Obama Good - Gag Rule

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Obama Good – Gag Rule Impact Shell Obama Good – Gag Rule Impact.................................................................................................................................................. ...............1 Gag Rule 1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Gag Rule 1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Gag Rule Internal – Obama Will Lift................................................................................................................................................ ...........4 Gag Rule Internal – McCain will uphold.................................................................................................................................. ...................5 Overpopulation Impact Overview..................................................................................................................................................... ...........6 Aids 2NC......................................................................................................................................................................................... ............7 Ext – Aids Impact................................................................................................................................................................... .....................8 Democracy 2NC...................................................................................................................................................................... ....................9 Ext – Democracy Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................... ..10 Soft Power/Leadership 2NC.................................................................................................................................................................... ...11 Ext – Leadership........................................................................................................................................................................... .............12 Gag Rule Impact – Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................. ........13 Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation...................................................................................................................................................... ........15 Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation...................................................................................................................................................... ........17 Ext – US Gag Rule Key Global Restrictions....................................................................................................................................... .......18 Family Planning Solves Overpop......................................................................................................................................................... ......20 US Family Planning Assistance Solves............................................................................................................................................ ..........21 Overpop Increasing............................................................................................................................................................................ ........22 Overpopulation Impact – Nuclear War................................................................................................................................................ .......23 Overpopulation Impact – Warming.............................................................................................................................................. ..............24 Overpopulation Impact – Water Wars.................................................................................................................................. ......................25 Overpopulation Impact – Agriculture..................................................................................................................................................... ....27 Overpopulation Impact – Economy.................................................................................................................................... .......................28 Overpop = Eco Collapse............................................................................................................................................................ ................29 A2: Abortion Bad............................................................................................................................................................................... .......30 A2: Abortion Bad............................................................................................................................................................................... .......31 A2: Abortion Bad............................................................................................................................................................................... .......32

1

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Gag Rule 1NC C. Impact 1. Obama will repeal the gag rule – McCain won’t Pollitt, 6/22/08 (Kathy, Columnist @ Nation Magazine and feminist author, CBS News, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/opinion/main4198848.shtml) Are there feminist Hillary Clinton supporters who hate Barack Obama so much they'll vote for John McCain just to show the Democratic Party how ticked off they are? Yes, and I get e-mails from all five of them. Seriously, I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election, but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane. Let me rephrase that: she would have to believe that the chief — indeed the only — goal of the women's movement is to elect Clinton, not to promote women's rights. A vote for McCain would be the ultimate face-spiting nose-cutoff. Take that, women's equality! Not that the media will help women get it. As Eric Alterman and George Zornick exhaustively document elsewhere in this issue, the mainstream press is doing its best to persuade us that McCain is a moderate -- barely distinguishable from Barack Obama — even on abortion rights, one of the brighter dividing lines between the parties. In the Providence Journal five days after Clinton suspended her campaign, columnist Froma Harrop was typical: "Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?... The answer is unclear but probably 'no.'" After all, in 1999 he told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that he "would not support repeal" of Roe because women would seek unsafe, illegal procedures. Since the Democrats will control Congress, Harrop figures, "McCain would probably choose a cipher" rather than get bogged down in the abortion wars. This fake shrewdness, buttressed by much use of "probably," "seems," "may" and "my guess is," has as much value as a bet by a drunk in a bar. We all have our hunches — usually they magically line up with our wishes and preferences, in Harrop's case, her support for Clinton. By the end of the column she's castigating Obama for his "present" votes on abortion bills in the Illinois Assembly, and by the time she's finished, you'd never know that NARAL and Planned Parenthood give Obama 100

percent ratings and McCain a big fat zero. How antichoice is John McCain? Let's leave the psychological tea leaves out of it and look at his record. In his four years in the House, from 1983 to 1986, he cast eleven votes on reproductive issues. Ten were antichoice. Of 119 such votes in the Senate, 115 were antichoice, including votes for the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions and for the "gag rule," which refuses funds to clinics abroad that so much as mention abortion. In 1999, the year he said he opposed repeal of Roe on health grounds, he voted against a bill that would have permitted servicewomen overseas, where safe, legal abortion is often unavailable, to pay out of their own pockets for abortions in military hospitals.

2. Gag rule causes global overpopulation San Gabriel Valley Tribune ’05 (7/11, lexis) Our past efforts have proven very successful: Because of years of hard work by the family-planning and reproductive- health community, total world fertility has declined from six children per woman in the 1960s to fewer than three today. But as the largest youth generation in history enters their reproductive years, our work is far from over. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is doing everything in its power to stifle women's rights and jeopardize the future of our planet. For four years running, President Bush has blocked funds that Congress has appropriated to the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], the largest supplier of reproductive health-care and family-planning services worldwide. As one of his first acts in office, Bush imposed the Global Gag Rule, which restricts foreign NGOs that receive money from the United States for family-planning services from using their own funds to provide legal abortion services, give counseling or referrals for abortion, or petition their own governments to liberalize restrictive abortion laws. The results of this policy were easy to predict: Clinics are closing in Kenya, and contraceptive supplies have dried up in Ethiopia.

3. The impact is ecological extinction Edward Otten, Professor of Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati, 2000-2001, http://www.ecology.org/biod/population/human_pop1.html The exponential growth of the human population, making humans the dominant species on the planet, is having a grave impact on biodiversity. This destruction of species by humans will eventually lead to a destruction of the human species through natural selection. While human beings have had an effect for the last 50,000 years, it has only been since the industrial revolution that the impact has been global rather than regional. This global impact is taking place through five primary processes: over harvesting, alien species introduction, pollution, habitat fragmentation, and outright habit destruction.

2

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Gag Rule 1NC 4. Independently, overpopulation leads to terrorism and WMD conflict Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, faculty at Stanford University, 9-30-2006, New Scientist Much of today's population growth is occurring in rural regions in the developing world, sparking tension both within and between nations as increasing numbers of young people migrate to cities and to wealthier countries looking for a better life. In the US, where large numbers of illegal immigrants enter the country in search of work, opinions on immigration are already sharply divided. Western European nations have tended to accept limited immigration from developing countries as a way to augment their workforce. Here too illegal immigration is increasingly a problem, as thousands of people flee overcrowded labour markets in poor African and Asian countries in search of jobs. In many developing countries, numbers of young working-age people are rising by up to 3 per cent per year. Dissatisfaction is inevitable where populations of mostly young people face high unemployment, poverty, poor healthcare, limited education, inequity and repressive government. Revolutions and political unrest most often occur in developing nations with growing populations. Unemployed, disaffected young men provide both public support and cannon fodder for terrorism. The majority of terrorists behind 9/11 and attacks in Europe, for instance, have been young adult men. This is also the demographic group responsible for most crime globally. Expanding populations also create rising demands for food, energy and materials. The strain this puts on ecosystems and resources in developing countries is compounded by demands from industrialised nations keen to exploit everything from timber and tropical fruits to metals and petroleum. Shortages of fresh water are increasingly common, jeopardising food production among many other problems. Rising oil prices may now be signalling the end of cheap energy, which also poses a threat to successful development. At the same time, mounting evidence of global warming makes reducing fossil-fuel use imperative. If the 5 billion-plus people in developing nations matched the consumption patterns of the 1.2 billion in the industrialized world, at least two more Earths would be needed to support everyone. Politicians and the public seem utterly oblivious to what will be required to maintain crucial ecosystem services and an adequate food supply in the face of rapid climate change and an accelerated loss of biodiversity. The future looks grim, unless patterns of consumption change - with rich nations causing less environmental damage and poor ones consuming more, but adopting the newest, cleanest and most efficient technologies for energy use and production of goods and services. It seems likely that by 2050 nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of most nations and many subnational groups. Imagine a wellarmed world, still split between rich and poor, with unevenly distributed resources and a ravaged environment. Unless we act now, future generations will not have to imagine.

3

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Gag Rule Internal – Obama Will Lift Obama Will Overturn Gag Rule Lynch, ’07 (andrea, Reproductive Health Reality Check, 12/7, http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire) Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health. And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota. And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora. Cont…. If elected president, would Sen. Obama overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA? Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA.

