Britain Pledges $5 Million for Worldwide Abortion Services

[batgirl]

Anti-Abortion Group Outraged by Funding
Britain Pledges $5 Million to Help Worldwide Abortion Services
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1585277

Feb. 6, 2006 — A U.S. anti-abortion group has expressed outrage over the announcement that Britain will pledge more than $5 million — about 3 million pounds — to the Global Safe Abortion Programme, which helps women in developing nations receive access to safe abortions.

Joe Scheidler, the national director of the U.S. Pro-Life Action League, said the funding wouldn't solve the problems of women in developing nations.


"Our great natural resource is people. This is the type of thing that's outrageous to us. … Every abortion is unsafe. It's an invasion," he said. "Pregnancy is not a disease."


The British government said the money would help take the place of funding lost because of the Global Gag Rule, a law created during President Reagan's administration and revived under the current Bush administration. The law bans U.S. funding to nongovernmental organizations that promote or discuss abortion services — even in countries where abortion is legal.

"We know from experience that the absence of sexual and reproductive health services results in an increase in unintended pregnancies and, inevitably, a greater number of unsafe abortions," said U.K. International Development Minister Gareth Thomas in a released statement. "That is why the U.K. will support organizations like the IPPF [International Planned Parenthood Federation] that are providing medical care and information to help save women's lives. … I would urge other donors to follow our lead and make a contribution to this life-saving initiative that could improve the lives of thousands of poor women in the developing world."

According to the World Health Organization, about 19 million women undergo unsafe abortions worldwide each year, most of them taking place in Africa, Asia and Latin America. About 68,000 women die annually from related complications.


WHO defines unsafe abortion as a "procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards, or both."

Scheidler said that aid should be directed to preventing the need for abortion in the first place, and helping families stay together.

I thought this was really interesting and was frankly a little surprised to see it.

This may be naive, but let's try not to make this thread only about LMC We know her views, let's just try to ignore them. Thanks.

[lawyerlee]

Sweet! I'm so glad to see that England has stepped up to fill the void left by our narrowminded policies. :)

[IrisHope]

Bravo To England

[msnicolea]

Outstanding!

[batgirl]

Had you guys ever heard of the "Global Gag Rule" before? I hadn't but am not surprised by its existence.

[msnicolea]

Had you guys ever heard of the "Global Gag Rule" before? I hadn't but am not surprised by its existence.

Unfortunately. It is outrageous:

The global gag rule states that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that accept U.S. population assistance have to agree not to provide abortions. They also may not refer patients to other abortion providers, counsel patients on the option of abortion, or even lobby for abortion legalization or reform in their countries. They may not participate in any of these activities, even if they do so with their own funds.

[batgirl]

The global gag rule states that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that accept U.S. population assistance have to agree not to provide abortions. They also may not refer patients to other abortion providers, counsel patients on the option of abortion, or even lobby for abortion legalization or reform in their countries. They may not participate in any of these activities, even if they do so with their own funds.

Oh god... I figured it was something like that...

[JamBray]

The global gag rule states that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that accept U.S. population assistance have to agree not to provide abortions. They also may not refer patients to other abortion providers, counsel patients on the option of abortion, or even lobby for abortion legalization or reform in their countries. They may not participate in any of these activities, even if they do so with their own funds.

Wow, that's just ridiculous!

Well, kudos to Britain for stepping up to the plate in this matter.

[msnicolea]

More here:

http://www.globalgagrule.org/

[mamahammer]

I'd much rather see that kind of money go towards education and access to birth control rather than to abortion services. Providing these women with abortions doesn't do anything to help them not become pregnant again. Makes me very, very sad.

[chrisinluv]

Thanks for posting this!

Oh goody! Yet one more reason to donate cash to Planned Parenthood.

They even tell you what (http://www.ippfwhr.org/) you can "buy" for certain amounts!

[msnicolea]

First: Annually, some 19 million women have unsafe abortions and nearly 70,000 die from sepsis and hemorrhage, according to the World Health Organization.

This money will SAVE lives.

