President Obama on Friday ended the prohibition on funding agencies that provide abortions overseas. Abortion proponents call this “Mexico City Policy” the “Global Gag Rule.” See Laura’s post:
On the transition webpage change.gov a pro-abortion activist (who uses the less than engaging appellation for us of “Forced Birth Proponents”) says the following foolishness.
Why it’s important that President Obama lifted the Global Gag rule — also known as the “Mexico City Policy” –because the shortsighted focus of Forced Birth Proponents, endangered the overall health of millions of women around the world: For instance: “Another effect of the Mexico City Policy has been the closure of family planning clinics due to USAID’s withdrawal of funding, notably in sub-Saharan Africa. Seventeen centers in Uganda, five centers in Kenya, one outreach program serving poor communities in Ethiopia, and several clinics in Tanzania have closed for this reason. In Kenya alone, the five clinics that closed served tens of thousands of women. They provided basic services that many poor women could not otherwise afford or access, including well-baby care, pre- and post-natal obstetric care, HIV testing and counseling, and contraception.” http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/24_1_toc.htm
You are specifically incorrect here. There is significant current data that disproves what you cite here.
Your guiding principles appear to be that its “unjust” to provide well-baby and pre-natal care without also providing contraception and abortion. Sounds like you don’t agree with my freedom of choice; to choose not to pay for abortions that I know to be unethical. If my President chooses to spend my money in this manner I will oppose him and fight to reverse the decision.
The journal where this paper was presented is the ultra progressive (translation = liberal) Third World Law Journal at Boston University. This is a student edited non-peer reviewed journal. Was this a case of someone getting their paper published wherever they could? Where is the peer reviewed substantiation? Additionally this paper was written over 5 years ago (!) and published in the January 2004 issue of that journal.
The paper states frequently – in effect – that the Mexico City Policy prevents US funds from getting to places where it could and should “safely” provide abortions. However the stated thesis of the paper in the introduction and conclusion is that HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment is harmed by the Mexico City Policy. There is significant recent data that disproves this stated thesis. Here are reports noting that the rate of HIV/AIDS infection declined and the rates of HIV/AIDS services increased in Sub-Sarahan Africa under the enlightened policies of the Bush Administration.
I’d like to show you some studies that I found using Google but they were published by the Bush administration at the whitehouse.gov website and the current White House has removed all former official Presidential documents from the site! I can only be reminded of George Orwell’s 1984. Remember, Orwell’s fictional government was a leftist not rightist totalitarianism. For shame.
[Interestingly the other papers in this issue of the journal were concerning the absolute ethical and moral necessity of western countries like the United States paying reparations for 19th century and earlier slavery. While you cannot frame an argument that current slavery is moral and can only explain but not justify slavery in that period of history, I can show you valid cogent arguments against reparations for past slavery. but I digress.]
text links:http://change.gov/open_government/entry/advancing_reproductive_rights_and_health_in_a_new_administration#IDComment14293968 http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/24_1_toc.htm http://www.pepfar.gov/index.htm