Obama would yank the gag rule – he co-sponsored the Senate’s attempt to overturn it. Carpenter ’07 (Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com. Townhall.com – Sept 7th – available via http://www.genderhealth.org/pubs/SenateForeignOpsPressCoverage_07.pdf) Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D.-Calif.) amendment to a foreign aid spending bill to repeal what is known as the “Mexico City Policy” passed 5341 Thursday evening. The final bill passed 81-12 later that night. The “Mexico City Policy” forbids nongovernmental organizations from performing or promoting abortion for family planning purposes as a condition to receive U.S. federal money. The policy was originally enacted by President Ronald Reagan during the 1984 United Nations International Conference in Mexico City. It permits non-governmental organizations to provide abortion in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother, but does not approve of abortion as method of contraception. President Bill Clinton suspended the policy during his term and President Bush reinstated it in 2001. Boxer’s amendment attracted twelve cosponsors, including two Republicans senators--Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Susan Collins (Maine). Three Democratic senators campaigning for their party’s nomination for president also cosponsored Boxer’s amendment: Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

4

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Gag Rule Internal – McCain will uphold McCain will uphold it Blumner, 3/9/08 (Robyn, Columnist @ St Petersburg Times, lexis) Sen. John McCain wants people to know that he is a true conservative. The right flank of his party, particularly blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, want to paint McCain as a closet pinko because he only has an 82 percent rating with the American Conservative Union. But McCain insists that his conservative credentials speak for themselves. Believe him. They do. What scares me most about McCain, beyond our 100-year presence in Iraq, his itchy trigger finger relative to other foes, and his enthusiasm for tax cuts for the rich, is his fiercely conservative record on women's reproductive freedom. Here, there is no moderate McCain or reach-across-the-aisle McCain. On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic. You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality. The next president will be the decider on whether women's emancipation from the slavery of the womb will continue in this country. We are on the cusp of losing the right to control our bodies and determine our family size. McCain promises as much. Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary, for example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won over only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote. But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly reiterates that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he wants to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unborn." In accordance with these views, McCain promises to "nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will overturn Roe if given half a chance." McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of slaves. This is the policy that bars foreign family planning organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises clients on abortion as an option or advocates for legal abortion - even when using their own funds. We know that population control and family planning is the only way for Third World nations to advance, yet the United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck of the most effective groups.

5

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpopulation Impact Overview The Disad Outweighs 1. magnitude – we access extinction through environment, terrorism and global WMD conflict – and our Ehrlich evidence says overpopulation makes all other conflicts more likely and worse – magnifying every 1ac impact 2. Overpopulation is the single most probable way for extinction to come about. J. Anthony Cassils, with the Population Institute of Canada, January 2004, Population and Environment, p. 172-173 Nothing threatens the future of our species as much as overpopulation. Yet the very mention of this issue sends chills through the spines of many special interests who refuse to recognize our collective dilemma. Some poor nations with exploding populations charge racism, colonialism, imperialism, and demand aid, but do not deal with their overpopulation, deteriorating environment, and corruption. Feminists might ascribe blame to patriarchy, racism, and lack of rights for women. Human rights advocates might uphold the principle that each woman should have the right to determine how many children she bears. Most religions prefer to see human population increase, basing this view on ancient teachings created for another time and very different circumstances. Each one of these groups tries to define the world through their own specific special interest, losing the overall perspective. The denial of the crucial importance of this issue is astounding. It is as if most people are saying: “Do not disturb our comfort, do not increase our anxiety by raising difficulties, do not make us rethink our beliefs.” It is time to tone down the squabbles and to develop a comprehensive strategy to address overpopulation. We humans have the intelligence and consciousness to deal with this serious problem, but, all too often, we delay acting until we find ourselves in the midst of a catastrophe. This paper favours “the precautionary principle” and the belief that it is in the general interest of humanity to act with anticipatory intelligence to avert potential disasters. THE ISSUE Each of the subjects mentioned in the title—population, sustainable development and security— have received considerable publicity in recent decades. All too often, they have been treated as disparate subjects when they are, in fact, very much interconnected. This paper accepts the following premises: • overpopulation is the chief cause of ongoing ecological damage • overpopulation is the fundamental cause of growing insecurity • overpopulation is the prime reason that sustainable development remains beyond reach. As population increased rapidly in the twentieth century, some eminent scientists alerted the public about the likely consequences to the health of all life on Earth. Rising consumption and the development of ever more powerful technologies magnify the negative impact of overpopulation on the biosphere. Given the huge benefits that would result from population reduction, one wonders why the issue has not been dealt with more effectively. If we humans reduce the global population to a fraction of its present level to, for example, two billion1 or the equivalent of the population of the Earth about 1930, it would provide extraordinary benefits. The quality of life of all people would soar. We would have all the advantages of modern technology but little, if any, environmental deterioration.

3. Disad turns the case (insert from laundry list)

4. Obama solves the aff (Insert)

6

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Aids 2NC The gag rule cripples AIDS prevention Dina Bogecho, former Research Associate at Population Action International and Melissa Upreti, Legal Advisor for Asia at the Center for Reproductive Rights, 2006, Health and Human Rights, (9)1, p. 21 By crippling the countries primary reproductive health care providers, the Gag Rule has also undermined HIV/AIDS prevention efforts in Kenya. Given that HIV/AIDS is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex, a crucial link exists between HIV/AIDS and basic sexual and reproductive health care, and family planning providers can thus play a key role in HIV prevention. Unfortunately, by losing theses financial resources, Kenya’s leading family planning organizations have been severely restricted in their abilities to provide VCT and other HIV prevention services at their clinics.

AIDS threatens human extinction Michael Kibaara Muchiri, Ministry of Education in Nairobi, Kenya, 3/6/2000, Statistics show that AIDS is the leading killer in sub-Saharan Africa, surpassing people killed in warfare. In 1998, 200,000 people died from armed conflicts compared to 2.2 million from AIDS. Some 33.6 million people have HIV around the world, 70 percent of them in Africa, thereby robbing countries of their most productive members and decimating entire villages. About 13 million of the 16 million people who have died of AIDS are in Africa, according to the UN. What barometer is used to proclaim a holocaust if this number is not a sure measure? There is no doubt that AIDS is the most serious threat to humankind, more serious than hurricanes, earthquakes, economic crises, capital crashes or floods. It has no cure yet. We are watching a whole continent degenerate into ghostly skeletons that finally succumb to a most excruciating, dehumanizing death. Gore said that his new initiative, if approved by the U.S. Congress, would bring U.S. contributions to fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases to $ 325 million. Does this mean that the UN Security Council and the U.S. in particular have at last decided to remember Africa? Suddenly, AIDS was seen as threat to world peace, and Gore would ask the congress to set up millions of dollars on this case. The hope is that Gore does not intend to make political capital out of this by painting the usually disagreeable Republican-controlled Congress as the bad guy and hope the buck stops on the whole of current and future U.S. governments' conscience. Maybe there is nothing left to salvage in Africa after all and this talk is about the African-American vote in November's U.S. presidential vote. Although the UN and the Security Council cannot solve all African problems, the AIDS challenge is a fundamental one in that it threatens to wipe out man. The challenge is not one of a single continent alone because Africa cannot be quarantined. The trouble is that AIDS has no cure -- and thus even the West has stakes in the AIDS challenge. Once sub- Saharan Africa is wiped out, it shall not be long before another continent is on the brink of extinction. Sure as death, Africa's time has run out, signaling the beginning of the end of the black race and maybe the human race.

7

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Ext – Aids Impact ( ) The gag rule destroys AIDS prevention programs

Susan A. Cohen, Director of Government Affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, June 2001. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/3/gr040301.html Finally, since the 1980s, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has taken hold, especially in southern Africa, where 55% of new infections occur among women and where the disease is spreading most rapidly among the young. In countries such as South Africa, where HIV/AIDS prevention and family planning assistance are programmed in an integrated way to maximize their ability to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy (often among those who are already HIVpositive), the gag rule inevitably will undermine both efforts. Planned Parenthood Association of South Africa (PPASA), for example, stands to lose one-quarter of its funding, merely because it offers counseling and referral for legal abortion. "We give people [information about their] choices," says PPASA head Motsomi Aubrey Senne; "One of those choices is abortion." ( ) The gag rule guts AIDS treatment programs

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, 5-4-2003, Catholic News Times, p. 10. The State Department recently floated a proposal to apply the infamous "Mexico City policy" to all organizations that get the new AIDS initiative funding. That policy, a global gag rule imposed by President Reagan, lifted by President Clinton, and reinstated by President Bush on his first day in office, bars funding to family planning groups that provide abortion counseling, referrals, and services or that lobby on abortion rights, even if they do it with their own money. The gag rule has never applied to HIV/AIDS assistance. Yet the administration tried to portray this move as somehow a "compromise" that merely requires family planning groups to separate their work fighting HIV/AIDS from everything else they do. But the two are inseparable, and every responsible international family planning program has been integrating them for years. Family planning and fighting HIV/AIDS are not just about handing out contraceptives. Central elements in both are education on reproductive health care, safe sexual practices, and preand postnatal care for mothers and their babies. Effective programs in both promote a woman's right to decide the number and spacing of her children, because AIDS is spreading most rapidly where young girls have no power to negotiate the terms of sex with older men, or where women cannot insist on condoms or fidelity from their partners for fear of violence. Women are also the chief caretakers of other AIDS victims and their orphans. Often they are forced out of work and school and into poverty. Bush's initiative promises medicines, condoms, and care for the sick, but it makes no reference to addressing women's needs. On the contrary, the initiative would expect women to visit separate facilities for family planning and for HIV/AIDS education and services. Where AIDS victims are stigmatized, many who are now treated quietly at family planning clinics would be forced either to go public or go without assistance. The initiative would force perennially shortfunded, nongovernmental groups with proven track records of success against AIDS to set up separate buildings and bookkeeping systems and perhaps double their staffs and equipment in order to continue. In many poor countries where U.S.-funded family planning clinics are the only health care providers within miles, this simply will not happen.

