Join Our Community!
Share
Abortion > Abortion Pro Choice Forum > Britain to Fund Abortion Services
Avatar
Q: Britain to Fund Abortion Services
asked by: oopoopoop on February 6th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
Http://politics.Guardian.Co.Uk/development /story/0,,1703082,00.Html?Gusrc=rss

sarah boseley
monday february 6, 2006
the guardian

the british government will today publicly defy the united states by giving money for safe abortion services in developing countries to organisations that have been cut off from american funding.

Nearly 70,000 women and girls died last year because they went to back-street abortionists. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered serious injuries.

Critics of america's aid policy say some might have lived if the us had not withdrawn funding from clinics that provide safe services - or that simply tell women where to find them.

The "global gag" rule, as it has become known, was imposed by president george bush in 2001. It requires any organisation applying for us funds to sign an undertaking not to counsel women on abortion - other than advising against it - or provide abortion services.

The uk will today become the founder donor of a fund set up specifically to attempt to replace the lost dollars and increase safe abortion services.

The department for international development will contribute £3m over two years. Dfid and the international planned parenthood federation (ippf) - whose clinics across the world have suffered badly - hope that others, particularly the scandinavians, dutch and canadians, will be emboldened to put money in too.

"i think the uk is being very brave and very progressive in making this commitment," said steven sinding, director general of the ippf. "we're deeply grateful for this gesture not only financially but also politically.

"tens of thousands of women who depend on our services are not able to get them. We're committed to the expansion of safe abortion because in any society no matter how efficiently contraception is made available there will be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies."

the "global gag", he said, had increased the number of unsafe abortions by stopping funding to clinics that primarily provide contraception. "what i've never been able to figure out about american policy is why they persist in cutting down funding to organisations that are about preventing unwanted pregnancies."

international development minister gareth thomas said the government hoped the us position would change: "we work very closely with the americans but we have a very different view from them on abortion. Friends can disagree.

"i recognise that the americans are not going to want to contribute at the moment. We obviously continue to hope that the position will change. It is a position that has been decided by congress so we're very aware of it and they know that."

dfid asked ippf to produce a report on the scale of the damage caused by unsafe abortion. Death and denial: unsafe abortion and poverty, is published today. It reveals that an estimated 19 million women will risk the consequences of an unsafe abortion this year, of whom 70,000 will die. This accounts for 13% of the 500,000 maternal deaths each year. Reducing unsafe abortions is critical to reaching the un's millennium development goal on cutting maternal mortality, said mr thomas.

Women's low status in many poor countries makes them vulnerable to sexual coercion, abuse and exploitation, says the report. Almost 50% of sexual assaults worldwide are against girls aged 15 or less.

The death and injury toll is highest in countries where abortion is illegal or severely restricted, as in kenya, where some 30% to 50% of maternal deaths are a result of unsafe abortion.

The family planning association of kenya, an ippf member, chose to forfeit us funds rather than sign the "global gag" clause. It was forced to close three reproductive health clinics, scale back others and slash outreach programmes.

Many other organisations are affected by the global gag, including marie stopes, which is bigger in some countries than ippf. The money from the new fund will be equitably shared among all those who have lost us funds. Ippf, which has itself lost $15m (£9m) a year for the past five years, together with the provision of contraceptives worth $2m to $4m, hopes the fund may eventually raise up to $35m.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Replies(4)
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on February 6th, 2006
Especially eHealthy
Go .Britan!!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
jenn_smithson
replied on February 9th, 2006
Active User, very eHealthy
Oh thank the .Goddess!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
maggiek
replied on May 14th, 2006
New User
Edited because poster does not belong on this forum
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
jenn_smithson
replied on May 15th, 2006
Active User, very eHealthy
maggiek wrote:
paying for all the .E.D.I.T.E.D. .F.O.R. .A.B.U.S.I.V.E. .L.A.N.G.U.A.G.E.Out there who cannot keep control of themselves, wow that is just genius!! Why don't we start up the nazi concentration camps again for all the homeless and disabled and people we don't like! That seems reasonable... Right?
do you know anything about the global gag rule? If you did, then you would know that the money that was cut go to organizations who work in severely impoverished nations all over the world. Within the vast majority of these nations, .Women do .N.O.T control their own bodies or lives. They are the property, either through direct legislation or through centuries of socialization, of the men in their lives. Simply put, they are not allowed to say ".N.O".

Further, the money is .N.O.T going to fund abortions. The global gag rule, also known as the mexico city policy, denies funding to organizations who 1)advocate changing the legal status of abortion in those nations 2)refer patients to abortion or even abortion recovery from illegal, unsafe, or botched abortions and 3)even suggest abortion as an option to the .Women that they see .Even when they use their .O.W.N money to provide these services. So, what actually happens is that these organizations who are concerned with the actual health and lives of their patients, are denied the funding that they most often use for birth control (which .P.R.E.V.E.N.T.S abortions from occurring), safe birth kits (which protect the health and lives of .Women and their children), and condoms which prevent the spread of std's.

Any mention of abortion, which for some .Women is the only option if they are to survive, will get their funding removed and removing their funding means that they have to close clinics in rural areas (which puts .Women who are not fortunate enough to live near a city in danger of death), cut back on available birth control cycles (which actually increases the number of abortions in that area because the .Women cannot say no to their fathers/uncles/brothers/husbands and also have no way to keep from becomming pregnant when sex is forced upon them), decrease the number of safe birth kits which put .Women and infants in danger of deadly infections after birth, cut back on the number of condoms they are able to give out, and cut back on instructors to teach the men how to use condoms for everyone's benefit.

absolutely .N.O funding has gone to fund abortions since a little after abortion was legalized in the .U.S both here and abroad. cutting this funding is .N.O.T stopping abortions from occurring. It is instead increasing the numbers of abortions (most often illegal and unsafe) and is also increasing the number of .Women and children who die shortly after childbirth from preventable infections and diseases.

So, to finish up your education on this topic, these .Women do not have the right to refuse sex. Because of this, they are not just being sl*ts who can't keep their legs closed. Further, the money that was cut was .N.O.T going to fund abortions in the first place. It was instead going to fund birth control, condoms, safe birth kits, and all manner of education including safer sex education, childhood nutrition, and hygiene education. Cutting this funding actually leads to .M.O.R.E illegal abortions being performed since these .Women no longer have access to reliable birth control.

Speaking to people about abstinence (so that they won't be sl*ts who open their legs) only works when .B.O.T.H partners have the right to decide when their legs do open. In many of the nations served by this funding, over half the population do not have that right simply because they were born with a vagina instead of a penis. And because they do have a vagina, uterus, and ovaries they are the property of the men around them. Property is not allowed to decide how it will be used or when.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Quick Reply
Search