The Global Gag Rule and Women's Reproductive Health : Rhetoric Versus Reality

Foreign assistance by the United States is tangled with domestic politics, and perhaps this is most clear in relation to funding for health and family planning. The long arm of U.S. domestic politics has reached the intimate lives of women all over the world because it has threatened major cuts in funding to healthcare organizations in developing countries if they perform or promote abortions. This "global gag rule," so-called because to even mention abortion endangers funding, has been a hallmark of Republican administrations since it was first enacted by President Ronald Reagan. When Donald Trump reinstated and expanded the policy, there was popular uproar and a firestorm of debate. Proponents of the policy emphasize the importance of reducing the number of abortions globally and claim that the gag rule will be effective in achieving this goal. In this innovative book, Yana van der Meulen Rodgers argues that the gag rule has failed to achieve its goal of reducing abortions. Rather, the restrictive legislation is associated with higher abortion rates, and because the reduction in funding is indiscriminate there are negative repercussions across a range of health outcomes for women, children, and men. While the rhetoric in media discourse has been extreme, Rodgers provides systematic analysis of how the global gag rule affects women's reproductive health across developing regions, grounded in a conceptual framework that models the complex factors that influence women's decision making about fertility. She also traces the background to American policy, the evolution of international family planning programs, the links between contraceptive access and fertility rates, and the relationship between restrictive abortion laws and abortion rates. And because Rodgers provides a rounded perspective on factors influencing women's decisions on reproduction and abortion, she offers a constructive and cost-effective approach for U.S. family planning assistance that targets integrated reproductive health services. In recent decades, the long arm of US politics has reached the intimate lives of women all over the world. Since 1984, healthcare organizations in developing countries have faced major cuts in US foreign aid if they perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning. The policy—commonly known as the global gag rule—is a hallmark of Republican administrations. The reinstatement and expansion of the global gag rule by Donald Trump in January 2017 caused a firestorm of debate. Proponents emphasize the importance of reducing abortions globally, while critics predict large increases in unsafe abortions and maternal mortality resulting from disruptions to family-planning services. How plausible are the various claims and projections? This question is surprisingly difficult to answer because there is little statistical evidence on the global gag rule. This book helps to fill the gap by conducting a systematic analysis of how the global gag rule affects women’s reproductive health across developing regions. The analysis yields three important messages: (1) in the majority of countries that receive US family-planning assistance, the global gag rule has failed to achieve its objective of reducing abortions; (2) there is no definitive relationship between restrictive national abortion laws and abortion rates; and (3) the 2017 expansion of the global gag rule will have adverse effects on a dashboard of health indicators for women, men, and children. These powerful messages should be heard by policymakers over the voices calling for an ideologically based policy that has counterproductive results. "Rodgers argues that the gag rule has failed to achieve its goal of reducing abortions. Rather, the restrictive legislation is associated with higher abortion rates, and because the reduction in funding is indiscriminate there are negative repercussions across a range of health outcomes for women, children, and men. While the rhetoric in media discourse has been extreme, Rodgers provides systematic analysis of how the global gag rule affects women's reproductive health across developing regions, grounded in a conceptual framework that models the complex factors that influence women's decision making about fertility. She also traces the background to American policy, the evolution of international family planning programs, the links between contraceptive access and fertility rates, and the relationship between restrictive abortion laws and abortion rates. And because Rodgers provides a rounded perspective on factors influencing women's decisions on reproduction and abortion, she offers a constructive and cost-effective approach for U.S. family planning assistance that targets integrated reproductive health services."--Provided by publisher In recent decades, the long arm of US politics has reached the intimate lives of women all over the world. Since 1984, healthcare organizations in developing countries have faced major cuts in US foreign aid if they perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning. The policy-commonly known as the global gag rule - is a hallmark of Republican administrations. The reinstatement & expansion of the global gag rule by Donald Trump in January 2017 caused a firestorm of debate. Proponents emphasize the importance of reducing abortions globally, while critics predict large increases in unsafe abortions & maternal mortality resulting from disruptions to family-planning services. How plausible are the various claims & projections? This question is surprisingly difficult to answer because there is little statistical evidence on the global gag rule. This book supports three important messages: the global gag rule has failed to achieve its goal of reducing abortions; there is no definitive relationship between restrictive national abortion laws and abortion rates; and the 2017 expansion of the global gag rule will adversely affect a dashboard of health indicators.