Donald Trump Reinstates Ronald Reagans Abortion Global Gag Rule
Source: Huffington Post
WASHINGTON ― In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump has reinstated a federal ban on U.S. funding for international health organizations that counsel women on family planning options that include abortion.
The Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.
Since then, the gag rule has been something of a political football, rescinded and reinstated as soon as presidents take office. President Bill Clinton did away with the rule, President George W. Bush reinstated it and then President Barack Obama again revoked it in 2009.
Trumps executive order Monday comes one day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that guaranteed a womans right to have an abortion, and the week of the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-global-gag-rule_us_58822355e4b070d8cad1f774
Eliot Rosewater
(31,138 posts)and women who voted for trump do not want rights to their bodies either.
Women dont know how to do the right thing with their bodies and they need strong, good men like Donald Trump telling them what to do with their bodies.
This is what you believe if you voted for Trump or did not vote or voted 3rd party.
yewberry
(6,530 posts)"Hey, ladies, go die in a fire."
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)but it will stop there. We already know in this country the conservatives don't give two shits about that baby when it's out of the womb - pull yourself up by the umbilical cord and support yourself!
Now we're going to do it in other countries that have even less resources to survive. The conservatives are such benevolent people
justhanginon
(3,290 posts)God, How I hate these people and their false religiosity.
safeinOhio
(32,756 posts)About half of those are paid for by the government in Isreal. No mention of these by the Bible Thumpers
Hekate
(91,030 posts)...be consigned to Hell. So no problem there. The important thing is the real estate, i.e. the Holy Land.
Yes, I am being sarcastic, but that's the essentials.
safeinOhio
(32,756 posts)$3 billion plus in aid until they stop this and get rid of their socialized medicine in the mean time....
just kidding
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Actually they want a higher WHITE population.
Wait until coastal flooding and drought cause these masses to migrate.
Still want a large population?
progree
(10,948 posts)I can't think of any white country that we send foreign aid to, reproductive or otherwise, except Israel. And I can't think of any that aren't at or below replacement fertility levels.
Hekate
(91,030 posts)As it stands now, it only exists by Executive Order. Clinton came in -- no global gag order. Dubya came in, reinstated it on the first day. Obama repealed it. Trump puts it back.
I was so upset when Dubya did it I almost drove off the road. Now I understand the situation better -- women's lives are just a fcking political football.
So Democrats who stayed home in Obama's midterm election cycles and allowed the House to become what it is now can slap themselves upside the head for me.
yardwork
(61,793 posts)tenorly
(2,037 posts)Luckily there are many other countries and NGOs funding birth control programs in developing countries, as well as many governments in that region themselves. They certainly don't need approval from the party of Scott DesJarlais and David Vitter.
progree
(10,948 posts)from sources like Population Connection and the Guttmacher Institutute. And in most cases it's not because of government policy in those countries.
[font color = blue]>>Luckily there are many other countries and NGOs funding birth control programs in developing countries,<<[/font]
Not enough, unfortunately. There are many countries where women still average 5 or 6 kids, and it's not because they are repro addicts.
tenorly
(2,037 posts)I should note though that these days exceedingly high fertility rates (5-6 children per woman) are mostly limited to Sub-Saharan Africa and a couple of other pre-industrial backwaters like Afghanistan. The third world as a whole averages around 3 children per woman, over her reproductive lifetime.
They've certainly come a long way in that respect: as late as the 1970s, 5-6 children (sometimes 7) was indeed the norm in the third world except for a few places such as Argentina, Uruguay, and South Korea (which were averaging 3 children at the time).
And yes: general consensus there is that while technical advice and funding from the developed countries helped, this reduction was largely achieved thanks to proactive policies in a lot of third-world governments themselves (notably China, with its "one child" policy - something even they took over 20 years to achieve).
Sub-Saharan Africa, as noted, still has a serious birth rate problem. You have countries like Ethiopia and D.R. Congo (formerly Zaire) approaching 100 million, and Nigeria approaching 200 million - countries that can reasonably feed only half that many people. God help them.
MarinCoUSA
(891 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)more unwanted children to suffer a long demeaning death.
bdamomma
(63,962 posts)to fight their freaking wars.
yardwork
(61,793 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,024 posts)Of course he did. He thinks single issue abortion voters will help reelect him.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Amazing how certain "progressives" are willing to "compromise" when it comes to Republicans, so easily, so delightfully, even. When it comes to "economic populism."
(A farce since this only strengthens China and their trade status.)
ismnotwasm
(42,024 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,505 posts)than with the health of the babies you have
IcyPeas
(21,949 posts)Practically, it is brutal for womens health: the rule forces NGOs to choose between accepting federal funds for family planning, but being forced to exclude any mentions of abortion in their care, or find alternative sources of funding.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/trump-to-reinstate-global-gag-rule-banning-ngos-from-r-1791512471
progree
(10,948 posts)The Gag Rule creates a major dilemma for foreign organizations that rely upon foreign aid to empower women with comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care and services. By gagging their ability to even discuss abortionseven though no U.S. aid can be used to provide themit forces providers to censor how the advise patients or risk going bankrupt.
Moreover, documentation by a consortium of NGOs {1} has found that abortion rates (resulting from decreased access to contraceptives) go up when the Global Gag Rule is in place ((I might add that most of these abortions are illegal and unsafe - Progree)) . Not only does this policy result in outcomes that directly contradict its supposed aims (to make abortions rarer), it directly hurts women and families already living in some of the worlds poorest places.
Offering aid on conditions that reduce the quality of family planning programs makes it impossible for organizations working on the ground to effectively serve their communities. Several countries whose family planning assistance was severely cut due to the imposition of the Gag Rule have revised their population projections upward. Kenya is perhaps the most jarring example: before the Gag Rule, Kenyas population in 2050 was projected to be 44 million. In the latest revision, however, that figure rose to 97 million. This example illustrates the time sensitive nature of compounding population growth. Each generation creates a larger base upon which the next generation grows.
... If youd like to take action to fight back against the imposition of the Global Gag Rule, sign our sister organization Population Connection Action Funds pledge here ( http://p2a.co/BhsyWvH )
{1} https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2015/06/global-gag-rule-and-fights-over-funding-unfpa-issues-wont-go-away