8

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Democracy 2NC The gag rule destroys democratization Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003, Breaking the Silence, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, p. 15 It has long been recognized that democratic governance is a fundamental prerequisite for a just and stable world. According to democracy experts, a functioning democracy “must provide for a rule of law, and rigorously protect the right of individuals and groups to speak, publish, assemble, demonstrate, lobby, and organize to pursue their interests and passions.” Without a robust and active civil society, a democratic government cannot respond to its citizenry. NGOs play an invaluable role in building a structured dialogue between citizens and governments. They contribute information and ideas, advocate more effectively for change, bring indi- viduals with common interests together to petition their government, and generally increase government accountability and legitimacy. The gag rule, however, precludes NGOs from using their own funds to access key forums such as par- liaments, executive branch officials and the pub- lic, and prevents them from addressing the root causes of unsafe abortion by putting it on the political and social agenda. Each of the four countries under study is a young democracy that struggles with low public confidence in the political process, untested democratic institutions, shaky traditions of open and informed debates, and limited legal reform. Civil society organizations in these emerging democracies require support from outside donors, such as USAID, to foment open, informed debates between political branches and civil soci- ety organizations on the frontlines of democratic reform. Instead, the gag rule forbids NGOs from participating in their own country’s democracy and also encourages

governments to act in an authoritarian manner. USAID gives funding to build capacity for civil society to provide the necessary friction with the

government, to make sure it is there, to see how civil society can work with parliament. The hypocrisy of USAID fund ing to build civil society—but not some issues such as abortion—is troubling. NGO, Uganda The irony is that America spearheaded the “informed choices” project. It is a project that is trying to com- pile information on how women make their own choices on reproductive health. Cooperating Agency, Kenya In Peru, the recent fall of the repressive regime of President Alberto Fujimori signaled the potential for a new era of democracy. However, Peruvian women’s rights activists point out that the global gag rule strengthens the conservative and repressive agenda of reproductive rights opponents in the government. We had a democracy tide but the current conserva- tive approach of USAID and the [then] Minister of Health goes against democracy. This conservatism is not strictly about reproductive health issues. It limits participation of citizens in making their own decisions, private ones and those related to the state. This approach goes against what started with the fall of Fujimori. NGO, Peru Democracy was constitutionally established in Ethiopia in the early 1990s, following decades of repressive military rule that brutal- ized any opposition and independent civic organizing. The subsequent development of civil society organizations in the country has been new and volatile. Most local NGOs are consumed by the struggle to survive and to provide services. For example, one of Ethiopia’s prima- ry reproductive health providers, which lost a substantial portion of its funding by refusing to be gagged, has downgraded advocacy activities to keep its services and programs operational. In Ethiopia, NGOs and civil society are still emerging and depend on donors, especially the U.S. NGOs are the agents of change. The health conditions and the conditions of women in Ethiopia are terrible, and these agents of change

government officials often look to the U.S. as a positive model for development and democratization. The global gag rule signals that the U.S., a presumed beacon of progress, is questioning the appropriateness of safe and legal abortion. People see the U.S. as a role model on free speech and democracy. If they see that the role model is tak- ing an action, people will think that they are doing that action for a good intention, that there has to be a reason, and that it should be emulated. The global gag rule will put big questions in peoples’ minds. They will ask, why would a poor country try to advo- cate while big states are taking a big step backward? These questions have been especially cannot speak out on a vari- ety of issues. International Donor, Ethiopia Several respondents said that

asked by poli- cymakers who are informed. International NGO, Ethiopia

( ) Democracy checks extinction

Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates

Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones.

more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to

protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

9

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Ext – Democracy Impact ( ) Repealing the gag rule is key to effective US democracy promotion Neier 01. (Aryeh, founder and former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, and president of the Open Society Institute, “Mexico City Policy: Effects of Restrictions”, FDCH Congressional Testimony, July 19, lexis)

In over 38 years of experience in the human rights field, the Global Gag Rule is the only time I have encountered U.S. censorship of speech promoting law reform through democratic processes. The entire human rights movement relies on the ability of NGOs to gather information and speak without impediment and to associate freely with foreign NGOs to increase the effectiveness of their speech and advocacy. This law reform gag not only irreparably damages the association, free speech, and political advocacy rights of international human rights advocates, but causes continuing irreparable injury to the American public. Impeding the information gathering and freedom of expression of human rights advocates sends a message worldwide that we are willing to diminish First Amendment protections for political ends and undermines the commitment of the United States to free dissemination of information and democratic values worldwide. ( ) The gag rule undermines US democracy promotion Priscilla Smith et al, acting director of Center for Reproductive Law and Policy’s Domestic Program, Human Rights Magazine, Summer 2002, http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer02/smith.html

The global gag rule erects barriers to the development of the democratic process in other countries, the promotion of civil society and development of FNGOs abroad, and the enhancement of women’s equality and participation in the political process. The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), 22 U.S.C.A. § 2304(a)(1), states that "a principal goal of the United States" is to "promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries." Surely this includes the fundamental rights to free speech and democratic participation, internationally protected human rights championed by the United States. Despite the robust public debate on abortion in our own country, the Bush administration is repressing public discourse on abortion in other countries. This amounts to undercutting the bedrock foreign policy principles of encouraging democratic participation and the use of the public forum to resolve divisive issues. United States development assistance has long supported the involvement of FNGOs to resolve development challenges and help create self-sustaining societies. In particular, the FAA requires the United States to support the enhancement of women’s status and democratic participation in civil society. The global gag rule disproportionately impacts women and women’s groups, many of which receive funding from USAID for projects related to reproductive healthcare, maternal and child survival, and voluntary family planning. These groups, as the "front line" of the women’s health movement, observe firsthand the effects of illegal, unsafe abortion and are often called on to participate in their countries’ deliberations about abortion law reform. The United States cannot have it both ways—supporting women with one hand and silencing them with the other.

10

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Soft Power/Leadership 2NC Generous family planning assistance is key to US soft power and global stability Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, US Army, Retired and Daniel Deneisch, 3-16-2006,

http://www.greenwood.com/psi/online_news.aspx There are policies which help states through this unstable stage of demographic transition, and move to the next, less danger stages. The policies most needed are those which help reduce fertility. The first is family planning services. It is essential that women have access to services that allow them to control their fertility. Next is the economic development of women. The greater a woman's ability to earn money and contribute to the household’s wellbeing, the more control she will have over her own reproduction. Education of girls is very significant since girls receiving education are less likely to be married off by their families at a young age and therefore are more likely to economically powerful women. The next is the prevention of HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS pandemic contributes to the stage in which there is a youth bulge which is prolonged not only by high birth rates, but high death rates. Societal pressures are increased as the trained professionals a society depends upon (doctors, government leaders, soldiers) succumb to the disease. The new global reality requires a shift in the way the US conducts foreign policy A fundamental shift in the way we deal with the rest of the world is required in the current global political climate. No longer can US unilateralism (the attitude of "we're the only super power and we know we're right and we do not care what the rest of the world thinks; we can do what we want.") be the guiding principle of our foreign policy. Dr. Joseph Nye, Jr. provides an alternative, "Soft Power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. Soft power rises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals and policies."4 It is important not to dismiss this as just mere popularity; there are real political consequences if we do not find a better way to present us policy to the world. Strong anti-American feelings in a country inhibit the ability of other governments to cooperate with American goals be fear of losing power. A shift toward the soft power approach will change the international political environment and will go a long way toward undoing much of the damage to America moral leadership. Why this is Necessary Defeating or preventing threats to US national security will not only take the best efforts of the United States, but the enthusiastic cooperation of the vast majority nations around the world. Further these threats are nontraditional ones such as: terrorism, non-state actors, regional challengers, WMD proliferation, cybercriminals, AIDS pandemic. These are best resolved by promoting policies in atrisk countries through the early stage of demographic transition: family planning services, economic development of women, education of girls and HIV/AIDS prevention programs. Our future security rests on the people of foreign countries trusting in our good intentions, seeing us in a positive light and believing that our goals are compatible with their goals. It is a matter of what works in today’s world and it is in our best interest as a global leader.

