Gagged and Bound

The wave that began last year with the infamous “Natalie” posters now seems to have crested with a new rash of posters, an epidemic of door droppings, a pile of uprooted flags and a flurry of e-mails over House lists. There is no denying that abortion has become the divisive issue for our campus—as it is currently for our nation. Perhaps it’s time for a little kumbaya, a little hand-holding and coming together. So in that generous spirit, in spite of our many differences, I hope that we can all, pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike, join together in condemning the Bush administration policy known as the Global Gag Rule.

First adopted by President Reagan and later abolished by President Clinton, the Global Gag Rule—officially titled the “Mexico City Policy”—was reinstated by Bush on the second day of his presidency. The Global Gag Rule prohibits the provision of U.S. family planning aid to foreign NGOs that perform abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman’s life), offer abortion counseling or referral or lobby for the legalization or increased availability of abortion in their country. Groups that engage in any of these activities are deprived of their funding and are invariably forced to scale back their programs. Believe what you will about abortion, the Global Gag Rule is wrong.

To begin with, U.S. law already prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for overseas abortions and abortion lobbying; even if the Global Gag Rule were repealed, it would still be illegal for U.S. family planning aid to fund these activities. And we could ensure that NGOs would continue to use our aid appropriately—our government keeps close track of how its money is spent. The question is whether essential health services should be undermined because they are performed by organizations with whom some Americans have a sharp difference of opinion.

The Global Gag Rule also puts the U.S. in the intolerable position of undercutting democracy abroad. How would we feel if other nations sought to set the terms of our national abortion dialogue? America purports to champion democracy around the world, and yet we smother the speech of NGOs, restricting free and open discourse in foreign nations. Consider this double standard: If the Global Gag Rule were applied domestically—to restrict the participation of American NGOs in our national abortion debate as a condition of their receiving federal aid—it would be struck down as patently unconstitutional. Such a double standard appears particularly misguided when we consider that many of the foreign NGOs we seek to gag operate in countries presently lacking many of the democratic freedoms enjoyed here.

Some rebut that the U.S. has every right to place conditions on our foreign aid. Of course this argument is valid, but the question is what stipulations are in our nation’s long-run interests. I would argue that perhaps our most fundamental interest lies in the promotion of democracy abroad. If we are to silence any speech, it ought to be that which undermines democracy. A gag rule that prohibits funding organizations that promote terrorism on the side is thus justifiable. But abortion advocates, unlike supporters of terrorism, are an important voice within any democratic dialogue. Last I checked, pro-choice activists weren’t the ones employing violent tactics.

But we should not let high-minded democratic principles distract us from the most troubling aspect of the Global Gag Rule—its injurious effects on the health of some of the world’s poorest. In September, a coalition of reproductive health groups released a report on the Global Gag Rule that detailed a litany of outrageous stories. The report found that the Global Gag Rule ignores the realities of developing country health systems. In the U.S. we usually have a number of health service providers serving the diverse needs of a given community. But many poor communities are lucky to have even a single health clinic.

Take Kenya’s Kisumu province, which suffers from the highest rate of HIV infections in the country. When Marie Stopes Kenya—an NGO which serves as Kenya’s leading family planning services provider—had its funding slashed after the re-implementation of the Global Gag Rule, it was forced to close its Kisumu clinic, which provided not only family planning but HIV prevention services for hundreds of women in the region. In addition, the organization was forced to close a clinic in Kenya’s Mathare Valley which had offered Malaria treatment, childhood immunizations and HIV testing and counseling. It was the only health clinic serving a community of 300,000. The Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana also lost its U.S. aid; as a result, 700,000 Ghanians lost access to HIV prevention services—including education, testing and counseling. Then there’s the case of condoms. When an NGO loses its funding, it also stops receiving condom donations from the U.S. government. Thousands of individuals from Nicaragua, Uganda and other nations must now do without.

I have a great deal of respect for many pro-lifers. While I disagree with their definition of life, I admire their devotion to its defense. But the Global Gag Rule is an unconscionable policy; it is a black-eye for the pro-life movement. A “pro-life policy” so willing to sacrifice individuals’ lives is nothing more than a vile misnomer.

Sasha Post ’05 is a social studies concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.