What is the Global Gag Rule?
The Global Gag Rule requires nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This restriction prevents overseas health organizations who receive U.S. family planning funding from discussing the abortion option. Under the policy, organizations can not receive funding if they provide abortion services, counsel patients on abortion options, refer patients for abortion services, or lobby their governments to legalize abortion.
Specifically, this order prohibits the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from distributing family planning funding to all foreign non-governmental organizations unless the organization agrees not to direct any money—including funds raised separately from the United States government—towards abortion services and advocacy, as well as abortion counseling services.
What is the history of the Global Gag Rule?
The Global Gag Rule—also known as the Mexico City Policy—originated from an executive order in 1984, under the leadership of the Reagan Administration and continued throughout the first Bush Administration. After initially overturning the restrictions by executive order in 1993, President Clinton accepted a modified version of the Rule in 1999 as a condition of passage of a funding bill releasing U.S. funds to the United Nations. On the first day of his administration, January 22, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order reinstating and extending the Global Gag Rule so that it further restricted counseling services. This policy remains in effect today.
Does the Global Gag Rule prevent abortions abroad?
A large misconception about the Global Gag Rule is that it prevents United States funding of abortions abroad. In reality, it has been illegal to use U.S. money in this way since 1974. The Rule primarily restricts information, rather than abortions.
What are the dangers of maintaining the Global Gag Rule internationally?
The last time the Global Gag Rule was in effect, there was not a reduction in the number of abortions. Rather, there was a reduction in access to health care, and an increase in unintended pregnancy and abortions. By denying funds to groups that counsel women on abortion (like International Planned Parenthood Federation), the rule lessens the dissemination of family planning and pregnancy prevention information. The most effective method to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy—a goal best accomplished through family planning counseling.
Throughout underdeveloped countries, family planning clinics are desperately in need of supplies, including contraceptives. The Global Gag Rule has curtailed the efforts of pregnancy prevention abroad by depriving organizations of the necessary funding for contraceptives.
Counseling services help reduce maternal illness and death resulting from childbirth. The World Health Organization estimates that close to 600,000 women die each year from pregnancy-related causes. The Global Gag Rule harms efforts to prevent unintended pregnancy, thereby increasing the likelihood of maternal illness and death amongst women.
Most importantly, family planning centers provide disease prevention education to women in underdeveloped countries. By restricting funding overseas, the Global Gag Rule prohibits funding to the crucial international effort to reduce the instances of HIV/AIDS.
What is happening in the U.S. Congress to counter the Global Gag Rule?
Senator Barbara Boxer spearheaded a Senate effort to counter the Global Gag Rule in July 2003. The Boxer Amendment (S.AMDT.1141) amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by overturning the Global Gag Rule. It states that foreign non-governmental organizations cannot be denied funding based on the legal medical services they provide, including counseling.
In the House of Representatives, Representative Nita Lowey has twice attempted to pass the Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2003 (H.R. 2952), which seeks to prohibit the restrictive requirements on foreign nongovernmental agencies. The bill was referred to the House Committee on International Relations. With leadership of the House currently in the hands of anti-choice lawmakers, no action is expected on this measure.
