Gag Rule Neg - 5th Week

NEG Global Gag Rule p.
1 of 290
SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney
STRATEGY SHEET AT ADV AIDS AT ADV BIODIVERSITY/ENVIRONMENT AT ADV CARRYING CAPACITY AT ADV CIVIL SOCIETY AT ADV COERCION AT ADV CONFLICT AT ADV DEHUMINIZATION/SELF-ACTUALIZATION AT ADV DEMOCRACY AT ADV DISEASE AT ADV ETHICS/MORALITY AT ADV FAMINE AT ADV FIRST AMENDMENT AT ADV GLOBAL WARMING AT ADV HUMAN RIGHTS AT ADV IMPERIALISM AT ADV MODELING AT ADV PATRIARCHY AT ADV POVERTY AT ADV RACISM AT ADV SOFT POWER AT ADV TERRORISM AT ADV UNSAFE ABORTIONS AT ADV WATER WARS AT INHERENCY AT SOLVENCY T SUBSTANTIALLY 1NC SHELL CP FUND NGOS BUT DONT LIFT GGR 1NC SHELL CP FUND NGOS BUT DONT LIFT GGR SOLVENCY CP FUND NGOS BUT DONT LIFT GGR CP IS POPULAR CP FUND NGOS BUT DONT LIFT GGR AT CP LINKS TO POLITICS CP FUND NGOS BUT DONT LIFT GGR AT GGR WILL STOP SOLVENCY CP FUND NGOS BUT DONT LIFT GGR AT DA TO THE CP GENERIC CP LOWEY BILL/DONATE CONTRACEPTIVES 1NC SHELL CP LOWEY BILL/DONATE CONTRACEPTIVES SOLVENCY CP LOWEY BILL/DONATE CONTRACEPTIVES AT CP LINKS TO DA POLITICS CP LOWEY BILL/DONATE CONTRACEPTIVES CP SOLVES CORRUPTION. DA ABORTION BAD - LINKS DA ABORTION BAD IMPACTS DA EU - LINKS DA GORDON BROWN 1NC SHELL DA GORDON BROWN UNIQUENESS BROWN WILL LOSE NOW DA GORDON BROWN - LINKS DA GORDON BROWN IMPACTS BROWN WILL KEEP IT DA GORDON BROWN IMPACTS AT NO PRIME MINISTER WOULD GIVE UP NUKES DA GORDON BROWN IMPACTS AT BRITAIN NEEDS IT FOR DETERRENCE DA GORDON BROWN IMPACTS AT IT DOESNT VIOLATE THE NPT DA GORDON BROWN AT BRITAIN DOESNT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ARSENAL DA GORDON BROWN IMPACTS IRAQ
3 6 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 38 39 42 43 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 63 64 67 68 69 70 71 72
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 2 of 290
DA GORDON BROWN IMPACTS DA GORDON BROWN EARLY ELECTION SCENARIO DA GORDON BROWN AT BROWN CANT BE BROUGHT DOWN DA GORDON BROWN AT CRISIS WILL BRING DOWN BROWN DA GORDON BROWN AFF ANSWERS DA POLITICS BUSH GOOD LINKS FLIP FLOP DA POLITICS BUSH GOOD LINKS GOP BASE DA POLITICS BUSH GOOD LINKS PUBLIC DA POLITICS BUSH GOOD AT DEMOCRATS FAVOR GGR/CONCESSIONS TURNS DA POLITICS BUSH BAD LINKS DA ELECTIONS GIULIANI GOOD 1NC SHELL DA ELECTIONS GIULIANI GOOD UNIQUENESS GIULIANI WILL WIN DA ELECTIONS GIULIANI GOOD LINKS DA ELECTIONS GIULIANI GOOD AT GIULIANI WONT STOP TAX AND SPENDING INCREASES DA ELECTIONS GIULIANI GOOD - AT GIULIANI WONT REPEAL GGR. DA ELECTIONS GIULIANI GOOD TURNS THE CASE TERRORISM DA ELECTIONS GIULIANI GOOD TURNS THE CASE PATRIARCHY DA ELECTIONS UNIQUENESS CLINTON WILL WIN DEM NOMINATION DA ELECTIONS DEMOCRATS BAD LINKS DA ELECTIONS DEMOCRATS GOOD IMPACTS REPEAL GGR DA ELECTIONS - CLINTON GOOD AT POLLS DONT MATTER DA ELECTIONS OBAMA WILL WIN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DA PRESIDENTIAL POWERS GOOD LINKS K TAXPAYER FUNDING ABORTION SUPPORT K POPULATION RHETORIC 1AC RECONSTRUCTIONS 1AC MICHIGAN 7 WEEKS HPS LAB 1AC DDW (DARTMOUTH) 1AC GDI (GONAZAGA) 1AC JEDI (KANSAS) 1AC KNDI (KENTUCKY) 1AC MIAMI, OHIO 1AC SAMFORD 1AC NORTH TEXAS FUTURISM VERSION 1AC NORTH TEXAS CAPITAL VERSION 1AC UTNIF (TEXAS) 1AC WAKE FOREST 1AC WFI (WYOMING) POLICY VERSION 1AC WFI (WYOMING) IMPERIALISM VERSION 1AC WFI (WYOMING) CHILL FACTOR VERSION
74 75 77 78 79 83 84 85 86 88 89 91 92 93 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 124 139 147 154 171 212 220 229 241 254 268 278 284
Strategy Sheet
Summary of 1ACs There are three primary versions of the plan. One just lifts the Mexico City Policy/Global Gag Rule. The second lifts the gag rule and substantially increases health assistance. The third just increases health assistance to ngos irrespective of their compliance with the gag rule. Summary of advantages. Global Gag Rule affs claim one or more of the following advantages: Overpopulation bad -global warming -disease spread (from migration, hiv from no condoms, -conflict (from youth bulge, resource wars, env destruction, -terrorism -environmental destruction (species/biodiversity, -carrying capacity -famine -poverty -water wars Soft Power/hegemony Patriarchy/feminism/gender Unsafe abortions (kill a lot of women, Ethics (reproductive rights, obligation to help the poor, Maternal care Infant Mortality Democracy Free Speech Cultural Imperialism Poverty Civil society (ngos good for civil society, free speech good for civil society, civil society stops genocide) Human Rights Credibility (nec to fight wot, Futurity Capitalism bad Personhood/self actualization
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 4 of 290 ARGUMENT POSSIBILITIES Counterplans
1) Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR. Most of the aff offense comes from the claim that GGR forces NGOs to close. This CP provides funding to open up a LOT more family planning centers and does it world wide. What it DOESNT do is repeal the GGR which is why politics is a net benefit. The CP solves most of the case because it makes contraceptives and maternal health care available worldwide and thats what is key to solving not access to abortion. The CP probably doesnt solve imperialism arguments and you need to win that the key internal link to solving patriarchy is really given women access to the clinics not the availability of abortions at those clinics. This CP links to the spending da more than the aff. In fact, some affs may try to run a spending DA against it. That DA probably links to the aff and obviously links to the perm so this isnt a brilliant strategic move on the part of the aff to read this DA. However, if you are overly concerned with that possibility then read the cp conditionally. All of the cards in the Just exempt contraceptives cp are also solvency cards for this cp. 2) Send contraceptives. This CP costs less than completely funding NGOs family planning clinics however it doesnt provide maternal care services like the plan would and so the aff might have an add on about childrens mortality that you dont solve. This CP also doesnt solve imperialism arguments and you need to win that the key internal link to solving patriarchy is really given women access to contraceptives not the availability of abortions at those clinics. Politics and corruption arguments are net benefits to this counterplan. DISADVANTAGES DA Gordon Brown Brown was recently elected as Britains Prime Minister. He leads the Labour party. His primary opposition is David Cameron who leads the Conservative party (also called the Tories). Britain uses the parliamentary system and a new election can be called at any time. This DA says that Brown isnt going to be able to hold office for very long in the status quo but he has staked his premiership on being able to lead the world in the fight against poverty. Part of that is pushing Bush to get rid of GGR. Which means the plan would be a huge win for Brown. We only have one link card that talks about him pushing Bush on GGR but its a pretty good one. All the other link cards are just winners/win kind of cards that talk about how Brown needs to prove that he has fresh ideas and they will work. If Brown gets a win like this he will be able to stay in office and will resist pressure to get rid of Britains nuclear arsenal. Britains nuclear arsenal is undermining the NPT and there is one pretty good card that says their arsenal makes it more difficult to get Iran to give up their nuclear weapons. The 1nc impact in the shell is just middle east prolif bad. You could also read Iranian prolif will cause the U.S. to first strike and first strikes are bad. DA Elections Giuliani good This DA turns the case. The 1nc card that says Giuliani would kill the pro life culture of the GOP is really good. If you run this DA you should also have the SDI 4 Week Giuliani DA it has several good link cards for use against this aff. It might also be useful to have the fiscal discipline file since this DA also has an economy impact. In addition to the obvious uniqueness and impact cards that will be useful you can read some of the cards that say bush is vetoing democratic tax and spending increases now which is why Giuliani would keep doing but a democratic president wouldnt. Topicality This is a really good argument against the version of the aff that just repeals the GGR. Note that even if the substantially argument seems like an undue burden on the aff given the PEPFAR increase coming in the status quo the neg will have real difficulty winning uniqueness for a DA unless the aff is a big increase. AT ADV Carrying Capacity The cards in this frontline takeout the underlying assumption of almost every overpopulation bad impact scenario. Most, if not all, of them rely on the idea that resources are finite and that as we get more people then fighting will increase. This frontline basically says that premise is wrong. This is a good set of arguments to read when you dont have specific answers to their frontline. You can read two of those cards on any advantage and then point out in the block that if you win those arguments you take out the entire case.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 5 of 290 TIPS and TRICKS CP Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR
Regardless of which version of the aff you face the Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR counterplan solves virtually all the case. Teams who have a kritikal version of the aff or other deontological type arguments will try to say repeal of GGR is key. That is barely true the internal link to all their arguments isnt that women need access to abortion its that they need access to family planning clinics because they provide contraception and maternal care services among other things. It may even be possible in cross-x to get them to admit that abortion isnt key to reproductive rights by asking the following question: How does your aff provide increased access to abortions for women? the goal being to get them to say that they dont increase access to abortions just access to family planning clinics.
