Mexico City policy
The Mexico City policy, sometimes referred to by its critics as the global gag rule,[1] is a former United States government policy that blocked U.S. federal funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that provided abortion counseling or referrals, advocated to decriminalize abortion, or expanded abortion services. When in effect, the Mexico City policy is a U.S. government policy that requires foreign non-governmental organizations to certify that they will not "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning" with non-U.S. funds as a condition for receiving U.S. global family planning assistance, and during its January 23, 2017 implementation any other U.S. global health assistance, including U.S. global HIV (under PEPFAR) and maternal and child health (MCH) assistance.
The Mexico City policy was first implemented on January 20, 1985, by the second Reagan administration. Since that time, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has enforced the policy during all subsequent Republican administrations and has rescinded the policy at the direction of all Democratic administrations.[2] After its initial implementation by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1985,[3] the policy was rescinded in 1993 by Democratic President Bill Clinton,[4] reinstated in 2001 by Republican President George W. Bush,[5] rescinded in 2009 by Democratic President Barack Obama,[6][7] reinstated in 2017 by Republican President Donald Trump,[8][9][10] and rescinded in 2021 by Democratic President Joe Biden.[11]
Research shows that by reducing funding for family planning organizations that use abortion as one of many methods of family planning, the Mexico City policy has had the impact of increasing unintended pregnancies and abortions.[12][13][14] By reducing access to modern contraception and information about family planning and sexual transmitted disease, the policy has been linked to higher maternal and infant mortality rates, as well as higher incidence rates of HIV.[15]
Scope of the policy[edit]
The policy requires non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds" that they would "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations".[16] The policy has exceptions for abortions performed in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.[17]
Views[edit]
The policy originally enacted from 1984 to 1993 spoke to abortion only, not family planning in general. In 2001, the policy was re-implemented and expanded to cover all voluntary family planning activities, and critics began to refer to it as the "global gag rule".[1] These critics argue that the policy not only reduces the overall funding provided to particular NGOs, it closes off their access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception.[35] They argue this negatively impacts the ability of these NGOs to distribute birth control, leading to a downturn in contraceptive use and from there to an increase in the rates of unintended pregnancies and abortion.[35] A study of nations in sub-Saharan Africa suggests that unintended pregnancies increased and abortions approximately doubled while the policy was in effect.[36] Critics also argue that the ban promotes restrictions on free speech, as well as restrictions on accurate medical information;[37][38][39] it has also been proved that the policy inhibited women worldwide from access to gynecological exams, AIDS prevention and treatment, and contraceptive options, and halted shipment of condoms and contraceptives to more than 20 countries.[40]
The Holy See supports the Mexico City policy,[41] while 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".[42] 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.[43] Supporters also argue that the policy prevents the health agencies from promoting abortion at the expense of other birth control methods.[44][45]
Related policies[edit]
The Sandbæk 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.[46] The European commissioner Poul Nielson said that the European Union wished to "fill the decency gap" left by the Mexico City policy.[47][48]
The UNFPA states that it does not "provide support for abortion services".[49] Anti-abortion individuals and organizations have accused the UNFPA of supporting forced abortions by the Chinese government.[50][51] The Bush administration 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.[52] The organization has stated that it "has never, and will never, be involved in coercion in China or any part of the world".[49]
In 2010, the Harper government in Canada announced a maternal health development aid plan for the upcoming G8 summit which did not include financial support for abortion or contraception, drawing comparisons to the Mexico City policy.[53]
In popular culture[edit]
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.[54]
An episode of the American television series The West Wing, entitled "Privateers", featured a "gag rule" amendment of a law for overseas aid.[55]