General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Seven Words Deny Abortions to Women Raped in War
How Seven Words Deny Abortions to Women Raped in War
At times it can feel like the U.S. is in the Dark Ages when it comes to a womans right to choose, but the situation is actually much worse than most people know. Were so bad in fact, that we dont just stop at obstructing the right to abortion access within the U.S., we also deny it to thousands of women and girls all over the worldeven victims of war rape. Here at home, there is plenty of blame to go around, from disproportionately vocal anti-choice groups, to state legislators, to idle beneficiaries of patriarchy. For girls and women overseas, however, the obstacle to access is much more singular: President Obama.
via Feminist Campus on Instagram
Congress passed the Helms Amendment in 1973, a law saying that American foreign aid could not be used to fund abortions as a method of family planning. Traditionally, the wording abortion as a method of family planning was read by lawyers to mean that abortions were permitted where the life of the woman was at risk, or where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Enter George W. Bush, whose administration formally reinterpreted the phrase to mean no abortions for anyone, ever. That single decisionthe reinterpretation of seven wordshas meant that the U.S. does not fund or provide abortions in humanitarian settings for victims of war rape. President Obama could easily undo this decision by issuing his own interpretation that would restore those seven words to their original meaning. But he hasntObama has left Bushs abortion restrictions in place.
Far more than being a moral outrage, this policy actually violates international law. U.S. law and policy do not operate in a vacuum; they are wrapped up in a web of highly respected and fundamental international treaties and legal norms that dictate what it is we can and cannot doespecially when it relates to victims of war. Take, for example, the Geneva Conventionsa series of treaties passed after World War II that established special protections for war victims. Under the Conventions, rape victims have a right to all the medical care they need, as well as a right to be free from discrimination. The current U.S. policy denies both these rights by excluding a necessary medical service that is needed only by women. If a man is raped in war, he will receive whichever treatments he needs. When a woman or a girl is raped in war, she will receive whichever medical treatments she needsexcept one.
Some people defend the policy, claiming that providing abortions would violate local law and put doctors at risk. But, as if written with abortion in mind, the Geneva Conventions replace national laws during war, meaning that local abortion restrictions do not apply. The Conventions actually state that doctors treating war victims cannot be forced to exclude specific treatments needed by their patients.
The U.S. policy violates international law in another way: torture. At least two human rights committees at the United Nations have found that the mental and physical harm that comes with denying abortions for rape victims amounts to torture. This is not like waterboarding or other types of torture Americans may be used to hearing about, this is grounded in discrimination: only women must continue medically dangerous or unwanted pregnancies; only women suffer the mental agony and physical trauma of unsafe abortions; only women have to risk their lives because of the intentional absence of a medical procedureto which they have a right.
. . .
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/08/17/how-seven-words-deny-abortions-to-women-raped-in-war/
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I have nothing to add except to wonder what kind of sick fuck equates war rape with "family planning."
niyad
(113,323 posts)philippines. . .
Orrex
(63,213 posts)When I read that, I had to read again, because I couldn't believe that a person would actually think something like that, much less say it.
niyad
(113,323 posts)about how many men would rape if they knew they could get away with it). but, even knowing his views, he was elected anyway.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)By JAKE TAPPER, SUNLEN MILLER, HUMA KHAN
Jan. 23, 2009
President Obama signed an executive order today reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions, as first reported by ABC News.
Under the hotly debated "Mexico City Policy," the U.S. government could not provide funding for family planning services to clinics or groups that offered abortion-related services overseas, even if funding for those activities came from non-government sources. It essentially barred recipients of U.S. foreign aid from promoting abortion as a method of family planning.
If organizations received government funding, they would "agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."
The policy, dubbed the "Global Gag Rule" by abortion rights groups, was introduced by the administration of Ronald Reagan in 1984 in Mexico City, and was instituted that year. It was then overturned by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and restored by George W. Bush at the beginning of his office in 2001.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1
I'm not sure what happened - I believe the Republican led Congress passed new restrictions - but the claim that OBAMA has blocked the funds is incorrect.
