Mexico City Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abortion law
Part of the abortion series
History & overview
Case law
History of abortion law
Laws by country
Types of regulation
Buffer zones
Conscience clauses
Fetal protection
Informed consent
Late-term restrictions
Parental involvement
Spousal consent

The so-called Mexico City Policy (also known as the "Global Gag Rule"[1]) is a United States government policy which limits the eligibility for federal funding to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which provide or promote services related to abortion.

Contents

[edit] Scope of the policy

The policy requires non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds" that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations".[2] The policy has exceptions for abortions done in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.[3]

[edit] History of the policy

Named for the venue of the United Nations International Conference on Population where it was announced, the Mexico City Policy was instituted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1984.[4][5][6] The final language of the 1984 policy was negotiated by the deputy chairman of the U.S. delegation, Alan Keyes, then an Assistant Secretary of State.[7]

After the Mexico City Policy's institution, organizations were required to meet its specified conditions in order to be eligible for federal funding from the United States, and, as a result, several international health agencies no longer received a portion of their funds from this source. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) did not alter its operation and lost more than 20% of its total funding. Other family planning organizations, such as the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia, likewise did not make the changes required by the Mexico City Policy and had their fundings cut. NGOs in Romania and Colombia adapted to the new U.S. guidelines and continued to qualify for federal funding.[8]

President Bill Clinton rescinded the Mexico City Policy on January 22, 1993. He referred to the policy as being "excessively broad" and stated that it had "undermined efforts to promote safe and efficacious family planning programs in foreign nations".[9] On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush reinstated the policy by executive order, stating, "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored".[2]

The nature of the policy has implications for organizations in certain countries such as South Africa. Even if these organizations support the policy itself, it is illegal for them not to inform a woman seeking an abortion of her rights, and/or refer her to a facility where she may have an abortion. The President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief is excluded from the Mexico City Policy.[10]

[edit] Debate over the policy

Critics of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the "global gag rule", arguing that, in addition to reducing the overall funding provided to particular NGOs, it closes off their access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception.[11] This, they argue, negatively impacts the ability of these NGOs to distribute birth control, leading to a downfall in contraceptive use and from there to an increase in the rates of unintended pregnancies and abortion.[11] Critics also argue that the ban promotes restrictions on free speech as well as restrictions on accurate medical information.[12][13][14][15] The European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development presented a petition to the United States Congress signed by 233 members condemning the policy. The forum has stated that the policy "undermines internationally agreed consensus and goals".[16]

Supporters of the policy have argued, using the example of the Philippines, that the ban prevents overseas health organizations from using U.S. government funds to contravene the contraception and abortion laws of the countries in which they operate.[17] Supporters also argue that the policy prevents the health agencies from promoting abortion at the expense of other birth control methods.[18][19]

Some pro-life commentators have also criticized the policy and Bush's reinstitution of it as being only a nominal gesture toward the pro-life community. They argue that a stipulation in the policy means that it applies only to overseas NGOs which promote abortion "as a method of family planning", and, as such, that those organizations which promote abortion on other grounds are still able to receive full federal funding.[20]

[edit] Related policies

The Sandbaek Report of the European Union, which calls for the funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), was seen by some Catholic commentators as a contrast to the Mexico City Policy.[21] The European commissioner Poul Nielson said that the European Union wished to "fill the decency gap" left by the Mexican City Policy.[22][23]

The UNFPA states that it does not "provide support for abortion services".[24] Pro-life individuals and organizations have accused the UNFPA of supporting forced abortions by the Chinese government.[25][26] The Bush administration has withheld funding from the agency due to concerns about its alleged involvement. A 2002 U.S. State Department investigation found "no evidence" that UNFPA knowingly took part in forced abortions.[27] The organization has stated that it "has never, and will never, be involved in coercion in China or any part of the world".[24]

[edit] References in popular culture

An episode of the television series Boston Legal, "Squid Pro Quo", which originally aired on May 9, 2006, featured a case involving USAID's withdrawal of funding to an overseas non-profit organization.[28]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.pathfind.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Advocacy_Resources_Fact_Sheets_Gag_Rule_Spanish
  2. ^ a b Bush, George. W. (January 22, 2001). Restoration of the Mexico City Policy. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  3. ^ Cincotta, R. P. & Crane, B. B. (2001). The Mexico City Policy and U.S. Family Planning Assistance. Science, 294(5542), 525 - 526. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  4. ^ US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population. (1984). Population and Development Review, 10(3), 574-579. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  5. ^ Lewis, Neil A. (June 1, 1987). "Abortions Abroad are Focus of Widening Battle Over Reagan's Policy." The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  6. ^ Robinson, B.A. (April 27, 2007). U.S. "Mexico City" policy: Abortion funding in foreign countries. ReligiousTolerance.org. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  7. ^ Values Voter Presidential Debate, September 17, 2007
  8. ^ Motluk, Alison. (October 6, 2004). "US abortion policy: A healthy strategy for whom?." New Scientist. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  9. ^ Clinton, William J. (January 22, 1993).AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  10. ^ Population Action International. (August 15, 2001).What You Need to Know About the Global Gag Rule and U.S. HIV/AIDS Assistance: An Unofficial Guide. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  11. ^ a b Population Action International. (June 1, 2004). "How the Global Gag Rule Undermines U.S. Foreign Policy and Harms Women's Health." Retrieved October 1, 2007.
  12. ^ Sierra Club. (n.d.) "Global Gag Rule." Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  13. ^ Center for Reproductive Rights. (July 2003). The Bush Global Gag Rule: Endangering Women’s Health, Free Speech and Democracy." Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  14. ^ National Organization for Women. (July 19, 2007). "Six Years of the Global Gag Rule have Weakened Women's Access to Reproductive Health Care." Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  15. ^ Illingworth, Betsy. (January 18, 2005). "The Global Gag Rule." Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  16. ^ Intra European Forum on Population and Development. (2004). "Funding cuts from the USA." Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  17. ^ National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. (October 28, 2002). Fact Sheet: The Mexico City Policy. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  18. ^ Lopez, Kathryn Jean. (June 21, 2007 ). "This Mexican Policy Is a Keeper." National Review. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  19. ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (n.d.). Fact Sheet: "The Mexico City Policy". Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  20. ^ ""Family Planning - An Exercise in Doublespeak." (September 09, 2004). CovenantNews.com. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  21. ^ "European Parliament Votes To Fund Abortions Overseas." (February 14, 2003). Catholic World News. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  22. ^ European Parliament. (January 13, 2004). Health issues and poverty reduction.
  23. ^ Castle, Stephen. (February 5, 2001). "Europe to fund US abortion shortfall." The Independent. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  24. ^ a b United Nations Population Fund. (n.d.). 34 Million Friends Campaign: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  25. ^ Smith, Chris. (n.d.). ""The United Nations Population Fund Helps China Persecute Women and Kill Children." Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  26. ^ National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. (January 18, 2005). Funding UNFPA: China's Coercive Population Control Program. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  27. ^ Marquis, Christopher. (July 17, 2004). "U.S. Cuts Off Financing Of U.N. Unit For 3rd Year." The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2007.
  28. ^ "'Squid Pro Quo' Episode Summary." (n.d.) Retrieved September 29, 2007.
Languages