Global Nuclear Exchange Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

11

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Ext – Leadership ( ) Family planning initiatives would dispel hypocritical US image

Goldfarb 03. (Tobey E., J.D. from California Western, “Abstinence Breeds Contempt: Why the U.S. Policy on Foreign Assistance for Family Planning is Cause for Concern”, California Western International Law Journal, 33 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 345, Spring, lexis) The evolution of United States involvement in international family planning programs, rooted in global population concerns, has yielded an international political forum for the domestic abortion debate.n190 Private interest groups have been able to impact foreign policy decisions to a degree that would be unconstitutional in domestic matters. n191 The recent decisions that have resulted from such influence actually undermine broader strategic goals of the United States. n192 Furthermore, if the decisions do serve a legitimate foreign policy purpose, the legal rationale for not contributing to the UNFPA would also prevent U.S. contribution to other international efforts, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and USAID itself because of their similarly attenuated funding of abortion related activities. n193 There is increasing concern in the international community over the current Bush Administration's aggressive exercises in unilateralism.n194 The United States could make concessions and reconsiderations on the international family planning issue that could help to dispel this concern. The resulting long-term strategic benefit that would result from renewed trust in the United States and its international reputation is far more appropriate and would outweigh any short-term domestic political backlash. ( ) Family planning foreign assistance is key to US soft power

Meaghan Parker, Writer/Editor , Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Spring 2004, PECS News, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id =53303 Soft Power Like Engelman, Cincotta believes that foreign assistance programs that encourage progress through the demographic transition are part of the “soft power” the United States can use to improve security. “At PAI, we believe that if policymakers more fully understand the demographic transition, and if they can grasp the strategic implications of what we call the security demographic, those who drive our foreign policies could grow to appreciate just how powerful focused ‘soft power’ actually can be.” ( ) Gag Rule Jacks US Leadership Center for Reproductive Rights, October 2002, Zwerver= a “Dutch Senator,”

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_europerspectivesggr.pdf, p. 6 The United States has supported international family planning and population assistance since the 1960s. Senator Zwerver pointed out that: The United States has been a leader in family planning assistance. The United States was one of the first countries to provide family planning assistance to poor countries. Tens of millions of people around the globe use family planning as a direct result of United States assistance, and many millions more have benefited indirectly from improvements in services resulting from American advice and inno- vations. I would say this is something the United States can really be proud of. But it is also something one cannot take for granted. The United States has spent the past 40 years helping provide international development assistance and services where they are needed most, building a strong global reputation for promoting and defending the principles of free speech, women’s equality and reproductive health. Yet the global gag rule undermines those very achievements. As Senator Zwerver noted, "the global gag rule is destroying your good reputation."

12

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Gag Rule Impact – Terrorism Family planning solves terrorism Bishop 04. (Kaci, Immigration attorney with the NC Justice Center, “Politics Before Policy: The Bush Administration, International Family Planning, and Foreign Policy”, North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, 29 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 521, Spring, lexis)

Since September 11, 2001, combating global terrorism has been one of the most primary, if not the most primary, pieces of President Bush's foreign policy, but his actions against international family planning programs and the women who benefit from these programs may hinder his work to protect national security. President Bush has said:

Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed [*570] dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us. To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal - military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing. 291

Bush Administration is sabotaging one of the tools in its arsenal by cutting funding and support to family planning programs internationally. "While we may be able to secure our borders militarily, the United States is neglecting one of the surest, most cost-effective means of protecting our nation: reducing poverty, ignorance, suffering, and despair in volatile nations." In March 2002, at the United Nations Financing for Development Conference, many countries, including the United States, linked terrorism to poverty, advocating that "poverty in all its forms is the greatest single threat to peace, democracy, human rights and the environment... It is a time-bomb against the heart of liberty." As discussed above, one of the ways to reduce [*571] poverty is through promoting and providing family planning services. But it seems that the

292

293

294

295

Thus, it follows that one of the tools in the Bush Administration's arsenal is to promote family planning rather than set out policies that discourage it. There is some dispute, however, as to whether terrorism does arise out of poverty. Indeed, the United States has backed away from believing that there is a direct connection. Rather, 296

297

poverty may be a way of recruiting people to join a terrorist group, but poverty does not cause terrorism.

Moreover, some analysts have said not only that poverty does not cause terrorism, but also that poverty is not a recruitment tool. "Terrorists draw their support and their human ammunition not from the most impoverished, illiterate in their societies, but from the educated and (relatively) well-off." But while these same analysts do not suggest that reducing poverty would necessarily reduce terrorism, they do suggest that 298

299

300

terrorists come from countries where there is "a lack of political freedom, the repression of women, and a dramatic isolation

from creative ideas and culture." Thus, goal of 301

focusing on improving the status and rights of women would help to meet the Bush Administration's

combating terrorism, and an easy and cost-effective method for doing so is to focus efforts on family planning and reproductive programs and services in the developing world.

Mexico City Policy undercuts cooperation on terrorism and trade Goldfarb 03. (Tobey E., J.D. from California Western, “Abstinence Breeds Contempt: Why the U.S. Policy on Foreign Assistance for Family Planning is Cause for Concern”, California Western International Law Journal, 33 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 345, Spring, lexis) There are several International Agreements that may be violated by a U.S. refusal to fund the UNFPA.n206 Most directly on

point is the ICPD Programme [*366] of Action.n207 In light of U.S. support of the Conference, it is no longer appropriate for the U.S. to advocate for the Marxist-

set forth in the Mexico City Policy, Leninist approach

which characterizes population growth as a neutral phenomenon. n208 The Programme of Action clearly recognizes the relationship between population growth and underdevelopment. n209 The goals set forth therein: to provide universal access to health and primary education; reduce maternal mortality and HIV/AIDS; and advance gender equality, seek to remedy the adverse effects of this relationship. n210 The Programme of Action also articulated "three essential principles of reproductive rights": the right to freely decide the number and spacing of children; the rights to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health; and the right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of coercion, discrimination, or violence. n211 The U.S. claims continued support of those goals. n212

13

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule at the international level, it seems hypocritical that the United States played a pivotal role in the drafting of the goals and agreements, only to then discredit the International agency that has undertaken a course towards their achievement. Since the agreement is not self-executing, it does not, on its own, create any enforceable rights at the domestic level.n213 However,

President Bush claims to be "committed to helping the U.N. to advance human rights, healthcare, security, and education throughout the world," and has even gone so far as to proclaim October 24, 2002 United Nations Day.n214 The U.S. praises the recent creation of a U.N. program on HIV/AIDS. n215 [*367] This program brings together the resources of several other U.N. programs, including UNFPA.n216

The Bush Administration's insistence on unilateralism undercuts U.S. sincerity and credibility in the eyes of the international community. The perceived insincerity is then a threat to national security. Countries that depend on UNFPA services and other U.S. funding resources could be allies in fighting terror or mutually beneficial trade agreements. Instead, recent decisions have caused skepticism and distrust of the American agenda.

14

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation The gag rule crushes effective family planning assistance Sue Idtensohn, president/CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, 2-18-05, Orlando Sentinel, p. A26 First imposed in 1984 by the Reagan administration and reinstated by President George W. Bush four years ago, the Mexico City Policy prohibits the U.S. government from providing foreign aid and supplies to family-planning organizations overseas that engage in any activity that could be construed (according to arbitrary U.S. guidelines) as being abortion-related, including counseling or referral. The policy was purportedly designed to reduce the incidence of abortion, yet there is no evidence that such a reduction has occurred. Also known as the Global Gag Rule, the policy has closed scores of clinics in some of the world's poorest countries and drastically impaired other clinics' abilities to maintain adequate levels of staffing/supplies, including condoms needed for HIV prevention. In Africa, for example, there are only enough condoms for every adult male to receive four condoms per year. Here at home, Florida's teenage pregnancy rate ranks sixth nationally, and, as nearly 80 percent of teen mothers go on welfare, stopping the teen pregnancy cycle is crucial. According to two studies in AGI's Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 account for 50 percent of all new cases of sexually transmitted diseases in 2000. We must recognize that the problems we face locally are also occurring globally but on a much larger scale. Roughly one-sixth of the world's population lives in environmentally fragile hot spots where the unmet need for family planning is often highest, and that population is growing nearly 40 percent faster than the world as a whole. The largest generation of young adults in history (more than 1.3 billion) is entering its reproductive years, and the number of people facing critical fresh water and crop-land scarcity worldwide is rising rapidly. We must engage our community and encourage our elected officials to help the United States keep its promise to support family planning and reproductive health-care services -- for women, for children, for the planet.