DA Elections The elections DA is truly devastating for the aff because virtually every Presidential candidate would either immediately repeal the Mexico City Policy or not veto the democratic congress attempts to repeal it like Bush has been doing. Even if you dont go for the elections DAs the status quo functionally becomes a delay cp since the plan will inevitably be done if anyone but Mit Romney wins the presidential election and Romney isnt going to win. So any politics DA or the DA Gordon Brown should be enough to outweigh the time frame solvency deficit between the plan and the status quo. Morality The first card in the frontline makes what I think is a pretty smart argument. We might know for sure that abortion is life but we really shouldnt take the chance. Even if you think reproductive rights are important killing a person is clearly worse than having less reproductive freedom. This seems even more persuasive when coupled with the counterplan i.e. the counterplan is a massive increase in reproductive freedom which means the aff internal link is very small relative to the cp which means there isnt a reason to take a chance that abortion is murder. This argument double turns your politics arguments that Giuliani will increase abortion rights so be careful.
AT ADV AIDS
No chance for extinction from mutated disease they arent super viruses. Gladwell 95. [Malcolm, New York bureau chief of The Washington Post, The New Republic July 17 lexis] I could go on, but the point is obvious. Any microbe capable of wiping us all out would have to be everything at once: as contagious as flu, as durable as the cold, as lethal as Ebola, as stealthy as HIV and so doggedly resistant to mutation that it would stay deadly over the course of a long epidemic. But viruses are not, well, superhuman. They cannot do everything at once. It is one of the ironies of the analysis of alarmists such as Preston that they are all too willing to point out the limitations of human beings, but they neglect to point out the limitations of microscopic life forms. The African AIDS epidemic is vastly over exaggerated. Glueck & Cihak, 05. [Michael, M.D. award winning writer, Robert, MD Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, both are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists, African AIDS: A Phantom Epidemic? Jewish World Review, Nov 18 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1105/medicine.men111805.php3] Your medicine men find the AIDS-in-Africa story very difficult to sort out. THIS SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISING, SINCE NO ONE ELSE HAS SORTED IT OUT, EITHER. Social and political factors complicate the situation; reliable information is rare. But it is possible to suggest NOT ONLY that the AIDS "epidemic" is vastly overstated and overrated, but also that resources spent fighting it might better be employed on more basic, AND MORE GENERAL, INFRASTRUCTURE AND health needs. This is not to deny the reality OR THE TRAGEDY of this disease OR THE MANY OTHER DISEASES RAMPANT IN POOR PARTS OF Africa. It is to point out that, when medical realities collide with scaremongering and false realities, the latter too often triumpH. Africa isnt the root cause of AIDS and the numbers are falsely inflated. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients April 1, 2002 [lexis] It is widely believed that Africa is being devastated by a plague of AIDS. This is in spite of the fact that, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) Weekly Epidemiological Record, 19 years' worth of AIDS cases for the entire continent of Africa has amounted to only 876,009. (In the US, more people than this die in one year of heart disease.) Africa is generally blamed as being the origin of AIDS, yet statistics point towards a more likely source of this disease: The United States. It was not until 1997 that the cumulative number of AIDS cases in Africa surpassed those in the United States. The most current stats (as of November 2000) show that the cumulative tally stands at Africa 876,009 and the United States 733,374--not much of a difference considering WHO's estimate that 25.3 million Sub-Saharan Africans have HIV/AIDS, whereas in the United States it is well below one million. Why this huge discrepancy? The main reason is that lots of Africans test positive on HIV antibody tests -- while very few Americans do - and few HIV-positive people in any country go on to develop AIDS. Researchers originally began looking to Africa as the source of AIDS for three rather feeble reasons: (21) 1) Robert Gallo's discredited theory that AIDS was caused by HTLV-1, another retrovirus similar to HIV, and thought to be endemic in Africa; 2) the prevalence of Kaposi's sarcoma in Africa (even though Kaposi's sarcoma was a new disease in American gay men, it had existed in Africa since ancient times, and hence could not indicate a brand-new disease there); and 3) a small number of AIDS patients of African origin who were living in Europe. AIDS cant cause extinction Sub-Saharan Africas population has increased not decreased. Glueck & Cihak, 05. [Michael, M.D. award winning writer, Robert, MD Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, both are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists, African AIDS: A Phantom Epidemic? Jewish World Review, Nov 18 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1105/medicine.men111805.php3] But if it is impossible to determine the extent of the epidemic, it should be easy to tell whether AIDS has, as predicted, "decimated" sub-Saharan Africa. Clearly, this has not happened. Sub-Saharan Africa's population is estimated to have increased by 73 percent over the last two decades, to 752 million (according to the Population Reference Bureau's 2005 World Population Data Sheet at http://www.prb.org/pdf05/05WorldDataSheet_Eng.pdf) from 434 million in 1985 (according to the U.N. Population Division, as reported by Tom Bethell in "The American Spectator," October 2005). In another analysis, South Africa's population continues to grow at a rate most consistent with "no AIDS" projections. In other words, predictions based on the hypothesis that AIDS kills have not come true.