Secondly, the money will fund agencies such as Marie Stopes International which does family planning, not just provide abortions. These agencies are being denied funding because they present abortion as one of many options--so, they can't even educate people about safer sex OR provide contraceptives without losing millions of dollars because of this $%^&#$^&#$% rule.

http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/

[jp'swife]

This may be naive, but let's try not to make this thread only about LMC We know her views, let's just try to ignore them. Thanks.

Wow.

[lawyerlee]

I'd much rather see that kind of money go towards education and access to birth control rather than to abortion services. Providing these women with abortions doesn't do anything to help them not become pregnant again. Makes me very, very sad.
Do you even know what the Global Gag Rule is?

[batgirl]

I'd much rather see that kind of money go towards education and access to birth control rather than to abortion services. Providing these women with abortions doesn't do anything to help them not become pregnant again. Makes me very, very sad.

I understand your point. Personally, I would like to see us provide money that goes towards education, access to birth control AND safe abortion services. In many parts of the world (Africa for example) so many of the woman are raped that just education and birth control wouldn't help. And jeez, we can't even get sex ed and birth control in OUR communities (mamahammer this wasn't directed at you, just my rants of frustration! ;) )

msnicolea thanks for posting your links. Its obvious that you know a lot of about this.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

This may be naive, but let's try not to make this thread only about LMC We know her views, let's just try to ignore them. Thanks.
Naive? No, I wouldn't call your request naive. There are plenty of things I'd call it, but naive is not one of them. :rolleyes:

[batgirl]

This was posted by Human Rights Watch regarding sexual violence during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda by the Hutu militia groups. It was published in 1996 but accounts of this (rapes, torture, murder) are still occuring at an alarming rate today...

Although the exact number of women raped will never be known, testimonies from survivors confirm that rape was extremely widespread and that thousands of women were individually raped, gang-raped, raped with objects such as sharpened sticks or gun barrels, held in sexual slavery (either collectively or through forced "marriage") or sexually mutilated. These crimes were frequently part of a pattern in which Tutsi women were raped after they had witnessed the torture and killings of their relatives and the destruction and looting of their homes. According to witnesses, many women were killed immediately after being raped.

Other women managed to survive, only to be told that they were being allowed to live so that they would "die of sadness."

http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Rwanda.htm

This is why these clinics need to provide abortion services in a safe environment.

[batgirl]

Naive? No, I wouldn't call your request naive. There are plenty of things I'd call it, but naive is not one of them. :rolleyes:

Do you disagree with me? All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have a debate that doesn't turn into a, oh brother, what would you even call it... Just look at the "Yet another hate crime" thread. If you started reading it on page two, would you even know what it was about?

[mamahammer]

Do you even know what the Global Gag Rule is?
I don't know if it's just because my only contact with you has been in this forum, but your responses have to be some of the snottiest and most condescending I have come across. There is no need for rudeness when none has been directed towards you.

And, yes, I do know what the Global Gag Rule is. Do I agree with it? No. And I didn't claim to. I was speaking specifically about the article posted that said Britain would be providing $5 million for abortions worldwide. I said it makes me sad - on an emotional level, makes me sad. Do I think it's right that we, as a nation, won't provide any financial assistance to groups who even mention abortions? No. Would I be okay with us saying that the money we give cannot be used to perform or counsel towards abortions? Yes.

Again. No rudeness in my response. And you might, if given the chance, find out that I am a well-informed, educated centerist Democrat who doesn't need nor deserve your disdain and condescension.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Do you disagree with me? All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have a debate that doesn't turn into a, oh brother, what would you even call it... Just look at the "Yet another hate crime" thread. If you started reading it on page two, would you even know what it was about?
You think that calling someone out in the start of the thread is the way to keep a topic on track?
If you don't want it to be a debate on abortion, then just say "here's the story- I don't want this to be a debate on abortion."

[batgirl]

You think that calling someone out in the start of the thread is the way to keep a topic on track?
If you don't want it to be a debate on abortion, then just say "here's the story- I don't want this to be a debate on abortion."

Yeah, your probably right... I let my frustrations get the best of me.

[lawyerlee]

I don't know if it's just because my only contact with you has been in this forum, but your responses have to be some of the snottiest and most condescending I have come across. There is no need for rudeness when none has been directed towards you.