The gag rule guts the effectiveness of family planning Barbara B Cranea, Executive Vice President, Ipas and Jennifer Dusenberry, Research Assistant, Population Action International, November 2004, Reproductive Health Matters Soon after the Gag Rule was reinstated, the Global Gag Rule Impact Project, a group of organisations under the leadership of Population Action International (PAI), came together to document its effects at country level. Beginning in 2002, PAI, Ipas and Planned Parenthood Federation of America conducted research with assistance in gathering evidence in the field from Engender Health and Pathfinder International.[ 19 ] The resulting case studies and other documentation entitled Access Denied: US Restrictions on International Family Planning describe the damage of the Gag Rule, focusing on Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia and Romania. The findings corroborate evidence that others have assembled for these and other countries.[ 20, 21 ] Access Denied gave particular attention to the effect on established family planning organisations in Kenya, Ethiopia and Zambia. Some of these

organisations were forced to close clinics, terminate staff and cut both family planning and prevention and treatment services for STIs and HIV/AIDS, maternal health and well-baby care, sexual health education, and youth outreach programmes.

The Gag Rule also led to the termination of all US contraceptive supply shipments to leading family planning organisations in 29 countries. In the absence of alternatives, women who relied on these services must certainly have suffered more unwanted pregnancies and more unsafe abortions, although the impact is difficult to quantify. Defenders of the Gag Rule have suggested that when NGO family planning service

15

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule providers, such as IPPF member associations, reject the Gag Rule and turn down USAID family planning funds, USAID can turn to other NGOs who will provide the necessary contraceptive services while complying with the Gag Rule. However, the evidence from Access Denied suggests that these other NGOs may be less effective and experienced as service providers, and may not reach the same geographic areas. In some instances, USAID funds are being shifted to public sector facilities that tend to provide less user-oriented services than NGOs. In Romania, where legal abortion has been the major means of fertility regulation for many women, the Gag Rule contributed to the separation of contraceptive services from abortion-related services. This effectively reduced the opportunity to promote post-abortion contraceptive information and services, again probably contributing to more rather than fewer abortions.[19.] The Gag Rule has also had indirect and unintended effects. Uncertainty about what is permitted and the desire to avoid controversy has often resulted in over-interpretation of its restrictions and avoidance even of permitted activities by both US and developing country NGOs and USAID staff. Many NGOs, fearful of losing their US funding, have unnecessarily interpreted the policy to restrict other potentially controversial activities as well. One media organisation in Zambia, for example, eliminated a chapter on emergency contraception from a brochure it produced on contraceptive options.

16

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation The gag rule crushes the effectiveness of reproductive health provision Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003, Breaking the Silence, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, p. 19 The global gag rule has shut down programs that provide family planning, HIV/AIDS and other reproductive health care—effectively undermining services, such as those outlined below, that it is not supposed to affect. Although the global gag rule permits both emergency contraception (EC) and postabortion care, it has curtailed initiatives to increase women’s access to these services. Often NGO representatives and health-care professionals are not aware of the exceptions included in the global gag rule, or they feel pressured to avoid all activities that may be associated with abortion. The gag rule undermines provision of family planning assistance Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003, Breaking the Silence, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, p. 20 The global gag rule has severely disrupted, and in some cases halted, key family planning programs that service low-income communities in Ethiopia, Kenyaand Uganda. For example, a major family planning provider in Kenya lost substantial funding when the global gag rule was reinstated. Because the provider refused to be subjected to the gag rule, it was forced to close clinics and lay off staff as a result. [One major reproductive health organization’s] clinics not only provided family planning but other reproductive health services such as STI management, well-baby care and immunization. With the closure of these clinics, services are no longer available to communities. NGO, Kenya Because of the global gag rule, reproductive rights are being violated as women are not getting access to family planning. International NGO, Kenya In Kenya, cooperating agencies have been unable to work with local organizations that are leading providers of reproductive health services. We cannot provide population funds to [two major reproductive health organizations in Kenya], one of which was going to play a significant role in the provision of long-term and permanent family planning methods to women in rural areas. The cost of trans- port to a service provider is prohibitive. Women in their late 30s with many children are at risk of maternal mortality and morbidity because they can’t access family planning. Because of the gag rule, we have to look for alternative partners. We haven’t been able to find any. Cooperating Agency, Kenya The impact of the global gag rule is huge. It has wiped out partners. Now [a USAID reproductive health pro- ject] can’t work with [a major reproductive health organization], and yet another is struggling because of the global gag rule. It is obvious that it doesn’t work. The gag rule is creating a bigger problem and it is doing more harm than good. Cooperating Agency, Kenya The cost of providing family planning services is extremely low relative to the benefits. Studies in several countries show that for every dollar invested in family planning, governments save as much as $16 in reduced expenditures in health, education and social services. As USAID notes, this is especially relevant in low-income countries struggling to pay for health services.42 A Peruvian NGO lamented the impact of the gag rule on reproductive health service provision: I think family planning services have been affected, in the sense that several organizations have not signed, and have stopped receiving U.S. funds and that means that certain sectors no longer receive care. NGO, Peru

17

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Ext – US Gag Rule Key Global Restrictions ( ) US gag rule key to global restrictions on abortion. Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003,

Breaking the Silence, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, p. 14 The most effective way to reduce unsafe abortion is to ensure that safe abortion services are both legal and accessible. Respondents in all four countries lamented that policymakers often hide behind the global gag rule to justify their inaction on law and policy reforms meant to address unsafe abortion. With some key civil society groups silenced, any progress toward the adoption of a locally responsive, socially responsible health agenda is severely impeded. Abortion complications are the easiest to prevent. But we cannot work to prevent them with the global gag rule. Now how can we work to avoid unsafe abortion? It is the issue that contributes to the most mortality. NGO, Kenya The global gag rule adds support to those supporting the restrictive law—it gives them another reason to oppose liberalization. The global gag rule will impact the liberalization of the law because the government makes the policy and it closely watches U.S. policy. NGO, Ethiopia We will not be involved in the law reform efforts in Ethiopia because of USAID, because the U.S. government does not allow it. I will feel fine about attending meetings but I will be unable to speak up. I can be there as a silent observer. Cooperating Agency, Ethiopia The gag rule’s silencing of reproductive rights advocates has been particularly damaging when highly restrictive abortion laws are under consideration and actively supported by opponents of women’s rights. In Peru, for example, a constitutional clause largely prohibiting abortion has recently been considered. But the gag rule stifled the much needed, informed and balanced debate on this prohibition. It gave free reign to opponents of women’s rights and sidelined gagged NGOs too intimidated to speak up about the ban. This conservative group in the government is aware of the fact that the gag rule exists, and what they can use it for. International Donor, Peru 350,000 clandestine abortions a year, that’s the problem. So how do I think this global gag rule affects that? Well, in the sense that there are institutions that can- not even discuss this problem and eventually propose legal reforms that might contribute to solve the problem. Government Official, Peru

( ) The gag rule undermines movements to reform restrictive abortion laws Ipas, October 2003, “Myths and Realities: Debunking USAID’s Analysis of the Global Gag Rule,” (Ipas= a nonprofit organization that “works globally to increase women's ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights,”), http://www.ipas.org/publications/en/GGRMYTH_E03_en.pdf

MYTH: “Few organizations have a history of lobbying for change in the legal status of abortion.” REALITY: NGOs in at least twenty countries affected by the global gag rule have recently attempted to reform abortion laws. During a study conducted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, local NGOs lamented that policy makers often cite the global gag rule as an obstacle to their support for law and policy reforms meant to address unsafe abortion. With key civil society groups silenced, any progress toward the adoption of a locally responsive, socially responsible public health agenda is severely impeded: Abortion complications are the easiest to prevent. But we cannot work to prevent them with the global gag rule. Now how can we work to avoid unsafe abortion? It is the issue that contributes to the most mortality. NGO, Kenya ( ) US standards are modeled globally. Senator Olympia Snowe, 7-19-01, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/

getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:75604.wais The real issue before us today is often referred to as the ``Mexico City Policy'' because it was at the 1984 U.N. Population Conference in Mexico City that the Reagan Administration adopted this policy. Under the Mexico City Policy, the Reagan Administration withheld international family planning funds from all groups that had the slightest involvement in legal abortion-related services even though they were paid for with their own private funds. This was done despite the fact that similar restrictions were not placed on funding programs run by foreign governments that related to legal abortions. It is also often referred to as the international ``gag rule'' because it prevents organizations from even providing abortion counseling or

18

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule referral services. The matter before us is in part about leadership. The United States has traditionally been the leader in international family planning assistance. This has been the case ever since this issue rose to international prominence with the 1974 U.N. Population Conference in Bucharest. At that time, a great number of the world's developing countries perceived family planning as a Western effort to reduce the power and influence of Third World countries. However, in the years since, the need and importance of family planning has been recognized and embraced by most developing nations. If, as a country, we believe in volunteerism in family planning-- and we do--then we should maintain our leadership. Because of our leading role in international family planning, we have unrivaled influence in setting standards for family planning programs. A great number of other donors and recipient countries adopt our models in their own efforts.

