Newly inaugurated US President Donald Trump made the active decision to have one of his first executive orders be the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule. This Reagan-era law prohibits funding to any NGO that not only performs abortion, but even mentions it as an option to women. This law extends to referrals even in countries where this basic medical procedure is legal.
It is also true that this law would have been reinstated by any Republican president. After it was repealed by President Clinton it was reintroduced by President Bush, only to be repealed again by President Obama. It is also true that this law is dangerously disingenuous as it does not prohibit funding for abortion, as the use of American federal funding for abortion has long been prohibited by the Helms Amendment. The Global Gag Rule's effects are much more insidious. It prohibits funding to any organization that approaches women's healthcare holistically.
To be clear: this law will not reduce the amount of abortions, it will limit the amount of funding for women's healthcare that includes, but is not limited to cancer screenings, HIV treatment, prenatal care and access to contraception. It will also increase the number of unsafe, unregulated abortion services offered to families facing unwanted pregnancies. This will have a direct impact on the lives of women in impoverished countries. It will limit their right to self-determination, it will entrap them in institutionalized cycles of poverty and it will burden our already weakened ability to care for children who grow up without parents.
Living in an environment where safe, comprehensive access to healthcare for women is conditioned on who is occupying the office of the American Presidency is far from an ideal situation. This is however the reality in which we find ourselves. US aid is responsible for $3 billion (R39.8 billion) of the global health effort through organizations like USAid. That number has a direct impact on the amount of nurses staffed in health clinics in countries like Ethiopia, Nepal and Ghana where maternal mortality still reaches numbers where falling pregnant could mean losing your life.
The reintroduction of the Global Gag Rule was always going to be a consequence of a Trump presidency. As a direct opposite to this, a Clinton presidency was always going to be uniquely progressive on the issue of women's healthcare. This certainty was, somehow, not enough to sway the electorate. I am reminded constantly that not all who voted for Trump voted against women's rights as a singular issue. I hesitate to believe that the majority of people excited about a Trump presidency will readily celebrate the curtailing of medical funding to impoverished people.
Being born into a global system where a genetic lottery determines your right to command control over your future should burden our collective conscience.
This does not change the fact that those who voted for Trump - even with hesitation - or those who decided against Clinton on the premise of wanting to 'shake up the establishment' did so while gambling with the lives of women and children in our most vulnerable communities.
Being born into a global system where a genetic lottery determines your right to command control over your future should burden our collective conscience. When I was born into the immeasurable privilege of Cape Town's suburbs, I was also given control over my reproductive future with access to clean, safe and state funded family planning services. If I were born elsewhere in South Africa, elsewhere in a majority of the world, I might have already been a young mother. With less options, more responsibilities, and fewer resources: these are the circumstances that lead to women making unsafe medical decisions, remaining in abusive relationships and being unable to care for themselves or their children.
The choices that I have been able to make for my future does not outweigh the choices of women in other parts of the world. My right to self-determination does not outweigh theirs. We can't readily pretend that our political actions do not infringe upon the women and children who rely on basic medical services provided by state-funded NGOs. We can't ignore the fact that this law will lead, directly, to the deterioration of women's health services in countless communities all over the world.