On Monday, May 18, in a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, John Barsa, the acting administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), urged the UN to remove all references to sexual and reproductive health from its COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), emphasizing that classification of access to abortion as an “essential service” risked undermining a united response to the global crisis.
While reminding the UN of USAID’s $650.7 million contribution to pandemic funding, Barsa reaffirmed the country’s support to “nations that have pledged to protect the unborn”, and criticized the HRP, stating that it was “most egregious that it calls for widespread distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion supplies, and for the promotion of abortion in local country settings”. He added that dropping the provision of abortion as an essential component of the UN’s plan was crucial to avoid creating controversy and “unnecessary discord” in the global COVID-19 response.
The letter is just another brazen example of Trump’s America abandoning its leadership role, and that too during a global crisis. It has quite rightly received criticism from human rights experts and groups. Akila Radhakrishnan, the president of the Global Justice Centre, for instance, said that it was “a disgraceful and dangerous attack on essential health services at the worst possible time”. Michelle Nunn, the CEO of CARE International, said she was dismayed by the letter, adding that “sexual and reproductive health is and always has been a critical part of any humanitarian response” and that lives depend on it.
However, while the audacious nature of the move may be distinct to the Trumpian era, the goal behind it is hardly new. Rather, it merely replicates core elements of the “Mexico City Policy”–which has been implemented on an off since 1984 in the United States–that conditions US funding for global family planning on a commitment from NGOs that they will not promote or perform abortions using funds from any source. Democratic presidents, including Barack Obama, have issued memorandums through the years that rescind the rule, but Republican presidents have reinstated it.
Under previous Republican administrations, the restrictions in the policy applied specifically to US family planning funds, which amounted to roughly $575 billion. On January 23, 2017, the Trump administration extended the application of the policy to the vast majority of US bilateral global health assistance, estimated at $8.8 billion, including funding support for family planning and reproductive health, maternal and child health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS under the President’s Plan for Emergency Relief for AIDS (PEPFAR), prevention and treatment of tuberculosis, malaria, infectious diseases, and even to water, sanitation, and hygiene programs.
Additionally, since 2019, and for the first time ever, the policy prohibits foreign NGOs who receive US funding from providing any financial support using any source of funds to other organizations (national or foreign) that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. This further extends its reach to other areas of US development assistance beyond global health and to other non-US funding streams. It is ironic that a country that for years has based its foreign policies on shaping the world in its image by exporting its Western belief systems across the globe is now seeking to curb any and all efforts by local or foreign entities to do the same.
The repercussions of such a policy initiated by the largest donor for global health obviously has profoundly damaging impacts. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the policy–which opponents derisively call the ‘Global Gag Rule’–undermines the progress on improving health outcomes around the world. With less access to contraception to women and girls, especially from poorer countries, it could result in unintended pregnancies and more frequent–and often unsafe–abortions. A study released by the Center for Global Development (CGD) in June 2018 showed that when the Mexico City Policy was in effect abortion rates in sub-Saharan Africa rose by 40% due to reduced use of contraceptives and increased pregnancies. Unsafe abortions also increase the risk of causing preventable maternal deaths in places with high maternal mortality rates. If organizations lose US funding, they may be forced to cut services linked to newborn, infants, and child health–including vaccinations or nutrition programs. Furthermore, the restrictions imposed by the policy could prevent health providers and activists from sharing information with patients about abortion or from discussing potential reforms to regressive laws without losing US funding.
It is widely accepted that women and children are disproportionately affected during crises. In the midst of an all-consuming pandemic, gendered discourse and solutions tend to be overlooked, and neglecting them can impose catastrophic consequences upon millions of vulnerable women. Right now, as most countries have diverted their infrastructure to battle the coronavirus, experts have warned that there is a simultaneous global human rights crisis looming in the form of an unprecedented threat to reproductive rights and women’s health. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that coronavirus-induced lockdowns have led to an increase in domestic violence, which can lead to forced and unintended pregnancies. Therefore, to mitigate this threat, the World Health Organization (WHO) has urged authorities to treat abortion as an essential healthcare service.
Of course, the US going against WHO’s recommendations is not surprising, given the current tensions between the two. In recent months, the Trump administration has focused its energies on blaming China and the WHO for their handling of the virus outbreak. In fact, Barsa sent the letter to Guterres on the same day that President Donald Trump threatened to pull out of the WHO altogether if it did not commit to “major substantial improvements”. Moreover, this is not the first time that the US has retreated from internationally agreed-upon norms and sought to silence the UN on language relating to sexual and reproductive health. In April 2019, it got its way after threatening to veto a UN Security Council resolution on ending wartime rape if references to reproductive health were not removed.
The inherent contradictions characterizing the US’ manipulation of global norms, values, and institutions are borne out in Barsa’s letter. In it, he talks about the need to “use clear language and take clear action to address the real needs of vulnerable people around the world”. This, of course, ignores the fact that the Trump administration has systematically tried to dismantle any opportunities to make that happen, and undermined efforts to help the world’s most vulnerable residents–women. The United States is also among the small minority of countries that have not yet ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), in a list that includes Iran and Sudan. According to the United Nations Human rights Committee’s General Comment on the Right to Life, abortion is a human right, preventable maternal deaths are a violation of the right to life, and the right to life begins at birth. However, especially with the upcoming election in November, the Republican-led US government is ramping up its disdain for international norms and looks set to continue on this path to ensure support from its core right-wing conservative, catholic and evangelical Christian fan base.
Such actions also only further harm the US’ credibility as a global leader. The US was once heralded as the purveyor of key values such as equity and opportunity for all, human rights, democratic governance, rule of law, and environmental sustainability to project power and influence in the world–whether it was through the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or foreign policy objectives. However, over the years, and particularly under the Trump administration, it has become clear that its agenda-setting capabilities have transformed into a commitment to bullying countries and institutions into submission, either through financial or military coercion. While Barsa’s letter does not allude to any changes in US’ funding to the UN (yet), the action is just another sorry example of the current administration’s obsession with ideology, rather than sound policy aimed at helping those most in need.
Image Source: Foreign Policy
American Aid Comes at a Cost: US Urges UN to Remove Access to Abortion From COVID Response
May 22, 2020
