Global Policy Forum

Fact Sheet

Family planning opponents in Congress have long sought to place burdensome restrictions on U.S. population assistance. One such restriction is the Global Gag Rule, which is detrimental to U.S. foreign policy objectives, family planning programs in developing countries, and to women's health.

What is the Global Gag Rule?

The global gag rule is a U.S. policy that denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family planning assistance the right to use their own, non-U.S. funds to either engage in public policy debates or perform legal abortions. The global gag rule was originally announced by the Reagan Administration at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City (for this reason the policy is also referred to as the "Mexico City Policy.") The policy disqualifies foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from receiving U.S. family planning funds if they provide legal abortion services or provide counseling and referral for abortion, or if they lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their own country. This policy remained in place until 1993, when it was rescinded by then-President Clinton. It was reinstated again by President George W. Bush in 2001, on his first business day in office.

Why the Global Gag Rule is Flawed Foreign Policy

U.S. law and policy already ensures that no U.S. taxpayers' funds pay for abortions overseas. Since 1973, the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion services; the use of U.S. funds for biomedical research and lobbying on abortion has been prohibited since 1981. The U.S. foreign aid program strictly enforces these prohibitions, and in 29 years, no violations have been reported. The global gag rule confuses the issue. U.S. family planning assistance funds family planning, not abortion.

The global gag rule undermines U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world. The global gag rule is described as such because it stifles public debate on abortion-related issues, requiring private organizations overseas to choose between continuing their non-U.S. funded efforts to change public policy around abortion in their own countries, or receiving U.S. family planning funds. Under the gag rule, foreign NGOs cannot receive their funding unless they certify to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) that they will not engage in such activities. Restricting the freedom of organizations to engage in public policy debates undermines a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy - the promotion of democracy abroad - and its core principle of free and open debate.

The global gag rule restrictions would be unconstitutional if applied domestically. A number of court decisions have established that it would be unconstitutional to condition the eligibility of a U.S.-based organization for federal funds on a requirement that the organization surrender its right to use its own funds to exercise free speech and participate in the political process. To impose such a requirement on private organizations overseas receiving foreign assistance raises serious questions about the sincerity of the U.S. government's commitment to fostering democracy abroad.

The gag rule restricts foreign NGOs from engaging in activities that are legal in their own countries, as well as in the United States. U.S. law currently preserves the right to safe and legal abortion services. Forty-nine of the 50 countries that receive family planning assistance through USAID permit abortion in some instances. Indeed, across the globe, the trend is toward more liberal abortion laws. Providers in these countries must therefore disregard laws set in place by their own governments, and instead comply with the current U.S. administration's anti-abortion policies if they choose to accept U.S. funds.

The restrictions discriminate against private organizations, contrary to U.S. efforts to expand their role in civil society. The global gag rule does not apply to governments receiving U.S. foreign aid. It does, however, prohibit foreign private organizations from engaging in abortion-related advocacy or providing abortion services, even if financed by non-U.S. funds and in a manner consistent with local laws, policies, and standards of medical practice.

How Access to Family Planning Makes a Difference in Women's Lives

Ninety-two percent of Americans support the right to plan one's family. In the United States, where levels of contraceptive use are high, there are more than 3 million unintended pregnancies each year. Worldwide, roughly 125 million women indicate a desire to plan their families but are not currently using a contraceptive method. With half of the world's population currently under the age of 25, this unmet demand can only be expected to increase.

Family planning is a basic health care service. Family planning is a vital part of basic health care services. Every minute, a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth. By preventing high-risk pregnancies, family planning could save at least 25 percent of these women's lives. Increasing the availability of prenatal care, trained birth attendants and family planning services is essential to making pregnancy and childbirth safer for women and their babies.

Access to family planning helps reduce reliance on abortion and deaths caused by unsafe abortion. Regardless of whether abortions are legal, women in desperate situations still seek them out. As a result, abortions performed under unsafe conditions remain a major public health concern. About 70,000 women die each year from septic and incomplete abortion, many of them leaving young children behind. Many more suffer serious illness or injury. Improving access to family planning can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce such tragedies.

How the Global Gag Rule Harms Women's Health

Cutbacks in family planning services would likely contribute to an increase in abortions. Research from several countries reveals a lower reliance on abortion in areas where contraceptive use is higher - reflecting greater access to family planning services. Reducing the capacity of NGOs to provide comprehensive family planning services could deny women access to contraceptive services - and ironically lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

The gag rule interferes with the ability to provide appropriate medical care. At the clinic level, the gag rule all but requires a rigid separation of abortion and contraceptive services. By limiting women's access to contraceptive services following an abortion - when they are most motivated to avoid another unintended pregnancy - efforts to prevent repeat abortions will be impeded. Additionally, U.S. restrictions have effects beyond the scope of the regulations themselves. Some family planning groups have already shown reluctance to treat clients following life-threatening septic and spontaneous abortions, fearing that any association with any abortion - even to save a woman's life - would jeopardize their U.S. funding.

The gag rule restricts open communication between women and their trusted health care providers. Clearly, this is one of the most harmful aspects of the gag rule. Prohibiting NGOs from counseling and/or providing referrals on abortion hurts their ability to provide comprehensive health care needed or requested by their clients. The principles of informed consent demand that health care providers not withhold information on services that are available and/or legal in that country, or which could prevent injury or even save women's lives.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.