Not without a fight: standing up against the Global Gag Rule
Sarah A. Pugh,S. Desai,L. Ferguson,H. Stöckl,Shirin Heidari
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2017.1303250
2017-01-01
Reproductive Health Matters
Abstract:It is sadly ironic that as we celebrate International Women’s Day 2017, sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) researchers, advocates and practitioners around the world are bracing themselves for the inevitable impact of US President Trump’s re-enactment and expansion of the Mexico City Policy, widely known as the “Global Gag Rule”. Yet, International Women’s Day also provides an important moment to recognise and reflect upon the commitment and tenacity that characterise the ongoing efforts of so many in the SRHR community as they unite against the Global Gag Rule, attempting to find new partnerships, new solutions, and new directions for their work. The Global Gag Rule is, unfortunately, nothing new. Since 1973, the Helms Amendment under the Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited US funding from being used to pay for the provision of abortions. In 1984, US President Reagan took this approach much further by ensuring that non-governmental organisations receiving US funding could not promote or provide access to – or even information about – safe abortion, even using their own funds. Doing so would mean the loss of US funding for any activity provided by that organisation. On 23 January 2017, in one of Trump’s first acts as President, the Global Gag Rule was reinstated. Unlike previous occasions, the new policy applies not only to funding earmarked to organisations that focus on reproductive health (approximately US$575 million in 2016), but to all global health assistance “by all departments or agencies” – an estimated US$9.5 billion. Given the weight of US international aid, the reenactment of the Global Gag Rule will come at a heavy cost, and will undoubtedly have an impact on services worldwide and, by extension, on women’s health, well-being and human rights. To illustrate with one example of an international actor on the SRHR landscape: Marie Stopes International estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of their services due to the imposition of the Global Gag Rule could result in 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths by 2020. During Global Gag Rule years under President George W. Bush, other documented impacts include staff lay-offs, disruptions of referral systems, clinic closures, and contraceptive and condom supply shortages amongst some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. The negative implications of the Global Gag Rule extend far beyond access to safe abortion information and services. In much of sub-Saharan Africa, the US Government provides significant funding for HIV prevention and treatment services through organisations that also provide sexual and reproductive health information and services, including in relation to abortion. Many organisations, particularly in lowand middle-income countries, provide a range of health services under one roof, including access to contraceptives, HIV services, sexual and reproductive education and counselling, immunisations, and maternal health screenings, alongside information or access to safe abortion care. Thus, the policy also has the potential to affect much broader public health programmes, including responses to the HIV epidemic, the Zika virus and other infectious diseases. In fact, the Global Gag Rule stands to reverse global progress in promoting integrated EDITORIAL