The Global Gag Rule

What is the Global Gag Rule?

After winning the Presidential Election in 2000, one of US President George W. Bush's first offical acts was was to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. This policy ensures that no United States funding can go to any organisation outside of the United States that provides abortions, discusses abortion with clients, gives out information about abortion, lobbies to change the law or to improve provision of legal abortion.

It is the prohibition even of discussion of abortion that has led opponents of the policy to name it the ‘Global Gag Rule’.

Why did Bush support the Gag Rule?

Many people believe that this policy was reinstated with the sole aim of appeasing those in the anti-choice movement in the United States who seek an abolition of abortion rights. It was a powerful demonstration of Bush’s opposition to the provision of safe and legal abortion.

Background to the policy

Abortion is an issue that divides opinion in the United States. Politicians are often forced by public opinion to come down on one side or the other of the pro-choice/anti-choice divide.

• In 1973 abortion was legalised in the United States by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Roe v Wade.
• In 1973 the Helms Amendment was passed. It meant that no US money could be used to fund abortion services overseas.
• In 1984 Republican President, Ronald Reagan, introduced the Mexico City Policy. It reflected his view that abortion should not be part of any family planning programme and that any organisation that even discussed abortion should not be funded. The Mexico City Policy went further than the Helms Amendment and meant that no US money could fund any organisation that used its own or other funders’ money to provide abortions, discuss abortion with clients, offer abortion counselling, or lobby its own government for legalisation of abortion.
• Because the policy affects the ability of organisations to speak freely about abortion, opponents named it the Global Gag Rule.
• In 1992 Democratic President, Bill Clinton, rescinded (overturned) this policy.
• One of the first things that Republican President George W. Bush did after winning the election in 2000 was to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. It remains in force today.

Consequences of the Global Gag Rule

Many organisations dedicated to providing contraceptive health care, running HIV prevention programmes and caring for pregnant women and mothers have had their funding cut as a result of this policy. They say the consequences of the Global Gag Rule have been devastating - they report:

• Fewer reproductive health care clinics and services available
• Less use of contraception
• Less understanding of safer sex methods
• An increase in unintended pregnancies
• An increase in Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS.
• A separation of abortion services from contraceptive services so that women having abortions are not receiving contraceptive advice and treatment to prevent future pregnancies.
• Fewer health awareness projects to give out information, advice and contraceptives.
• An increase in injury and infection from unsafe abortion.
• An increase in the incidence of maternal mortality (deaths of pregnant women and mothers).

Rather than preventing abortion, some critics say it has achieved precisely the opposite:

‘Contrary to its stated intentions, the Mexico City Policy results in more unwanted pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more deaths of women and girls.’

Dr. Eunice Brookman-Amissah, former Minister of Health and Ambassador for the Republic of Ghana.

Is the Gag Rule democratic?

The arguments over the Mexico City Policy have largely centred on two issues – arguments about the morality of abortion, and concerns about the impact of the policy on women’s health. In addition to these issues, opponents and supporters of the policy have raised the issue of national sovereignty and respect for local cultures.

Critics of the policy, including parliamentarians from around the world, have lobbied the United States Congress to protest against the policy, claiming it is an infringement of national sovereignty and that it contravenes international legal principles by:

• Restricting people around the world from accessing a medical procedure which is legally available in its own territory.
• Preventing overseas organisations in countries where abortion is legal from carrying out or discussing the procedure.
• Preventing the freedom of speech that would allow organisations operating in countries where abortion is illegal from lobbying for changes in the law.
• Restricting freedom of speech in a way that would be illegal if imposed on United States organisations.

‘We have great respect for the democratic principles proclaimed in the US Constitution, which are equality, freedom of speech and freedom of choice. We would only wish that the US government would follow and develop these principles not only at home on American soil, but all over the world.’

Dr. Rokitski, Russian representative at international lobby of Congress

‘I believe that the global gag rule, imposed by the U.S. Congress, stifles robust debates on women's reproductive rights in developing countries. It is retrogressive. It is repressive. It is, indeed, undemocratic.’

Dr Enyantu Ifenne of Nigeria, invited to the White House by Bill Clinton.