The Mexico City policy, informally known as the global gag rule, was reinstated in late January by President Trump. This policy prevents the US from funding non-governmental organizations that provide or advocate for abortion counseling and other referrals, among other measures. What are your thoughts on this policy? Are you in favor of it or against it?
roman nordmun
Nov 9, 2019
I wasn't surprised to see that President Trump reinstated the global gag rule so quickly since the implementation of the policy has been like a game of hot potato with presidents either suspending or reinstating it for the last three decades.
Many women rely on the abortion related services that some foreign NGO's provide in order to live a healthy life both physically and mentally. Due to the loss of U.S. Family Planning Funding these NGO's will experience, abortion will become less safe and birth control will become less accessbile. If these next years are at all resemblant of the past in terms of the effects of rises in less safe abortions and inaccessible birth control methods, we will probably see a rise in the maternal mortality rate in places that rely on these NGO's for abortion services.
I don't think that a small group of men should be able to decide what millions of women, many of whom are not even American, can do with their bodies, or if they can have access to safe medical procedures that they need. The reinstation of the global gag rule was made with pro-life sentiment, however I find that hypocritical considering their decision gambles with the lives of thousands of women all over the world.
What do you guys think about the effects that this will have on women around the world? What do you think we can do to help support women who are affected by this?
I agree with you, Anna. The government does not have a right to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
The global gag rule was a clear statement by President Trump. Here is a really great article by Vox. The article explains the impact of the ruling from the point of view of two people on the ground. http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/27/14397126/global-gag-rule-trump-increase-abortion-reduce-birth-control
If he hasn't made it clear before, our president is not an advocate for women. I believe we need to make our voices loud. We need to stand up for Planned Parenthood and other organizations striving to improve the lives of women in the US and all around the world with our time and our wallets.
The issue here is that Trump and Pence made very clear from the beginning of the campaign that they were very pro-life. Most likely, this was one of the aspects that made them win the election, moreover if we take into account Clinton's views on this topic during the final Presidential debate.
The election showed that Americans preferred what they had to offer over Clinton's progressive perspective. For this reason, now is time to respect the will of the people, and understand that at this moment, the United States is a pro-life country.
I regards to the comments made about US public opinion and current policy; while I do understand the importance of the ideas reflected by the vote; this did not represent the majority of the citizens, as the popular vote remained in the hands of the democratic party. This debate is highly controversial; but I do believe we must take into account the fundamental right to body autonomy; applicable in any medical situation. Ultimately, as people, we hold the right to decide. Furthermore, we should take into account how the fact that this is a female-centric issue reflects on the restrictions placed by governments; and how they parralel existing power and priviledge dynamics. Many of the initiatives that plan to take down resources for women that may seek an abortion, are directly conditioning the posibility for any woman to decide, in an issue so central to her life and her body, what medical treatment she can or cannot receive.
I don't believe that the fact that President Trump won the election plays a major role in whether or not people should have access to treatments that pertain to their own health. The idea of a "pro-life country" or a "pro-choice country" is not feasible in the context of the United States. There are always going to be people who look down upon abortion, just as there will be people who find it beneficial and necessary. Calling the United States a "pro-choice" nation aligns with the rhetoric of calling it a Christian nation; yes, there could possibly be a majority, but why do we have to adhere to only these people. The point of having a free country is to make America open to people from all walks of life, not just those who voted or or agreed with Trump. If we're choosing to ignore the voices of alleged minorities, how can we say that we're upholding the concept of equality and liberty for all?
A huge problem I see with the global gag rule is that it applies to NGOs doing work in developing countries, not just in the United States. I am a Youth Advisory Board member for Plan International USA, which focuses on gender equality in developing countries, and providing abortion counseling is an important part of their work. In developing countries, women get abortions for different reasons than in the United States, and it reproductive health is even more important there than it already is in America. With this rule in place, many global NGOs cannot continue with the work they've been doing for years and helping young girls. Depriving anyone of reproductive health is terrible, but doing it to girls abroad who desperately need it and holding back the development of society as a whole by doing so is worse.
I really appreciate the thoughtful comments on this sensitive topic. First, I agree that women should be responsible for their own bodies. On the other hand, I also believe that once a woman has willingly used her body to create another body, the debate extends beyond her self-interest to include the growing organism.
Of course, as noted in a NY Times article linked below, all conjectures about abortion depend upon one's definition of the word "person;" if an unborn child is a person, then it is clearly unconstitutional to deprive him or her of life. Conversely, if that zygote, embryo, or fetus is not considered a person, the mother is the only one whose "life, liberty, and...happiness" is in question.
The definition of a person issues tremendous moral, religious, legal, philosophical, and scientific debate. Through my personal experience, I have come to believe that an unborn child at any stage is a person. As such, even though I think that abortion is the best option in some circumstances, I do not want my [future] tax dollars to fund abortions indiscriminately. I support the Mexico City policy because I want the freedom of choice to only support organizations whose practices I consider ethical. In addition, citizens who are very passionate about reproductive rights may choose to donate to their cause without compelling me to do so.
* If you would like to learn about Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's stance on abortion (or rather, lack thereof), check out this article.
Why is it called "Mexico City Policy"?
On the other hand, after what I have read, such organizations provide among other health services, breast cancer studies and due to this policy, many NGOs have lost funding and thus stopped providing such health services; which in my point of view is wrong. Nevertheless, funding does not assure that an abortion is 100% safe for the woman's body, and does not assure either that she might not have internal wounds that might be deadly in a future.
@Ana Pau Linas The policy was announced at a UN conference in Mexico City by Reagan in 1984-hence, the Mexico City policy!