And, yes, I do know what the Global Gag Rule is. Do I agree with it? No. And I didn't claim to. I was speaking specifically about the article posted that said Britain would be providing $5 million for abortions worldwide. I said it makes me sad - on an emotional level, makes me sad. Do I think it's right that we, as a nation, won't provide any financial assistance to groups who even mention abortions? No. Would I be okay with us saying that the money we give cannot be used to perform or counsel towards abortions? Yes.

Again. No rudeness in my response. And you might, if given the chance, find out that I am a well-informed, educated centerist Democrat who doesn't need nor deserve your disdain and condescension.

I'm going to ignore the bullshit here and focus on the issues. The Global Gag Rule never had anything to do with actually paying for abortions. It went much further than that and your prior comments made me wonder if you had read the rule itself. Further, I think it's incredibly condescending to suggest that you have any reason to be "sad" that women's health will be preserved because they will now have access to a safe, necessary procedure. Who are any of us to pass judgment on the circumstances giving rise to an abortion? :(

[mamahammer]

I understand your point. Personally, I would like to see us provide money that goes towards education, access to birth control AND safe abortion services. In many parts of the world (Africa for example) so many of the woman are raped that just education and birth control wouldn't help. And jeez, we can't even get sex ed and birth control in OUR communities (mamahammer this wasn't directed at you, just my rants of frustration! ;) )

msnicolea thanks for posting your links. Its obvious that you know a lot of about this.

I totally understand what you're saying. And I get just as worked up about the lack of real sex education in our own communities :) And I do totally understand the desire for safe abortions in countries where woman and children are being raped by militias and then being left behind by their husbands for being "unclean." I would still like to see more sex education and access to proper birth control in those countries, but that, as you said, won't solve the problems. The problems in places like the Congo and Sudan and Zaire go much deeper than unwanted pregnancies, sexual diseases, etc. It's an issue of human rights and moral depravity and poverty and...well, it's much bigger than abortion, money or birth control. I think we totally agree on that ;)

[mamahammer]

I'm going to ignore the bullshit here and focus on the issues. The Global Gag Rule never had anything to do with actually paying for abortions. It went much further than that and your prior comments made me wonder if you had read the rule itself. Further, I think it's incredibly condescending to suggest that you have any reason to be "sad" that women's health will be preserved because they will now have access to a safe, necessary procedure. Who are any of us to pass judgment on the circumstances giving rise to an abortion? :(

Gah. Again. Don't know what in the world I did to get your panties in a wad. But...

As I said, I do know about the Global Gag Rule, and I don't agree with it's very premise. I think it does much more harm than good and totally negates our claims about being concerned about global human rights.

My "sadness" is not about anyone's access to healthcare. How incredibly insulting for you to suggest that. My sadness has more to do with the fact that there is a foregone need for abortions because of the situations in places like the Congo. I know the need exists. But that doesn't make it any easier for me to hear about/read about/think about the desire to fund what I believe to be the killing of innocent children.

But I hadn't gone there originally because we all know where that debate goes and it's a pointless argument.

[lawyerlee]

Gah. Again. Don't know what in the world I did to get your panties in a wad. But...

As I said, I do know about the Global Gag Rule, and I don't agree with it's very premise. I think it does much more harm than good and totally negates our claims about being concerned about global human rights.

My "sadness" is not about anyone's access to healthcare. How incredibly insulting for you to suggest that. My sadness has more to do with the fact that there is a foregone need for abortions because of the situations in places like the Congo. I know the need exists. But that doesn't make it any easier for me to hear about/read about/think about the desire to fund what I believe to be the killing of innocent children.

But I hadn't gone there originally because we all know where that debate goes and it's a pointless argument.

I can't read your mind, and I certainly don't know you. Why would you assume everyone knows what you mean when you've made one remark about something without explaining yourself? :confused:

And I wouldn't think that matching what you perceive as hostility with the same makes you any better. I don't know you or anything about you. I have nothing against you, so let's let it lie, why don't we. :)

[mamahammer]

Agreed :)

[flygirl]

I'm way too late in responding, and I'm glad to see this already addressed in the thread, but I just want to reiterate the suggestion of not calling out specific members before they've even posted in the thread.