19

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Family Planning Solves Overpop Increased support for family planning is key to lock in peak population Richard Cincotta et al, Senior Research Associate, Population Action International, 2003, The Security Demographic, p. 41 POLICY PRESCRIPTION In recent decades the world as a whole has moved fairly rapidly through the early and middle stages of the demo- graphic transition. Average family size is now a bit more than half of what it was in the early 1960s, and infant mortality has declined by two- thirds. Policies and investments that improved family planning and related reproductive health services and brought more girls into the class- room and women into the workplace are major reasons for this progress. Waning international support for family planning services, however, renders uncertain the pace of further progress through the transition.

Increased family planning assistance can secure stable population size—Its not too late to solve Richard Cincotta et al, Senior Research Associate, Population Action International, 2003, The Security Demographic, p. 40 Support for international family planning efforts has waned, however, in recent years—and at an inopportune time.48The need for more and better quality reproductive health care, contracep- tives and counseling is growing. Nearly 1.1 billion young people aged 15 to 19 are entering their reproductive years, most of them unaware of the risks and responsibilities of sex and reproduction. Three million people die each year from aids. And still, around 515,000 women perish annually from largely preventable pregnancy-related causes, including about 70,000 deaths from unsafe abor- tions.49 Can the world change course? According to demographers, it already has. Growth of global pop- ulation is decelerating more dramatically than was anticipated even in the mid-1990s. The United Nations Population Division, the most widely consulted demographic accountant on these matters, has set its 2002 medium variant projection—the one the division deems most predictive—at 7.9 bil- lion people in 2025. That’s about 1.5 billion more people than today. But it is also nearly 600 mil- lion fewerthan the same UN demographers had projected for 2025 just a decade earlier.50Yet, the growth rate of population would be slower still if not for the fact that an estimated 38 percent of all pregnancies worldwide—some 80 million annually—are either unintended at the time or unwanted at any time.51 The global demographic transition is still far from complete. While one-third of the world’s countries have made their way fully through the transition, more than a third remains in the early and middle phases. The future could see a continuation of today’s impressive declines in fertility and childhood mortality, and a reversal in the hiv/aidspandemic—but only if policymakers support and fund the policies and programs that make such change possible. If the relationships between the demographic transition and conflict seen in the post-Cold War years hold in the coming decades, decisions made today that affect funding that facilitates this momentous transition could have an enormous influence, not only on demographic prospects, but also on the future of global security.

20

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

US Family Planning Assistance Solves ( ) Only the U.S. has the expertise to effectively provide family planning assistance Population Action International, 1997, http://66.39.133.128/resources/publications/why_pop/whyassistance.htm

The United States is the recognized world leader in the population field and, through its foreign aid program, remains the single largest contributor of funds to population and family planning activities among industrialized countries. The principal objectives of U.S. involvement in global population programs are to enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, to improve individual health (particularly the health of women and children), and to reduce population growth rates to levels consistent with sustainable development. Tens of millions of couples use voluntary family planning services as a direct result of U.S. population assistance. Millions more have adopted family planning due to U.S. government support for a broad range of technical assistance, training, information, communication, policy, and research activities in developing countries. In the 28 largest recipient countries of U.S. funds, the average number of children per family has dropped from 6.1 in the 1960s to 4.2 today, a decline of nearly one-third. The U.S. government provides its population assistance through three channels: bilateral, nongovernmental, and multilateral. One-third to one-half of the funds are provided directly to the governments of about 40 developing countries for projects jointly managed by the field missions of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which administers the U.S. foreign aid program. The remainder of USAID funds support a wide range of population activities in over 100 countries implemented by private, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. has also been a major contributor to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the largest multilateral organization involved in population, since its founding in

Virtually every major innovation in the population and family planning field can be directly or indirectly linked to U.S. support. For example, the U.S. has pioneered a variety of successful approaches to extending family planning through the private sector. Modern technology has also been creatively applied to the population field in the areas of mass communication, demographic data collection and analysis, and biomedical research in the development of new contraceptives. The dedicated staff of career experts on population and related areas within USAID is unique among donor agencies. In addition, a strong public-private partnership with U.S.-based NGOs has been key to the USAID’s ability to provide high quality technical advice and support to governments and indigenous NGOs in developing countries. Compared to other donors, USAID’s substantial in-country presence has also been an important strength of U.S. population and development assistance. The U.S. population assistance program was initiated in 1965. During the 1960s and 1969.

1970s, the U.S. population program enjoyed a significant level of bipartisan support under presidents of both political parties. A strong consensus existed that rapid population growth was one of the world©ˆs most serious problems, undermining the prospects for economic and social progress in developing countries and posing a long-term threat to U.S. national interests in the areas of trade, security, environment, and international migration. Domestic political considerations, however, led the Reagan and Bush Administrations to directly challenge this consensus.

( ) U.S. technical support and networking makes its family planning work irreplaceable Sally Ethelston, Vice President for Communications at Population Action International, 2004, Progress & Promises Trends In International Assistance for Reproductive Health and Planning, http://66.39.133.128/resources/publications/pandp/ Under the Global Gag Rule, funds are denied to foreign NGOs that choose to counsel their patients on a full range of reproductive health options when those options include abortion, even if legal in their own country. When an NGO refuses to

accept the gag rule, in addition to losing U.S. family planning funds, it also loses access to USAID-donated contraceptive supplies and technical support. Its ability to form partnerships with other U.S.-funded NGOs in the country also suffers. This loss of supplies, technical support, and partnerships is often more devastating than the loss of funds. (For a detailed update on the impact of the gag rule in Ghana, see the Ghana case study: "Sexual and Reproductive Health in Ghana and the Role of Donor Assistance&151;A Case Study".)

21

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpop Increasing We’re over carrying capacity and populations are increasing Scotsman, 5/16/08 Its campaigners say time is running out before a tipping point is reached when it will be too late to reverse the decline. The research revealed that while species are suffering across the globe, humans are now consuming 25 per cent more resources than the planet can replace. Human behaviour is causing habitats to vanish, sealife to be over-exploited and animals to be hunted to near extinction, according to the report 2010 and Beyond: Rising to the Biodiversity Challenge. Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, said: "It's a pretty gloomy picture. Clearly our impact on the planet is growing and at the same time the populations of important species around the world are declining. "A lot of these problems are because we have got a growing population and growing need for food and resources and there's often a competition between needing resources and biodiversity."

Population Increasing – will exceed carrying capacity Canberra Times, 6/25/08 Henk Verhoeven, Beacon Hill, NSW Population overload In 1798 Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population, which argued that population had a natural tendency to increase faster than the means of subsistence, and that efforts should be made to cut the birth rate. Since the industrial revolution, the human population has increased more than sixfold, to more than six billion, and on current trends would increase to 8.5billion by 2025, placing increasing stress on food and water supplies (''Lack of water for food production a looming crisis'', June 23, p9).

Population pressures growing Washington Post, 6/22/08 Either way, the fact is that the world's population is growing -- 78 million people are added to the world's roughly 6.7 billion each year -and this affects the planet more than we admit, contributing to deforestation, ethnic conflict and global warming. More Malthusian than not, Engelman's examination of the issue is useful and illuminating, though his solution -- contraception that is easily available and socially sanctioned -- seems a little facile.

22

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpopulation Impact – Nuclear War Overpopulation causes nuclear holocaust Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich, Stanford Biologists, The Population Explosion, 1990 p 174-5 The population explosion contributes to international tensions and therefore makes a nuclear holocaust more likely. Most people in our society can visualize the horrors of a large-scale nuclear war followed by a nuclear winter.' We call that possible end to our civilization "the Bang." Hundreds of millions of people would be killed outright, and billions more would follow from the disruption of agricultural systems and other indirect effects largely caused by the disruption of ecosystem services. it would be the ultimate "death-rate solution" to the population problem-a stunning contrast to the humane solution of lowering the global birthrate to slightly below the death rate for a few centuries. As this is written (mid-1989), it fortunately seems that the chances of the Bang have lessened. New-minded leadership in the Soviet Union is for the moment in the ascendancy. President Mikhail Gorbachev, along with a few other world leaders, seems to be aware that environmental security is at least as important as military strength in providing security to nations, and appears to be doing everything possible to damp down the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. An apparently more pragmatic government also is in place in the United States, although it is still too soon to tell whether the superpowers are on the road toward massive nuclear-arms reduction and true reconciliation. What is certain is that the structure of military forces around the world still provides plenty of chances for local conflicts to escalate into Armageddon even in the face of growing East-West rapprochement. There remains the problem that, as the world gets further and further out of control, crazies on both the left and the right may exert increasingly xenophobic pressures on national governments. The rise of fundamentalism in both East and West is a completely understandable but not at all encouraging sample of what the future may hold in terms of conflict. Those struggling to achieve a permanently peaceful world still have much work to do, especially as growing and already overpopulated nations struggle to divide up dwindling resources in a deteriorating global environment.

