Posted on Jan 23, 2017
Donald Trump Reinstates Ronald Reagan's Abortion 'Global Gag Rule'
31.7K
71
37
9
9
0
Granted, this is par for the course whenever Republicans are in office, but to do it the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade? Signed two days after the Women's March, it seems to be punishment, and I would not put it past him. As a result of this, millions of women WILL die.
"The Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.
None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms Amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.
But the Guttmacher Institute and other opponents of the gag rule say that such restrictions have devastating effects on international organizations, often forcing them to close their clinics or reduce their services, denying women access to help from safe providers and even hampering HIV prevention efforts.
“In reality, attempts to stop abortion through restrictive laws ― or by withholding family planning aid ― can never eliminate abortion, because those methods do not eliminate women’s need for abortion. ... Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally much safer than where it is highly restricted,” Guttmacher wrote in a 2015 report.
The policy has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths. "
"The Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.
None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms Amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.
But the Guttmacher Institute and other opponents of the gag rule say that such restrictions have devastating effects on international organizations, often forcing them to close their clinics or reduce their services, denying women access to help from safe providers and even hampering HIV prevention efforts.
“In reality, attempts to stop abortion through restrictive laws ― or by withholding family planning aid ― can never eliminate abortion, because those methods do not eliminate women’s need for abortion. ... Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally much safer than where it is highly restricted,” Guttmacher wrote in a 2015 report.
The policy has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths. "
Donald Trump Reinstates Ronald Reagan's Abortion 'Global Gag Rule'
Posted from m.huffpost.com
Donald Trump
Foreign Aid
Abortion
Death
Republicans
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 15
7
7
0
Ok so if US tax dollars are not to be used in abortions then why does this paragraph paint a picture that without US funding the people will be forced to utilize unsafe abortion outlets.
"The policy has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths. "
This statement in itself lends credence to the belief that US tax dollars are being used to fund abortions over seas. Once you send money to any foreign entity you have no guarantee of how , on whom or what that money will actually be spent on.
"The policy has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths. "
This statement in itself lends credence to the belief that US tax dollars are being used to fund abortions over seas. Once you send money to any foreign entity you have no guarantee of how , on whom or what that money will actually be spent on.
(7)
(0)
SSG Jessica Bautista
Clinics that don't receive funds can't prevent pregnancy, can't provide health screenings, can't provide treatment. The only thing proven to reduce abortions and maternal death rates is prevention and pre-natal care. This rule will ultimately defund all of that.
(1)
(0)
CSM Richard StCyr
Maybe but the last time I checked the only operative procedure with a close to 100% mortality rate for anyone involved was abortion.
I'd rather send surplus food stuff and medicines than money. It's much harder to divert those items and convert them to cash, and my experience has been that much more of it actually gets where it's needed and helps more of those intended, but that's only based on roaming around Central America building schools and medical clinics for the folks as an Army Engineer.
I also don't agree with it being my responsibility or duty to pay to prevent or terminate pregnancies of folks in the third world. To me it denies the unborn to their rite to the pursuit of Life liberty and happiness. Prevention is the personal responsibility of those engaged in sex.
On this topic we will probably only agree, that we don't agree.
I'd rather send surplus food stuff and medicines than money. It's much harder to divert those items and convert them to cash, and my experience has been that much more of it actually gets where it's needed and helps more of those intended, but that's only based on roaming around Central America building schools and medical clinics for the folks as an Army Engineer.
I also don't agree with it being my responsibility or duty to pay to prevent or terminate pregnancies of folks in the third world. To me it denies the unborn to their rite to the pursuit of Life liberty and happiness. Prevention is the personal responsibility of those engaged in sex.
On this topic we will probably only agree, that we don't agree.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
SSG Jessica Bautista
Because disease does not respect our borders. Prevention or aid after the fact, which is cheaper?
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
CW4 Angel C.
SSG Jessica Bautista - abortion under certain circumstances is ok in my book but I'm more like a Libertarian
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google