| Username |
Post |
| . |
Posted
on 02-Jul-01 04:48 PM
what is W upto?
[as appeared in http://www.earthtimes.org/jul/developmentfamilyjul2_01.htm]:
US President George W. Bush's new restrictions on USAIDS threaten to cut off aid to three of the main family planning centers servicing more than 20,000 clients in rural Nepal by June 30, 2001.
Nepal is the 12th poorest nation in the world, and the loss of $100,000 of US funds would be devastating to the clinics. Never-the-less the clinics have refused to stop their family planning, namely abortion activities. Abortion is illegal in Nepal but the Family Planning Association (FPAN) the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) regional offices have been fighting to liberalize the law to improve safe access to abortions.
"FPAN is committed to reducing the number of abortions. No measure of initiative is more effective in accomplishing this than the provision of family planning information and services. Yet this move by President Bush will have the opposite effect now, by reducing the number of services provided," said Dr. Nirmal Bista, Director General of FPAN.
President Bush's first action when he took office in January 2001 was to ban all US funding to any international aid programs that endorse or provide abortions outside of the US. FPAN provides 25 percent of Nepal's contraceptive services; they have refused to comply with the new conditions.
Nepal currently has the fourth highest maternity mortality rate in the world. Some 1,500 women out of every 100,000 die in birth every year. Fifty percent of those deaths are attributed to unsafe abortion.
"Countless women in Nepal are currently seeking out unsafe abortions and paying for it, often with their health, and some times with their lives," said Dr. Indira Kapoor, IPPF's South Asia Regional Director. "It is for this reason, that as part of their commitment to improve re[productive health, FPAN and IPPF have been striving to influence policies and practices that deprive human beings of their sexual and reproductive rights."
|
| sally |
Posted
on 02-Jul-01 05:24 PM
Pathetic. But not surprising.
I wonder, though, about the source of the data that 50 percent of maternal deaths are attributed to unsafe abortions. It doesn't quite ring true, especially given that the vast majority of women give birth at home and only attempt to make it to a hospital if there's a very obvious complication, by which time it may be too late. And the hospital may be too far. Especially a good one.
It seems like another statistic pulled out of a hat. Does anyone have more info on that?
Anyway, the background on this policy is: In 1984, Ronald Reagan ended USAID support for any NGO or INGO involved in abortion, EVEN if US funds weren't used for the abortion. And EVEN if their involvement was limited to pushing to end abortion restrictions, or giving out information about birth control that included abortion.
That became known as the "Mexico City" policy. Or, as Dubya has called it, "the Mexican policy."
On his first days in office, Clinton revoked it. Then when Dubya arrived, he revoked the revocation. So it's "back to mangalman."
Now the various groups who criticized Gore as insufficiently progressive are whining about Dubya. What in the world did people who voted for Nader THINK was going to happen, anyway? Elect a Republican, get a Republican. These days, the Sierra Club has been doing a phonathon to raise funds to stop ANWR drilling ... but the Sierra Club supported Nader.
Go figure.
|
| Melissa Upreti |
Posted
on 03-Jul-01 04:45 PM
Bush gags Nepal!
I'm very happy that this issue has come up for discussion. For those of you who are interested, do go to www.crlp.org for more details. In response to Sally's comment, I'd like to say that the point is not whether or not 50% of the maternal deaths in Nepal is due to unsafe abortions, but that the US Constitution protects an American woman's right to choose whereas the US Govt. has taken away the right of many people in foreign countries to even engage in pro-choice speech.
As an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, which is currently engaged in a fight against the policy in question (the Global Gag Rule), and also as a Nepalese citizen, I believe that what the US Govt. has done is hypocritical, anti-democratic and in complete violation of international human rights standards. This is what we should be concerned about and not numbers and sources for statistics.
|
| loner |
Posted
on 03-Jul-01 05:16 PM
Very typical. One US govt official in the early 1900s when asked whether the constitution follows the flag replied, "Yes, but it does not quite catch up with it!"
|
| sally |
Posted
on 03-Jul-01 05:19 PM
Melissa,
I definitely agree with you philosophically--although I can't agree that statistics are unimportant. Obviously the case doesn't rise or fall on the accuracy of that particular statistic, but I do think it's a problem that statistics in Nepal are often innacurate--sometimes glaringly so--and yet they're quoted and reproduced without question. This is a real problem for researchers and policy makers.
A lack of concern with facts also tends to undercut an argument in the long run.
I think it's more effective to argue by using genuine and believable data--if it exists--and with "best guesses" and honest admissions of ignorance if the data really doesn't exist. A figure doesn't have to be as dramatic as 50 percent to be shocking.
Also, I can't agree with you that the US govt has "taken away the right of many people in foreign countries to even engage in pro-choice speech." The ability of people in Nepal (and elsewhere) to speak their minds can neither be controlled, nor taken away, by the US govt.
Freedom to talk about abortion rights or anything else in Nepal has very little to do with American policy, but a whole lot to do with the other matters discussed on this Web site--such as the debate about whether the PSA is a necessary evil, or a back-to-the-panchayat disaster.
I do agree with you, however, that the Reagan-Bush policy is inhumane, illogical, short-sighted, and wrongheaded, and that it significantly harms the ability of a poor country such as Nepal to implement family-planning policies effectively.
Oh yes ... and it's also "hypocritical, anti-democratic and in complete violation of international human rights standards." Definitely. Good luck with your work!!!
|
