The Return of the "Global Gag Rule" - Obama ed.

It's that time of our lives again, when our presidents change along with the world we live in. I had a chance to go through last weekend's issue of The Wall Street Journal during my lunch break today, and this article in particular snatched my attention:

Obama Lifts "Gag Rule" on Family-Planning Groups

Now, what exactly is the "Gag Rule"? I asked myself the same question. Better known as the Global Gag Rule, Mexico City Policy, or the Mexico City Gag Rule, it is "an intermittent United States government policy that required all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries" (Wikipedia.org). Politically speaking, Republican administrations adopt it while Democratic administrations rescind it.

President Obama altered the policy by lifting restrictions on international organizations that accept funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development. "In 2007, the agency spent $450 million on family planning and reproductive-health programs in more than 65 countries, such as making contraception more widely available" (Wall Street Journal). Obama did not increase the amount of money spent on family planning, but rather, made it more available by lifting restrictions and hoping to end "this stale and fruitless debate" (Wall Street Journal). Women health advocates, who were restricted from advocating, counseling, referring or offering abortion were pleased because this change will allow them to provide such services. On the other hand, Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, feels that: "He is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control" (Wall Street Journal).

When I worked for the WIC Program, there were innumerable times when I would provide services for pregnant teenagers and thought: "I wonder if she had access to some kind of birth control." Most of the time, they didn't. I am a firm believer that PREVENTION is key for a lot of things. But I also feel that if you get yourself into trouble, it is your responsibility to take care of it, no matter the consequences. But then again I don't know, I'm not there.

What do YOU think of this policy change?

Image from The Wall Street Journal