"To be clear, this policy is an attack on women's bodily autonomy and freedom, and we will see an increase in unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions as a result."
Good grief. Interfering with how care is given in other countries. How embarrassing. And it's clear that it's one he hopes to slip by without it being noticed. We must notice. We must not be quiet:
Do be aware this link includes the studio video of the song, which has some very disturbing visuals.
This is a shameful attack not only on all women, but on the First Amendment Establishment Clause - the (supposed) separation between church and state - between "religious" tyranny and secular liberty!
This absurd hideous little man plays to divisive "religious" extremism and bigotry with his R'Con allies, and it will only get worse as he has zero grasp whatsoever of common decency!
The so-called "Christian" right and their narrow, shallow concepts of male-dominated religion are a danger and threat to all, whose understanding of the true meaning of religious teachings is on par with a log.........
What is this? A room full of men making decisions to tell all women in America that your rights are irrelevant?
And a room full of hypocritical 'christians' who oppose abortion--they don't have to worry about getting pregnant--while pushing wars, destroying wages and jobs, racist ideologies, policing and incarceration, refusing to support the social safety net and paying taxes. Trump has been the 'unifier' of all those groups of haters. Daily pressure needs to be placed on our US representatives on all matters.
"What the Mexico City policy does factor in, however, is the expectation, first implemented in 1984 and last rescinded in 2009, that groups overseas in receipt of federal funds 'agree as a condition [of their funding to] neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning' even if they do so with their own funds or non-U.S. funds [emphasis added]. Its critics have dubbed this expectation, the “Global Gag Rule.”
Expect more. This is just the beginning.
This article is a bit misleading - yes it states that this rule regards international charities, but then goes on to discuss it as though we're talking about the US. Roe vs Wade, which is an American law, it's not relevant here. I'm a bit surprised at CD. This has nothing to do with American women. This is to do with US NGOs operating in other countries.
"The rule, which affects American non-governmental organizations working abroad, is one that incoming presidents have used to signal their positions on abortion rights." Reuters (sorry cant post a link yet)
As an aside:
I'm thoroughly pro choice, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's entirely ethical for the US to go into poor countries and provide birth control and abortions, among other forms of "aid". Having said that, it's just an extension of how I feel about NGO's from the US and other western countries in the third world in general. It's paternalistic and an extension of neocolonialism.
It's an act of the American chief executive, so it certainly has to do with American women. American women are part of US NGOs. American women are part of the international sisterhood. What's wrong with it is interfering in how independent, NONgovernmental organizations provide the aid they choose to provide.
Note, @Shantiananda, it's not just about women in America.
These NGO's are being funded by the US government but they aren't governing organizations because they exist in countries that are not the US.
I don't really care if American women are the ones working in the NGOs, it doesn't change my opinion as a woman, that it's ethically questionable.
This doesn't surprise me too much. Our birthrate is down a little from the last thing i read in New Scientist. When any country's birthrate is down, politicians have a tendency to do something about it. Russia literally has people take a day off once a year to fornicate (thats a funny word). This is going to jump our birthrate up in a couple of years. You cant ever have enough serfs.
Then don't work with them or donate to them. But it's just like the crap around Planned Parenthood: Just because an org is getting US funds to, say, provide malnutrition care or vaccinations doesn't mean we should be able to tie providers' hands about answering a woman's inquiry about not bringing another child into the world before she can provide for it herself.
Your quote below exactly describes how we now have the political horror show at hand. These folks are his stoutest defenders. We would be much better
off if male-dominated religion would stick to religion, instead of trying, through political means,, to force their ideology on everyone else.
More and more, I'm becoming convinced that nothing "male-dominated" has ever worked out very well.
"The so-called "Christian" right and their narrow, shallow concepts of male-dominated religion are a danger and threat to all, whose understanding of the true meaning of religious teachings is on par with a log......"
Where just getting started
There's a feminist Bible scholar (and yes, we do exist) who has dared to suggest that patriarchy may have needed to be invented, way back when the Hebrew Testament was only tribal stories, precisely because men felt so inadequate in the face of women's procreative power. It looked as though women got pregnant only when they'd had the services of men, but clearly it didn't happen every time. The women seemed to be in control somehow. Poor little guys. So they took control. They explained that women were not much more than flowerpots, charged with nurturing what only men had the power to plant. And if we didn't conceive and deliver, it was our fault. We were "barren."
Attempts to control our choices about our fertility are only continuations of this poor, wounded pride.
Yeah right, you are pro choice but advocate no choice for women in the third world. I don't buy it.
There's not enough food and clean water for all the people on this planet and they seem to think that adding millions of more people is the answer.
I see your point in the sense, if an NGO is taking taxpayer funds, the president is free to dictate the use of those funds. That certainly does not impact American law in the states.
That being said, I don't know why birth control measures would be more unethical to ban than other medical necessities. Perhaps the president should "gag" vaccinations or maybe tonsillectomies? Maybe the use of pain killers and decongestants too?
I agree with you 100% as it applies to the US and other developed western countries with similar cultures, social structures, laws and attitudes. I think it's absolutely not our place to go out and play the white savior in countries made and kept poor by our own exploitative, racist and greed driven societies - more useful would be to cut these colonialist chains and curb the missionary attitudes.
Worry about abortion access here at home, where this energy is needed.
I'm afraid you're poorly informed about what most missionaries today are doing in the postcolonial world, let alone secular NGOs. It is absolutely our place to do what we can, especially where we've had any hand before in creating bad situations. These countries can't do it alone.
No, I'm not "poorly informed", I simply have a different perspective.
I think you ought to google the term "white savior" and have a gander.