PHA-Exchange> Abortion: Impact of the Global Gag Rule

[Claudio]

> > Impact of the Global Gag Rule
> > -----------------------------
> >  
> > New analyses debunk U.S. government claims about impact of the 
> > Global Gag Rule
> >  
> > Chapel Hill, NC, October 30, 2003 -- Mounting evidence contra-
> > dicts U.S. government claims that the Mexico City Policy has lit-
> > tle effect on family planning and related services or on advocacy 
> > for reform of restrictive abortion laws. Drawing on sources in-
> > cluding two recent reports that document decreased availability 
> > of critical health services and stifled political debate in six 
> > countries, Ipas and the Center for Reproductive Rights have re-
> > leased a fact sheet, available on both organizations' websites, 
> > that exposes the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag 
> > Rule, as dangerous and anti-democratic. 
> >  
> > "Many of us in the reproductive health field see the devastating 
> > effects of the gag rule every day in our work around the world," 
> > said Barbara Crane, Executive Vice President of Ipas. "This new 
> > research confirms what we have long known to be true: This policy 
> > jeopardizes the health and lives of many of the world's poorest 
> > women. The government's claims to the contrary are misleading at 
> > best." 
> >  
> > Issued by President George W. Bush on January 22, 2001, the 
> > Global Gag Rule prohibits U.S. family planning assistance to for-
> > eign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that use funds from any 
> > source to perform, provide counselling or referral, or lobby for 
> > abortion. U.S. law has barred use of American funds for overseas 
> > provision of abortion services since 1973; the newer policy aims 
> > instead to silence discussion of abortion, even between physi-
> > cians and their patients, and in circumstances in which abortion 
> > is legally permitted.
> >  
> > Analysis by Ipas and the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) 
> > disproves assertions on U.S. Agency for International Develop-
> > ment's (USAID) website that the Mexico City Policy "does not have 
> > a major impact on the provision of family planning services," le-
> > gal abortion, or lobbying to change abortion laws. The analysis 
> > found, for instance, that: 
> > * By 2002, the gag rule had led to a reduction of USAID-donated 
> >   contraceptive supplies to 16 countries and to leading family 
> >   planning agencies in another 13. 
> > * Refusal to adhere to the policy by two of Kenya's leading fam-
> >   ily planning NGOs forced them to close five clinics and cut ser-
> >   vices in remaining facilities. 
> > * Thirty-five of 56 countries receiving USAID family planning as-
> >   sistance permit abortion on grounds broader than those permitted 
> >   under the Mexico City Policy; health-care providers working in 
> >   those countries at NGOs that wish to receive U.S. assistance can 
> >   no longer provide the full range of reproductive health-care ser-
> >   vices or information to their patients. 
> > * NGOs in at least 20 countries affected by the gag rule have re-
> >   cently attempted to reform abortion laws and policies. In numer-
> >   ous cases, the voices of the organizations most qualified to 
> >   speak out about women's needs for safe abortion-related care and 
> >   about the impact of unsafe abortion have been silenced by the gag 
> >   rule. 
> >  
> > Primary sources informing Ipas's and CRR's analysis include two 
> > reports released in the last two months, which examine different 
> > aspects of the gag rule's effects. "Access Denied", (available at 
> > http://www.globalgagrule.org/) issued by a coalition of NGOs led 
> > by Population Action International, focuses on organizations in 
> > Ethiopia, Kenya, Romania and Zambia that declined to accept the 
> > policy's restrictions and therefore lost U.S. family planning as-
> > sistance. Breaking the Silence (available at 
> > http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bo_ggr.html ), researched 
> > and written by staff of CRR, examines effects on organizations in 
> > Ethiopia, Kenya, Peru and Uganda that agreed to the policy's re-
> > strictions in order to maintain critical funding, with a particu-
> > lar focus on how vital voices are now kept out of ongoing debates 
> > regarding saving women's lives from unsafe abortion. 
> >  
> > For more information, contact:
> > Merrill Wolf
> > mailto:wolfm at ipas.org
> > http://www.ipas.org
> > Or visit the website of the Center for Reproductive Rights at
> > http://www.reprorights.org/
> 
>