Women in many areas have little access to birth control and contraceptives on a reliable basis. Refugees have even less control over their circumstances. The stupidity of the Reagan and Bush administrations policies about restricting even discussion of abortion has reduced the access to birth control for many years. President Clinton recinded the "Mexico City Policy" but it was reinstated almost immediately by Shrub. President Obama also recinded the policy, but funding uncertainties have made it hard for organizations that provide family planning and contraception to women in many areas.
Here is an excellent article about the effect of restricting abortions on refugee women:
The Mexico City Policy and Its Consequences for RefugeesEach 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
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 Obama’s 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 Full disclosure - I am related to the author of this article. It was originally written and accepted for publication before the election last fall and she had to amend it at the last minute it to reflect President Obama's recinding of the "Mexico City Policy" as enforced by the Bush administration.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
