Unsafe Abortions: Global Health and American Foreign Policy

According to the Worldwide Health Organization (WHO), there are 42 million abortions each year and around half of these are deemed unsafe. The 2014 The Guttmacher Policy Review places the number of abortions to be close to 38 million with approximately 56% being deemed unsafe. Incredibly, the Guttmacher Institute further asserts that in Africa and Latin America virtually all abortions – 97% and 95%, respectively, are unsafe. Areas that also have very strict laws concerning this controversial topic. The WHO defines an “unsafe” abortion as one performed by an individual without the necessary skills, or as an abortion performed in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards, but many times both are applicable. A disturbing truth is that millions upon million of women, particularly young, poor, and rural women – are inserting sharp objects or herbs and plants into their wombs, ingesting chemicals, or taking medicines or traditional remedies to induce miscarriages.

In 2000 the U.S. was one of 189 countries that made a commitment to assist the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDG) whose aim is to “reduce poverty and improve the lives of poor people”. One of the eight pillars of the program is to reduce maternal mortality. Abortion remains a major cause of death among women in poor developing countries. Induced miscarriages account for about 13% of pregnancy related deaths worldwide with millions facing injuries that stem from unsafe abortions, including hemorrhage, infection, chronic pain, secondary infertility and trauma to multiple organs.

Yet, U.S. foreign policy wavers in its commitment with each new president elect. Contradicting our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals and the reduction of maternal mortality, the United States was steadfast in its “Global Gag Rule” otherwise known as the Mexico City Policy. First, instituted in 1985 during the Reagan administration, then repealed in 1993 by President Clinton, only to be reinstituted by President George W. Bush on his first day in office in 2001, and repealed yet again in 2009 under the Obama administration, the Mexico City Policy “stipulates that nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. assistance cannot use separately obtained funds to inform the public or educate their government on the need to make safe abortion available, provide legal abortion services, or provide advice on where to get an abortion” – hence the nickname “Global Gag Rule”.

The fact of the matter is that the “Global Gag Rule” isn’t about funding abortions; the Helms Amendment of 1973 already prevents American tax dollars from funding overseas abortions. Instead, this American law prevents critical U.S. funding from being used for basic family planning information and contraception advice. If countries do not adhere to the policy, USAID funding, technical assistance, and donated goods – including contraceptives like condoms are lost. The “Global Gag Rule” effectively keeps 215 million women in poor developing countries from obtaining wanted prevention services and contributes to the vicious cycle of poverty in their lives.

In a speech at the NARAL Anniversary Luncheon in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 1999 Hillary Clinton said, “I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.” By instituting the Mexico City Policy or “Global Gag Rule” we are overstepping our boundaries as a government and as a country. This is why we cannot allow the policy to be reinstituted with another shifting of political powers.

Good family planning and safe abortions are a necessary part of reducing maternal mortality – something we as a nation have pledged our commitment to through our support of the Millennium Development Goals. By instituting a framework of family planning that includes education about contraceptives and abortion this is definitely an achievable outcome. Like Hillary and Bill Clinton, I believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Reproductive rights are devoid of worth where governments, organizations, and individuals fall short of comprehending or recognizing those rights. Their own people, not just international bodies, must hold governments accountable to the commitments they make in international agreements. Safe abortions are instrumental to a woman’s right to life and right to enjoy good health. By making abortion legal and safe, millions of maternal deaths each year would be prevented! This is huge. There is an epidemic. Creating economically and socially feasible avenues to safe abortion reduces unsafe abortion rates and maternal mortality. In order to prevent future unwanted pregnancies the incorporation of safe abortions needs to be involved in the discussion of family planning methods. Combining unfettered access to US aid for family planning to the Millennium Development Goals established by the U.N to reduce poverty will strengthen the U.S. role in developing countries. Failure to do that and returning to the whipsaw action of changing policy with each new president threatens not only the U.S. perceived place as a world leader but millions of lives.

Secretary Hillary Clinton Defending Reproductive Rights and Family Planning:

What is your opinion? – Jozi Patricia

Reclaiming Feminism

Yes, I am a feminist. Am I a bra-burning, man-hating liberal fanatic that believes I am better off without our male counterparts? No. I believe in gender equality. Don’t get me wrong, bras are constricting and sexism whether overt or subtle has been a permanent fixture in my life. It is because of the latter, I believe changing the societal perpetuation of male oppression is of paramount importance. But, this cannot be accomplished without including men in the feminist discussion.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “feminism” as the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities; in other words political, economic, and social equality for both sexes. So then, how have the terms feminist and misandrist (hatred of men) become so interchangeable in today’s culture?

It saddens me when I hear friends distance themselves from the feminist movement. All too often I hear someone say, “Oh no way, I am not a feminist! Don’t associate me with that!” What is that – the belief that men and women should stand on an equal playing field in all aspects of life? In 2012, women held 16.8% and 17% of seats in the United States House and Senate, respectively. Without equal representation, how can different perspectives be considered? Theoretically, as a democratic country our votes should reflect societal norms. Does that mean that it is ingrained into our mindset that the male perspective is better equipped to create laws and policies that govern women’s agency over their bodies?

For my inaugural post to Millennial Muse, I want to encourage readers to reclaim feminism as a means to both gender equality and the end of a patriarchal state. I am not just talking to women. It is crucial for men to be part of this movement as well. Feminist discourse might actually have a more significant impression on men than women. Inevitably, men still hold more responsibility for ending gender inequalities. They consistently, and perhaps unknowningly, take part in the unending cycle of male dominance. As women, we understand our oppression because we live it on a daily basis. Many men lack the understanding of gender privilege because they hold the position of power. In order to achieve gender equality, there needs to be a transformation in the construction of gender relations. Feminism is about equality among genders. While radicalism exists, it is not the basis of the movement. Men can be, should be, and are feminists. I am a feminist and if you believe in gender equality, you too are a feminist.

-Jozi Pat

 

The Response:

I have a confession; I am one of those people who find it hard to define myself as a feminist. I’m sure many of the Muses would throw up their hands in outrage at this statement, but hear me out.

Growing up a millennial girl in a household with two very ambitious parents I always felt like it was my destiny to successfully wear as many hats as possible in order to emulate them.  My mother juggled her growing career, her return to higher master’s level education, the household upkeep, volunteer projects, committee chairs, and her family; she is truly a magician and a woman to look up to. I think by definition, my mom embodies what it means to be a modern day feminist; “a woman who does it all”.

But, the truth is… I don’t know if I want it all.

The thing is, I don’t want to be a man, but I want the same rights that my future husband has in life. If I have children I want to be the one who is there when they get home from school and if that means giving up some aspects of my career, fine, but I won’t give up all of it. I want to be the lady in my relationships and I still give a man bonus points if he opens my door or pays on the first date, but I want to be able to return the chivalry. I want maternity leave, I don’t want to be drafted, I don’t mind being the one to cook the family meals, but if I do the same work as a man I expect you to pay me adequately!

Some people would say you can’t be feminist if you make exceptions. That it is all or nothing, but I have never been one for labels, so starting today I will define me; I will define my own feminism.

– Samantha Courtney