23

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpopulation Impact – Warming Preventing overpopulation best way to solve warming Rapley, ’07 (Chris, Director of the British antarctic survey, http://prorev.com/2007/12/population-growth-crisis-that-dares-not.html) By avoiding a fraction of the projected population increase, the emissions savings could be significant and would be at a cost, based on UN experience of reproductive health programs, that would be as little as one-thousandth of the technological fixes. The reality is that while the footprint of each individual cannot be reduced to zero, the absence of an individual does do so.

Extinction Henderson 2006

[Bill Henderson, environmental scientist, “Runaway Global Warming Denial.” Countercurrents.org August 19, 2006. http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm.] The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears.

Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

there are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils, carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a drought struck Amazon, methane in Arctic peat bogs and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. For several decades it has been hypothesized that rising temperatures from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning Runaway global warming:

fossil fuels could be releasing some of and eventually all of these stored carbon stocks to add substantially more potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Given time lags of 30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bombs exploding, their released greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of degrees higher than our norms of human habitation and therefore extinction or very near extinction of humanity.

24

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpopulation Impact – Water Wars Family planning is key to prevent water shortages Ann Hwang, medical student at the UC-San Francisco, and a former intern at the Worldwatch Institute, January 1, 2002, World Watch At the national level, reducing population growth can promote economic development. Some economists argue that families with fewer children save more money, a phenomenon called the "demographic bonus." Higher savings rates may in turn reduce a country's dependence on foreign capital. Decreasing population growth can also ease the strain on overtaxed natural resources, particularly those associated with subsistence agriculture. Today, an estimated 420 million people live in countries where the amount of cropland per capita has dropped below 0.07 hectares--the amount generally deemed necessary to sustain a bare minimum vegetarian diet. By 2025, the number of people living in such countries will probably have reached between 550 million and 1 billion. But the most important limit is not likely to be access to land; it's likely to be access to water. Already, half a billion people are living in areas prone to severe water shortages. In 25 years, that number will probably have risen to between 2.4 and 3.2 billion. Such figures suggest the importance of family planning as a global enterprise. By 2050, the world's population is likely to approach 9 billion--almost a 50 percent increase from its current level of 6.1 billion. Nearly all of that increase will come in the developing world and at this point, most of it is probably inevitable. That's because record numbers of young people are now coming into their peak reproductive years (between the ages of 15 and 24). Even if the global fertility rate (the average number of children per woman) were to fall overnight from its current level of 2.8 to the longterm "replacement level" of 2.1, more than threequarters of the growth projected for the next half century would still occur, because of the enormous demographic bulge of young adults.

waters wars will go global Business & Finance Magazine, June 15, 2007. “Water, Water, Not Everywhere” Lexis. This sudden scarcity of an element whose symbolic and spiritual importance matches its centrality to human life will cause stress and exacerbate conflicts worldwide. Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia will be the first to be exposed. The repercussions, however, will be global.

Water wars lead to nuclear war Weiner, Prof. At Princeton, 1990, The Next 100 Years p. 270 If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the Cbomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over

25

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity

26

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpopulation Impact – Agriculture Overpopulation threatens agricultural collapse and humanity’s extinction Mona L. Hymel, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arizona College of Law, November 1998, North Carolina Law Review As the twentieth century draws to a close, humanity faces the daunting prospect of supporting its population without inducing catastrophic and irreversible destruction on Earth's life-support systems. Human and agricultural fertility are on a collision course: the stork is threatening to overtake the plow. 1 More than 600 of the world's most distinguished scientists, including a majority of the living Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued a warning to humanity in 1992. 2 They warned that only a few decades remained to stop unrestrained population growth and environmentally devastating economic practices before efforts to achieve a sustainable future "will be lost and prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished." 3 In 1994, the world's scientific academies echoed this warning. 4 The very rapid rates of human-induced climate change, combined with fragmentation of natural habitats for agriculture and development activities, are unprecedented.

27

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpopulation Impact – Economy Overpopulation makes economic collapse inevitable Lester Brown, founder of the WorldWatch Institute, April 2004, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/voic-brow.html NOVA: What happens if countries can't stabilize their populations? Will they just eventually break down? Brown: One of the things that's happening in the world today as our numbers have passed the six billion mark is that in order to support six billion-plus people, we are over-consuming the Earth's natural capital. Forests are shrinking, fisheries are collapsing, water tables are falling, soils are eroding, grasslands are deteriorating from over-grazing. This over-consumption of natural capital artificially inflates economic output, including food output. We are developing a bubble economy. The worrisome thing about bubble economies is that if you can't shrink the bubble, eventually it will burst. Then you have serious problems. We've seen bubble economies develop in the high-tech stock market in the U.S. We saw the value of high-tech stocks drop by 60 percent or so. We saw this with real estate in Japan a decade ago, when suddenly the bubble burst overnight and real estate prices also dropped by 60 percent.

28

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Overpop = Eco Collapse Overpopulation will crush global ecosystems J. Anthony Cassils, with the Population Institute of Canada, January 2004, Population and Environment, p. 175 The prospect of an almost fifty percent increase in the global population over the next fifty years is nightmarish. This increase is equivalent to the entire population of the Earth in 1960. Almost all of that increase will occur in the least developed countries that are unable to meet the needs of their present population. The impact will include more pollution, an acceleration of global warming, and more severe damage to fisheries, forests, fresh water supplies, fertile soil, and biodiversity. Migration pressures, and ethnic and religious conflict will increase. Most of the population in both rich and poor countries will want to consume more with devastating effects on ecosystems already reeling under current human demands.

Overpopulation causes natural resource exhaustion Anup Shah, Global Issues editor, 1998, Ecology and the Crisis of Overpopulation Global population size is inherently connected to land, air, and water environments because each and every individual uses environmental resources and contributes to environmental pollution.. Although there has been an excess of potentially cultivable land throughout human history, the exponential growth of human population has hastened the pace of land-use change. Hectares required for global food production now fall near the lower limit of estimated cultivable hectares (Meadows et al., 1992). Water represents a second commonsense link between population size and resource use. It is central to the ecological cycles on which we depend and is used by humans for consumption as well as agricultural and energy production. Global water use has tripled since 1950, now standing at between 3,500 and 4,500 cubic kilometers per year, equivalent to eight times the annual flow of the Mississippi River, and representing one-third of the water readily available

29

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

A2: Abortion Bad ( ) The gag rule doesn’t decrease abortions Barbara B Cranea, Executive Vice President, Ipas and Jennifer Dusenberry, Research Assistant, Population Action International, November 2004, Reproductive Health Matters With a high degree of certainty, it can be said that the Gag Rule has not achieved an overall reduction in abortions. By disrupting family planning services through effective NGO providers that reject the Gag Rule and lose their US funding, the policy is more likely to have increased the number of abortions. At the same time, the Gag Rule's limitations on NGOs that accept US funds are less likely to reduce abortions than to keep them clandestine and unsafe. ( ) The gag rule results in millions of abortions—family planning would solve The Post-Standard 2001(“HEADLINE: COURAGEOUS VOTE GLOBAL GAG RULE CAN ONLY RESULT IN MORE, NOT FEWER, ABORTIONS.”, pg. A10 May 17, lexis) The executive order from the White House restored the so-called "Mexico City policy" to foreign aid for family planning. That policy, established in 1984, bars federal support for any family planning group that uses other resources to perform or "actively promote" abortion. Since abortion remains an option in family planning in nations that don't outlaw the procedure, and since family planning groups would fall short of their responsibility if they didn't mention this fact to their clients, the effect of the "Mexico City policy" is to deprive these groups of resources needed to accomplish the rest of their mission. That mission, hard as it may be for anti-abortion ideologues to accept, does not include "promoting abortion," whatever that vague term may mean. Indeed, U.S. foreign aid has not been used for abortion or abortion counseling since 1973. Ironically enough, the money banned by Bush's so-called gag rule would actually help provide the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. One report predicts restoring international family planning assistance to 1995 levels would mean 2.2 million fewer abortions worldwide. But arithmetic like that is not part of anti-abortion math - or politics. Its champions appear willing to sacrifice every last woman and child hurt by withdrawal of family planning assistance - including the 190 women around the world who learn of an unwanted pregnancy every minute; or the 110 women experiencing complications in pregnancy; or the 92,000 infant deaths and thousands of maternal deaths that could be prevented each year. ( ) The gag rule results in a net increase in abortions Scientific American, April 2001 Women's groups that advocate safe abortion and receive U.S. funding will have to forfeit their right to speak. If they decide to forgo aid, they will lose money for contraceptives. That, in turn, may lead to more abortions--one of the policy's greatest ironies. Women who do not use contraception are nearly six times more likely to have an abortion than women who do, according to Cohen. Even absent the Mexico City Policy--which applies only to the $425-million family-planning budget of U.S. AID--the United Nations reports that there is a worldwide shortfall of $3.6 billion in meeting demands for family-planning services. This unmet need is reflected in 80 million unwanted pregnancies every year. "We have more and more women who are interested in delaying or avoiding pregnancy," says John Bongaarts of the Population Council. "All these women need contraception."

