The Mexico City Policy

TLDR

This executive order reinstates the Mexico City Policy (“Global Gag Rule”), prohibiting U.S. federal funding to foreign NGOs that provide or promote abortion services, extends the policy to all global health assistance programs, and bars funding for organizations involved in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. The policy has been historically reinstated by Republican administrations and rescinded by Democratic ones.

This executive order reinstates the Mexico City Policy, also known as the “Global Gag Rule.” The policy prohibits U.S. federal funding from going to foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that provide or promote abortion services, even if those activities are funded separately from U.S. dollars. The order revokes the January 28, 2021, memorandum that had previously rescinded the policy. Additionally, it directs the Secretary of State to extend the policy’s requirements to all global health assistance programs and ensures that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations involved in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Key Points

1. Reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy: The order brings back the policy first established by President Reagan in 1984, which has been a partisan issue, consistently rescinded by Democratic presidents and reinstated by Republican presidents.
2. Extension to Global Health Assistance: The policy is expanded to apply to all global health assistance, not just family planning funds, which was a significant change first implemented by the Trump administration in 2017.
3. Prohibition on Coercive Practices: The order explicitly bars funding for organizations involved in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, aligning with longstanding U.S. policy against such practices.
4. No Legal Rights Created: The memorandum clarifies that it does not create any enforceable legal rights or benefits.

Issues

1. Impact on Global Health Programs:

   • Claim: The policy ensures U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used to support abortion-related activities abroad.
   • Reality: While the policy aims to align U.S. foreign aid with anti-abortion principles, it has historically led to the disruption of global health programs. NGOs that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, including contraception and maternal care, often lose funding even if they use non-U.S. funds for abortion-related services. This can result in reduced access to healthcare for women in developing countries, potentially increasing unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.

2. Effectiveness in Reducing Abortions:

   • Claim: The policy reduces abortions by discouraging the promotion of abortion services.
   • Reality: Studies have shown that the Mexico City Policy can have the opposite effect. When access to contraception and family planning services is reduced due to funding cuts, unintended pregnancies may increase, leading to higher abortion rates. For example, a 2019 study published in The Lancet found that the policy was associated with an increase in abortion rates in sub-Saharan African countries.

3. Coercive Abortion and Sterilization:

   • Claim: The policy prevents U.S. funding from supporting coercive practices.
   • Reality: Coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization are already prohibited under U.S. law and international human rights standards. This provision appears redundant and may be used to justify broader restrictions on organizations that provide legal abortion services.

4. Partisan Nature of the Policy:

   • The Mexico City Policy has been a political tool, with its reinstatement or revocation often aligning with the party in power. This undermines the stability of global health programs, as NGOs must adjust to changing U.S. policies every few years.

5. Impact on U.S. Global Leadership:

   • The policy has been criticized by international health organizations and allies, who argue that it undermines U.S. leadership in promoting global health and women’s rights. By tying health assistance to ideological conditions, the U.S. risks alienating partners and reducing its influence in international development.

While the executive order aligns with the ideological stance of the Trump administration and its supporters, its practical implications are more complex. The reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy is likely to disrupt global health programs, reduce access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, and potentially increase unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions. The policy’s effectiveness in achieving its stated goals is questionable, and its partisan nature undermines the stability of U.S. foreign aid programs.