- Post
- #1038845
- Topic
- Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1038845/action/topic#1038845
- Time
http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion
The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.
Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.
The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.
The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.
Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.
So much for respecting life.
Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.
If any organization mentions the word “abortion”, they can no longer have any American government funding, even for contraception. There is no wisdom to any of this. You can’t expect the entire third world to stop having sex because they can’t get condoms anymore.
You mean they cannot abstain? They must have sex constantly to survive like breathing air? They shouldn’t need American funding to take care of their own country should they? Those countries cannot raise the money themselves and/or find better ways to educate their populations on their own?
Some are refugees, some are uneducated, some will have been made pregnant against their will (though cannot for fear of safety disclose that). Some will be in countries where there is hardly any government in place - or the little Govt there is, is corrupt, inept - or not trusted.
Thankfully a few charities do great work in places like this - and as stated in the vox thread above - it seems that many of these places will lose access to birth control, education and the services as a whole (along with the results and effects last time the ‘gag rule’ was in place).
For people on the ground there it’ll be a confusing time - possibilities will have changed, leading to confusion and trust issues - and education now has limited options too.
It also seems likely that pooling resources with other countries may well be lost too.
more info can be found here:-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8527977/trump-abortion-global-gag-rule/I did say this prior to the post you quote …
http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion
The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.
Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.
The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.
The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.
Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.
So much for respecting life.
Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.
I most certainly understand the roadblocks involved. I also consider that, in this day and age, people are far more aware due to all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose overseas. Does that knowledge just disappear? Do all those who’ve learned just forget? These are questions I cannot answer but I am glad there are other avenues.
I read it - but it didn’t include the possibilites/scenarios - or effects of - that I asked.
Education is key to this (and many things in life) - a young mother may not have the education, or access to education, as someone who had better education just a few years ago. As stated, education has just changed due to re-introduction of the gag-rule.
Word of mouth is key in environments that these charities are struggling with - and highlighting. Education is always in flux - and without doubt ‘all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose’ will indeed disappear over time - or as stated above not be in-effect for say refugees, remote places, or places where there is little trust in the Govt - or corruption - or in places where the mother may not be able to admit she has been raped for fear of reprisal or social stigma etc.
If removal of the gag-rule can save more lives - and educate people to all of the possibilities - then surely that is the better outcome for those that are likely to be affected the most, no?
If it can be done in such a way so as not to negate or remove the care of the citizens whose money is used to provide it, then yes, I would agree completely. I should state that I do not believe that it should be America’s responsibility alone to provide such things. There is an entire planet of people and nations that should bare some of the weight with regards to helping out neighboring societies that might need that little extra.
Other countries provide aid too (as mentioned in the articles linked above) and many provide aid without condition of ‘gag rules’ like has just been re-introduced.
The removal of the gag rule (or full range of options or education) - is not going to cost the US more money.
I asked you about your country because you asked me about mine. You did not answer my question so I’m going to assume the answer is no unless you just forgot what I asked.
Deflection indeed.
Don’t assume - where’s the facts in that? Though why assume ‘no’?, why not ‘yes’ or a similar amount? Why not look it up?
These are rhetorical questions - you don’t have to answer them.
.
In case you are genuinely interested in the answer to your question ‘Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?’
Upon entering the term ‘percentage per population for overseas aid’ into the search bar this appears top…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
This is the next…
I’m in the UK.
It’s not exactly what you’re looking for - but am sure you’ll be able to extrapolate the data required.
.
For me, it’s not a competition on who does and doesn’t provide aid - or percentage - just that as long we can and do provide it if we can. And with no limits on education attached if possible.
(though well done the Swedes 😃)
And if I remember correctly, I agreed with your final sentiment in an earlier post, so there is no need for posturing. Both our countries have given greatly. I don’t know the Health Care System status of the U.K. at present but I can tell you that here in America despite what some say our Health Care System is not what it could or needs to be based on the fact that even our own Military Veterans have been dying due to poorly funded and managed systems. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help at all, I’m saying as you did, that as long as we can provide it without limitations to it’s dispersal that we do so while still being able to properly care for our own.
It’s not posturing - you asked for an answer and got one. The rest of your statement - in relation to a conversation about the gag rule - is a deflection and irrelevant to it.
The removal of the gag rule will not cost the US more money.
Now, if you’d like to talk about the wider effects of allocation funds from the Govts to it’s people at home and abroad that is a different conversation. As is the current state of the NHS.
They were my views, not deflection, and I don’t know what the cost WILL be at the moment because I don’t have any information on what is now being asked for and what the actual costs are. If you know then share them please. I want to have an informed discussion, not a pissing match, over it.
There is no monetary cost to the US in having charities, health groups and medical professionals being allowed to talk about abortion in countries where their is help is needed, and education an important factor therein.
If you think there is - there is a little chance of ‘informed discussion’.
I’ll leave it there.
I said absolutely nothing about associating a cost with verbal discussion of abortion, none. I am talking about actual medical/surgical services/supplies only and their dispersion.
Another deflection - or to blunt - a lie. Your own words say different in response to 005’s post earlier…
If any organization mentions the word “abortion”, they can no longer have any American government funding, even for contraception. There is no wisdom to any of this. You can’t expect the entire third world to stop having sex because they can’t get condoms anymore.
You mean they cannot abstain? They must have sex constantly to survive like breathing air? They shouldn’t need American funding to take care of their own country should they? Those countries cannot raise the money themselves and/or find better ways to educate their populations on their own?
As I said there is little chance of informed discussion with you - it’d be more lies, deflections and revisionism from yourself - as well as an apparent ignorance of the facts linked to articles by other posters during this discussion.
And I’ve not the interest to carry on with that type of fact-free ‘discussion’ on your part.
.
Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?
Yes.
This is Jay’s answer, not mine, and I’m not sure why he might presume to speak for someone else.
I raised a chuckle - and he wasn’t wrong.
.
Apologies for derailing the thread if it has moved on to other subjects.
