Repeal the Global Gag Rule

The economic crisis demands bold and immediate action, with resources mobilized at every level to restore growth and stability. The fight to achieve progressive change on energy, health, education, and environmental policy will require years of sustained effort against determined opposition. With Barack Obama's leadership, we are ready to wage these battles, but let's remember that there are also immediate actions that will achieve dramatic positive results quickly.

President Obama and the new Congress can place American foreign policy firmly on the side of free speech, of women's health, and of doctors and care providers, who understand that family planning is a cornerstone of social stability, economic growth, and public health in the developing world. And we can do it quickly, simply, cleanly, without a penny of cost to the taxpayers.

Just repeal the "Global Gag Rule."

This rule, which has been a major priority for conservatives, was first enacted by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and restored eight years ago by George W. Bush. The rule restricts U.S. family planning assistance -- including donated contraceptives that prevent unintended pregnancies -- from going to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to perform abortions; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country.

If applied here in the United States, such a rule would be patently unconstitutional, a violation of free speech. Abroad, it is responsible for untold misery and, in tragic irony, has almost certainly increased the number of unintended pregnancies and put millions of women's and children's lives at risk. International maternal and reproductive health organizations often provide the only health services in some third world villages. Many refuse to comply with this regulation that endangers their patients and forego U.S. aid, scaling back their capacity. Other providers accept the funding and with it the constraints that prevent them from offering what are often life-saving services.

Since President Bush reinstated the "Global Gag Rule" on his first day in office, my fight to overturn it has been stymied by Republican majorities, then veto threats. In typical fashion, the Bush Administration has resisted reasonable compromise. Just a year ago, the foreign aid bill I authored would have allowed the federal government to donate contraceptives to international health organizations. This compromise passed Congress with the support of pro-choice and pro-life Members, but President Bush threatened to veto all funding for international aid to prevent it from becoming law.

I look forward to working in the new Congress with the Obama Administration to finally repeal the "Global Gag Rule," as we pledged in the Democratic National Platform during the campaign. Few actions would benefit more people with less effort, or send a more dramatic signal to the world that America is prepared once again to be a leader for individual rights, personal dignity, and commonsense policy that saves lives.

The author is Chairwoman of the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

Comments

[dapperd72]

The global "gag rule" is another right-wing abomination, as Rep. Lowey aptly implies. The Republican Party, which perenially describes itself as "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty, wars based on lies, agribusiness slaughterhouses, vivisection & umpteen other atrocities of modern Americana, opposes a woman's right to ob/gyn services that don't serve their own patriarchal agenda. As George Carlin used to correctly declare, "When these people call themselves `pro-life,' they're talking about their right to decide which people should live or die." If we call ourselves "pro-life" in any context, it behooves all of us, regardless of political affiliation to promote the most effective and pragmatic, least harmful solutions to benefit women worldwide, regardless of their ethnicity, religion or skin color. The Hippocratic Oath, which all medical doctors are inherently sworn to uphold, has always maintained as its first credo, "First, do no harm." Any MD who violates this principle with racist, misogynistic policies such as Reagan and Bush, Jr., (imposed for the past 8 years) should be stripped of her/jhis license to practice medicine anywhere. I sincerely hope future Secretary Tom Daschle as HHS Secretary will advocate exactly this policy for medical practice where women would otherwise be denied the medical services they need Republican paradigms are not endorsed therein. Mazel Tov to Nita Lowey for her moral courage!

[tergellian]

Absolutely correct. Should have been done by Clinton - a truly meaningful way to strengthen America's commitment to alleviating poverty and suffering around the world. What a horrible idea in the first place.

[rich misty]

"And I especially love it when Dems use the phrase "restore free speech". Except for Conservatives, of course."

Conservatives only cherish free speech they can dominate with their hysteria.

[Rule Of Law]

The last eight years of dictatorship aside, the American People have a reputation for the greatest compassion, biggest hearts, and the courage to follow their feelings and act!

America set the standard when it comes to helping other human beings! We've always understood that change comes when someone is not afraid to take the lead and do what needs to be done; that others will see that example and become more proactive. And it has worked!

Every major religion has a missionary or aid program that does good works in other countries--this is especially true for the fundamentalist American religions! In many ways they've set the tone for how other religions minister to the poor, the war ravaged, and those in true need. Culturally, we have a history of helping the world, either as individuals, groups or as government entities.

While the methods or areas of concern are not always the same, the goal of all those people is--to help other people. It is noble and right. To not do so would be the province of little minds! Those too greedy or self absorbed to see that we are all truly brothers. But even for those who think only of themselves, there are far reaching and long lasting financial gains from preventing over population, starvation and the wars those things cause. It only makes sense, like crime prevention, to work on the problems we face now in order to avoid the cost of even bigger problems later!

[RightWingMarine]

Polititcians just love to spend our money. Why is it the responsibility of the United States taxpayer to provide healthcare at all to anyone? Even moreso to non-Americans? By what Constitutional authority does Congress and the President take this power?

When someone is in need and we reach into our own pockets to help that person that is a good and laudable thing. To reach into someone else's pocket, regardless of what is done with the money, is theft. When the government does it it is government sponsored theft. If you believe that we should be helping the world's poor out of some noblese oblige do so with your own money and stop using mine!

[MathIsTruth]

I direct your attention to the Preamble of the United States Constitution. Promoting better health at home and abroad certainly helps to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Also, due to the fact that the U.S. government is given its power by "We the People" any act of spending tax payer money is, in fact, an act of us "reaching into our own pockets".

[RightWingMarine]

Since we don't have the option of choosing which government programs we would pay for but rather have taxes compulsory I submit that government spending is not the same as us reaching into our own pockets. If someone chooses to not pay their taxes eventually men with guns will come to collect.

James Madison President, co-author of the Federalist papers and Father of the Consititution said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Since he wrote the document he seems like a rather credible source. I submit that the American people and the ideas of the Preamble would be better served if our government weren't so spend happy and relieved us of some of these taxes that fund useless or duplictious depts.

[sdskelton03]

Taxpayers in the United States shouldn't be funding abortions or abortion advocacy in foreign countries.

[camper65]

Or at home, for that matter! And I especially love it when Dems use the phrase "restore free speech". Except for Conservatives, of course.

[jpopphan]

"Free speech" must mean an entirely different thing for liberals than it does for conservatives.

For conservatives, "free speech" is when they get to talk and no one can challenge them on their words and the only speech is their speech. Their voice is the only voice.

For liberals, "free speech" is for everyone. Even people with whom we disagree.

[cardinale]

This isn't about us funding abortions. It's about the fact that the US is not allowed to support in any way an organization that does provide abortions. If there is an organization in a third world country that does all sorts of good things, such as provide educations, vaccinations, help deliver clean water, treats diseases such as dengue fever or malaria, etc., but also provides information on abortions, we cannot help that organization in any way. We cannot help them donate nets to prevent malaria. We can't give them vaccinations to prevent all sorts of diseases that are easily prevented, or books or slates for their schools . We can't help them treat people in any way. The gag rule should definitely be repealed.

[sdskelton03]

And we should not support "in any way" any organization that provides abortions.

btw: even better than nets is DDT. It can be used safely in lower quantities and would save millions of lives.