As part of her master's program, a relative of mine wrote a study of the Mexico City Policy and its impact on women:
Each year, 19 million women risk their lives to undergo unsafe abortions because the procedure is illegal, severely restricted, or difficult to access. Of women who undergo unsafe abortions, as many as 80 percent face illness, injury, or disability. Globally, unsafe abortions account for approximately 68,000 deaths annually and 13 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths. As alarming as these global statistics are, the situation for refugees and internally displaced women is especially dire due to lack of access to proper facilities and services. Since refugees and internally displaced persons are in similar positions with regard to reproductive health and unsafe abortions, this paper will refer to both populations as refugees. A 1999 report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that 25 to 50 per-cent of maternal deaths in refugee settings are due to complications resulting from unsafe abortions. In addition, many who survive live with the effects of severe complications, including incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and intra-abdominal injury or long-term health problems such as chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, tubal blockage, or secondary infertility.
Many refugees are left with few alternatives to unsafe abortions. Refugee women are often subjected to forced sex and have limited access to reproductive health services, including contraceptives. This can cause a high rate of unwanted pregnancy and increases the need for safe and accessible abortion services. However, the staggering number of maternal deaths caused by unsafe abortions each year among refugees demonstrates that their reproductive health needs are not being met. As with many refugee services, reproductive health programs suffer from a lack of resources and accessibility.
Over the last two-and-a-half decades the issue has been further complicated by the Mexico City Policy. Since the U.S. policy was first instituted in 1985, it has been rescinded and reinstated several times by successive presidents of different parties. Most recently, President Barack Obama rescinded the policy on January 13, 2009. The Mexico City Policy banned U.S. funding from going to any organization that performs or promotes abortions, provides advice, counseling, referrals or information regarding abortion, or [lobbies] a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available, even if the money used for those services are private funds. Critics dubbed the policy the global gag rule because it restricts these humanitarian organizations from discussing abortion as an option for pregnant women. Since President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, many family planning and reproductive health organizations that serve refugee populations lost funding. This, in turn, has impeded access to all forms of reproductive health services, including safe abortions.
President Obamas removal of the policy is an excellent start to undoing the damage done by the policy over the last eight years. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that refugees have access to safe abortion services. Additionally, there is no guarantee that this policy will not be reinstated in the future after the current administration leaves office. It is important to understand the consequences of this policy for refugees when considering its possible reinstatement by a future administration. The inconsistency of U.S. policy puts organizations that provide reproductive health services at a disadvantage because they face continual uncertainty about their funding.
More: http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/64
The first draft had to be revised because after the paper was submitted for publication, President Obama had removed the restrictions. That is why I know that at least at the beginning of his tenure President Obama was not in favor of continuing the policy.
niyad
(113,323 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)in places like the Congo, South Sudan, etc. where we aren't even involved, and where the society is so fundamentalist few if any women would actually use the service... How much $$$ should we dump into something that people won't use?
I'd have thought it better to attack the cause of this crisis (i.e., war and political instability) instead of treating one of the symptoms. Not to sound callous, but even if a woman in a warzone goes through the trouble of getting a safe abortion, there's not much preventing her from getting raped again the next day...
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Why not?
This seems another case where Obama could bring/restore some justice by changing language: changing back to the original IRS language defining Soc Welfare Organizations from "primarily" to "entirely" non political would blow up Citizen's United, certainly knee
cap propaganda machines of the Koch's, Rove etc. They would lose the privileges of donor secrecy and tax exemption, 2 privileges in their universe which are near fetishistic.
Another obvious case is reclassifying marijuana and freeing those in prison immediately held under the archaic, cruel categorization.
Both of these simple "language" changes would generate enormous tax revenue at both Fed and local level. As it exists now, the taxpaying Americans are paying to keep marijuana users in jail and the Fascist machine fat and happy.
And, most important all 3 changes of language would be overwhelming supported by by American public and even at higher percentage by the Dems.
Makes no sense he has not and does not do take these simple steps under his power.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Violation of international law? No
The U.S. isn't preventing anyone from having an abortion, the U.S. is just refusing to fund abortions.
If the U.S. tried to stop other countries from funding abortions, that would be a violation of international law.