they are implementing on the health of vulnerable communities.
Following a trend of minority oppression in the United States, it is not surprising that women still have to fight for their rights. Currently, abortion and other reproductive health services remain a polarized political debate in the United States. While discourse surrounding this topic calls to question one's morality and typically involves fundamentals of religion, this debate systemically serves as another way to stigmatize reproductive health and oppress women in the United States and abroad.
 |
| Trump introducing Global Gag policy, 2017 |
The global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City policy, is a United States federal policy that puts an end to federal funding being provided to non-governmental organizations that provide abortion services; these services include but are not limited to counseling, referrals, and advocating to decriminalize or expand abortion services both in the United States and abroad. As a consequence, non-profit organizations and clinics around the world receiving U.S. family planning funding cannot inform the public or education the community on the need to make safe abortion available, provide legal abortion services, or provide advice on where to get an abortion. The policy was has been in and out of office; the global gag rule was first instated in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, reestablished by George Bush in 2001, and once again reinstated by Trump in 2017.
 |
| Planned Parenthood, 2015 |
While the policy is supposed to target abortion providers directly, it has a more disastrous impact on women's daily lives and reproductive health than it does on the actual rates of abortion around the world. I hate to be the one to break it to Trump, however the rate of abortions will not decrease under this policy, instead women will continue to seek out alternatives just as they did prior to Roe v. Wade. What this policy does serve as is a direct violation of reproductive justice and undermines one of the key Sustainable Development Goals: hindering the ability to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health including free education and access to affordable and safe health services. Under this policy, vital health clinics will continue to close, providing women with little to no affordable reproductive health services available to them. I believe the global gag rule is a direct hit to women's health, affecting our access to affordable contraceptives and necessary health services outside of abortion services. The IPPF, International Planned Parenthood Federation, is a non-profit organization that will refuse to abide by the gag rule, instead standing to lose $100 million from the federal government. Meanwhile, none of that money is actually used towards abortion services. Instead, the monetary cuts will directly affect funding towards affordable birth control, HIV services, neonatal services, general health care, patient education, pregnancy services, and STD testing.
As a direct consequence of the Mexico City Policy, there will be an increase in unplanned and unsafe abortions, a decrease in affordable contraceptives, an increase in maternal and child deaths, a decrease in HIV/AIDs treatment, a decrease in antenatal care, and defunding to NGOs across the world. As anyone can see, a direct result of the global gag rule is not a decrease in abortion rates among family planning initiatives, but an increase in poor treatment of women and other minority communities. With these staggering facts, I question why this policy is being reimplemented--not only does the global gag rule not serve its intended purpose, but it also introduces a plethora of health related issues to already oppressed communities. Due to the implementation of the global gag rule, the United States is now where we were 35 years ago in regards to family planning and reproductive health.
Overall, not investigating the effects of a federal policy is concerning, especially when vulnerable communities' health is at stake. Perhaps it is the lack of representation in government that leads to policies that do not reflect the American's views such as the global gag rule. In the picture above of Trump introducing the Global Gag rule into office, it is clear the political representation present does not accurately depict the demographic at risk-- and that is from looks alone. The global gag rule does not even represent the majority of American views; where 57% of Americans believe that abortion should be completely legal in all or most cases, while only 37% of the public believe it should be illegal.
This policy acts as a push in the morality of American people, stemming from the belief that abortion is immoral. However, the global gag rule is using this belief as a cover to paternalistically organize and control women's bodies. The policy has been implemented without thought into the negative health side effects it would introduce to already vulnerable populations, and the 35 years of reproductive health progress it would eradicate.
Class Reading:
Takeshita, Chapter 4
- Global Gag Rule was causing major setback in regards to distributing contraceptives to the global south
Additional Resources:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/23/trump-abortion-gag-rule-international-ngo-funding
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/what-is-the-domestic-gag-rule
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/trumps-mexico-city-policy-or-global-gag-rule
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
No comments:
Post a Comment