30

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

A2: Abortion Bad ( ) Fetus is not life -- Brain development research proves that life is not created at fertilization – it takes 9 months to produce a human being. Swomley 93. (John, graduate of Dickinson College Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Colorado, St. Louis University Public Law Review, p. 410-11) Charles Gardner, who did his doctoral research on the genetic control of brain development at the University of Michigan Medical School's Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, writes, "The biological' argument that a human being is created at fertilization . . . comes as a surprise to most embryologists . . . for it contradicts all that they have learned in the past few decades." n6 Gardner notes that in humans when two sibling embryos combine into one . . . the resultant person may be completely normal. If the two original embryos were determined to become particular individuals, such a thing could not happen. The embryos would recognize themselves to be different . . . and would not unite. But here the cells seem unaware of any distinction between themselves . . . . The only explanation is that the individual is not fixed or determined at this early stage. Gardner also writes, "The fertilized egg is clearly not a prepackaged human being . . . . Our genes give us a propensity for certain characteristics, but it is the enactment of the complex process of development that gives us our individual characteristics. So how can an embryo be a human being?" n8 He further states, "The information required to make an eye or a finger does not exist in the fertilized egg. It exists in the positions and interactions of cells and molecules that will be formed only at a later time." n9 Such research and discoveries lead to the conclusion that a developmental process taking about nine months produces a human being. Therefore the idea

that a human exists at conception is a theological statement rather than a medical or scientific fact. Gardner concludes that "fertilization, the injection of sperm DNA in the egg, is just one of the many small steps toward full human potential. It seems arbitrary to invest this biological event with any special moral significance . . . . It would be a great tragedy if, in ignorance of the process that is the embryo, state legislators pass laws restricting individual freedom of choice and press them upon the people. The embryo is not a child. It is not a baby. It is not yet a human being."

( ) Zero net link -- Abortions are inevitable – it’s a just question of whether the abortions are safe. Interpress Service, 12-8-2006, (“HEALTH: INT'L FAMILY PLANNING FUNDING PROBLEMS START WITH U.S.”, December 8, lexis) BROOKLIN, Canada, Dec. 7, 2006 (IPS/GIN) -- Public health experts say that U.S. political interference and declining financial support for family planning, abortion and prevention of other sexually transmitted infections has contributed to shockingly high death and disability rates in developing countries. Approximately 500,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy, abortion and childbirth, 99 percent of them in developing countries, according to the World Health Organization. "These deaths would not be tolerated in other circumstances," saysDorothy Shaw, senior associate dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of British Columbia in Canada. Countries are failing in their responsibilities and promises to fund sexual and reproductive health programs, including supporting universal access to contraception, Shaw said. Contraception alone would dramatically reduce abortion rates, she said. "More than 68,000 women die every year from back-alley or selfinduced abortions," noted Janie Benson, vice president of research and evaluation at Ipas, an NGO focused on increasing women's ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights and preventing unsafe abortions worldwide. Many of the 20 million women who have unsafe abortions each year

suffer from medical complications -- some for the rest of their lives,Benson told IPS. "This is a preventable pandemic," she emphasized. Legal abortions are extremely safe. And when abortion is made legal, it does not increase the number of abortions, she said, citing theSouth African experience as an example. However, by making abortion legal, South Africa is no longer eligible for USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) funding forsexual and reproductive health programs, including som e HIV/AIDS programs. "We need governments to decide that women's lives are worth saving," she said. Changes in U. S. policy could make a substantial contribution to improving the sexual and reproductive lives of people worldwide, according to a series of six reports coordinated by the World Health Organization and being published in the British medical journal Lancet this week. Officially termed the Mexico City Policy, the George W. Bush administration mandates that no U.S. family planning assistance can be provided to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to perform, recommend or refer women for abortions. The destructiveness of U.S. policy is hard to understate, says Steven Sinding, former director-general of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). IPPF lost $15 million in funding because of this policy, known as the "gag rule" because it stifles free speech and public debate on abortion-related issues. "Three of the five family planning facilities supported by IPPF inKenya were forced to close as a result," Sinding told IPS. The direct consequence of those closures was "a dramatic rise in unsafe abortions and substantial increase in unwanted pregnancies," hesaid.

31

SDI ‘08 Elections Impact – Gag Rule

A2: Abortion Bad ( ) They’ve missed the point – the internal link is to ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING AND CONTRACEPTION. The gag rule limits the extension of those services to millions of women – causing deaths worldwide.

Ann Hwang, medical student at the UC-San Francisco, and a former intern at the Worldwatch Institute, January 1, 2002, World Watch Family planning provides a higher return on investment than almost any other type of development assistance. "A development success story" is the phrase the World Bank used in its 1994 survey of the field. Its most obvious successes appear, not in demographic trends, but in the lives of the women it reaches. In the developing world, pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death and disability for women of reproductive age. Worldwide, UNFPA estimates that over 500,000 women die in pregnancy or childbirth each year and several million more suffer injury or infection. Ninety-eight percent of these women live in developing countries. In Africa, the continent with the highest rates of maternal death, a woman has a one in sixteen chance of dying in childbirth over her lifetime. Before giving birth, African mothers sometimes bid their older children farewell. In Tanzania, a common formula is: "I am going to the sea to fetch a new baby but the journey is long and dangerous." The World Health Organization estimates that 100,000 maternal deaths could be avoided each year if all women who said they wanted to stop bearing children were able to do so. Reducing maternal mortality would also confer enormous benefits on large numbers of children, as is apparent in a negative way from current child mortality statistics: in some developing countries, the loss of a mother increases the death rate by 50 percent for children under the age of five. ( ) Their argument ignores the sexual violence and discrimination that make abortion a necessary option for women in developing countries

Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003, Breaking the Silence, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, p. 28 Cultural practices that are harmful to women and girls, domestic and sexual violence against women, and women’s low socioeconomic status in each of the four countries under study also con- tribute to high rates of unwanted pregnancy. In Ethiopiaand Uganda, for example, early mar- riages are common; the average age of marriage for women is 17.1 and 19.4 respectively.77 Young girls and women are usually subordinate to their older spouses and often have limited power to access family planning services or make decisions about their fertility. In all countries, violence against women restricts women’s ability to control the frequency and timing of sex. Abduction for the purposes of wife acquisition persists in Ethiopia, and it is estimated that in the southern regions up to 80% of marriages result from abductions.78 In Lima, Peru, a recent sur- vey found that 48.4% of women had experienced some form of violence, and 22.5% had experienced sexual violence from an intimate partner. In Cuzco and rural areas of Peru, the incidence of physical and sexual violence perpetrated by intimate partners is even higher.79 In Kenya, the Penal Code does not prohibit marital rape and sexual harassment is pervasive in schools and uni- versities, while in conflict-ridden Uganda, rape has been used as a weapon of war.80 Many women suffer from unwanted pregnancies as a result of sexual violence and many turn to abortion as a last resort, despite its illegality. These social conditions, combined with wide- spread poverty, mean that unsafe abortion is often the only alternative for women faced with unwanted pregnancies in each of the four sur- veyed countries. Due to an increasing recogni- tion of the public health problems posed by unsafe abortion in these countries, the medical community, governments and other advocates are taking preliminary steps to reduce abortion-related deaths and injuries. In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft law that would liberalize the country’s currently restrictive abortion laws. In Kenyaand Uganda, public discussion about unsafe abortion and the need for abortion law reform is beginning to take place.82 In con- trast, despite efforts by women’s rights organizations, the government in Peruhas recently con- sidered adopting a constitutional clause further restricting abortion.

32