The Global Gag Rule, also known as the Mexico City Accords, was instituted by Ronald Reagan at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City. The Mexico City Accords ensure that no foreign non-governmental organization, or NGO, can receive United States family planning aid if the organization provides abortions, provides counseling or referrals for abortion, or lobbies their governments on issues relating to abortion – including safer abortion practices. Aid is denied even if these organizations use their own non-U.S. funds for such projects. The Accords were repealed by President Clinton, but were then reinstated by President George W. Bush – perhaps due to pressure by the fundamentalist Christian right, his largest supporters – on his first day in office. Ironically, this day was also the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade.

Non-governmental health organizations are faced with two choices: accept the aid and abide by the Accords, or refuse aid and cut programs due to lack of funding. Many organizations who agree to restrictions in exchange for funds are often nervous about performing an abortion to save a mother’s life and providing after-abortion care. They are afraid that any association with abortion will result in the withdrawal of U.S. aid.

Non-governmental organizations who accept U.S. aid are essentially “gagged” in regards to abortion issues, which is why the Accords are often referred to as the Global Gag Rule. The Accords deny NGOs their freedom of speech and limits the type of care they can offer their patients. Furthermore, by stifling an organization’s ability to lobby their own governments on abortion issues, the Gag Rule hampers efforts to advance women’s reproductive health and rights. Doctors who work for NGOs which accept U.S. aid are unable to speak openly and honestly about all the options available to their patients. The women involved in these situations are deprived of their ability to consent - they are not allowed to choose whether to continue or to terminate a pregnancy.

Non governmental organizations who forgo U.S. family planning aid in exchange for the ability to provide complete medical care to their patients are forced to close clinics and cut programs due to lack of funding. In Congo, the Association Congolaise pour le Bien-Être Familial eliminated programs that served 15,739 people because it lost $17,000 in U.S. assistance (www.plannedparenthood.org). Organizations that do not provide abortions but want to lobby their governments on abortion issues are also affected. The global gag rule has cost the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia (FGAE) more than $500,000, even though the FGAE doesn't provide abortion services because abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. It does endeavor to “educate local policymakers about the role that unsafe abortion plays in Ethiopia's staggering maternal mortality rate”. Services were lost by 301,054 women and 229,947 men in urban areas due to the Gag Rule (www.plannedparenthood.org). Furthermore, contraception availability and HIV/AIDS testing and treatments are affected by the closing of clinics and programs.

The loss of family planning services and programs that are eliminated due to the Global Gag Rule leads to restricted access to contraception, education, and pre-natal care. These conditions will likely lead to the performance of more unsafe abortions and a higher maternal mortality rate due to pregnancy and childbirth. Currently, approximately 78,000 women die annually due to unsafe abortions (www.reproductiverights.org). Many organizations are forced to shut down HIV testing facilities and AIDS programs due to lack of funding. These programs include youth centers to educate young people about prevention of HIV/AIDS, but also treatment centers for HIV/AIDS patients. These programs and treatment centers are desperately needed in parts of Africa where HIV/AIDS has become epidemic.

The Mexico City Accords are not consistent with many of the human rights statements agreed upon by the international community. Women’s reproductive rights have been firmly established as basic human rights. By denying women’s reproductive rights, the Accords violate human rights. Furthermore, the Accords violate the idea of national sovereignty upon which the international system rests, by denying foreign governments the ability to make decisions about abortion for their own people. The Accords also undermine the democratic processes of these nations by not allowing aid accepting non-governmental organizations to lobby their own governments on these issues.

The Senate passed an amendment that would repeal the Global Gag Rule on international family planning assistance by a vote of 52-46 on April 5, 2005 (www.reproductiverights.org). This amendment would override the president’s executive order. However, the Global Gag Rule is still in place, because the amendment has yet to pass the House of Representatives. People concerned with repealing the Accords could write to their Representatives, and ask them to stand up for women’s rights worldwide.

Furthermore, several action campaigns are carried out by organizations fighting against the Global Gag Rule. These campaigns generally consist of letter-writing, making donations, and signing petitions. Groups could also organize protests and demonstrations against the Global Gag Rule. Repealing this policy requires activism on the part of American women’s organizations. These organizations, unlike the foreign NGOs who accept U.S. family planning aid, are allowed to lobby their government for change.

Another way for Americans to repeal the Global Gag Rule is to vote for a candidate who does not support the Accords in the 2008 presidential election. Also, opponents of the Accords should vote for Senators and Representatives who do not support the Gag Rule. Candidates’ positions on foreign policy issues should be stated on their websites; if not, a simple e-mail will soon reveal their position. This would be particularly effective if people educated others about this policy and its harmful effects on women worldwide. The more people who mention the Accords as a serious foreign policy issue, the more likely candidates are to pay attention to the issue.