AT ADV Biodiversity/Environment
Biodiversity is not key to the ecosystem virtually all the people who say that it is base their findings on reports from 1999 that are hopelessly flawed. Guterman 02, Lila, Lila Guterman is a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, The Importance of Biodiversity to Ecosystem Health Is in Dispute, Current Controversies: Biodiversity. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002, A.Z. If environmentalists were to write down their Ten Commandments, one of the sacred principles would surely be, "Honor thy species." The green movement takes as a truism that ecosystems are healthier when they contain many species of plants and animals. Ecological scientists have even coined a term for this riot of life: biodiversity. Though the idea now seems natural to environmentalists, scientists have long wondered whether an abundance of species truly improves the health of ecosystems and the way they work. Experiments to test that link were not completed until the mid-1990's, when some large-scale, much-heralded studies seemed to provide a positive answer. In 1999, the Ecological Society of America enshrined the importance of biodiversity to ecosystems in a report intended for educators and policymakers. The report concluded that, because ecosystems are vital to human welfare, we must "adopt the prudent strategy of preserving biodiversity in order to safeguard ecosystem processes vital to society." It sounded harmless enough. But the publication of the article touched off a firestorm of debate that had been smoldering within ecology. A group of scientists charged that the society's report ignored a different viewpoint held by many. The studies cited by the report, the scientists said, were flawed and didn't justify the conservation recommendation. Diversity is worth saving for moral, aesthetic, and even economic reasons, the critics said, but it might not make ecosystems healthier or more efficient. The altercation went public when, in a letter in the July 2000 issue of the Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, eight ecologists bluntly charged that the report was "biased" and "little more than a propaganda document"; made "indefensible statements"; and set a "dangerous precedent" for scientific societies by presenting only one side of the debate, even though the report seemed to represent the entire 7,600-member society. They wrote, "Our concern is that unjustifiable actions are being made to protect this single rationale for biodiversity conservation, and that scientific objectivity is being compromised as a result." Today, the controversy encompasses issues beyond scientific disagreement. Some scientists claim that the eminent researchers who lead the movement to link biodiversity to ecosystem health, including John H. Lawton at the Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine's Silwood Park campus, in England, and David Tilman at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, have exerted so much influence in the field that the major journals are silencing the critics. The backing of the environmental movement amplifies the message of those renowned researchers, and may even distort the conclusions they draw from the data, the skeptics charge. "Ecological scientists need to be very, very careful to clearly separate the results of experiments from feelings about what should be," says William K, Lauenroth, a professor of rangeland-ecosystem science at Colorado State University, and one of the letter's authors.
Studies that indicate that biodiversity improves an ecosystem are invariably flawed. Guterman 02, Lila, Lila Guterman is a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, The Importance of Biodiversity to Ecosystem Health Is in Dispute, Current Controversies: Biodiversity. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002, A.Z. "What these guys are saying is, a system works better if it's got 20 species in it rather than five," says Phil Grime, director of the department of comparative plant ecology at the University of Sheffield, in England, and an author of the letter. "Of course the conservation lobby want to hear this." The controversy began quietly, as many scientific debates do. In the mid-90's, researchers published the results of field and laboratory experiments to show that greater species diversity meant improved stability or productivity in a plant community, both taken as signs of greater ecosystem health. The papers concluded that extinctions may be threatening ecosystems, which are fundamental to life on earth. In 1994, Mr. Lawton, his colleague Shahid Naeem, and several other ecologists at Imperial College published a paper in Nature on model ecosystems they had established in indoor chambers. The researchers set up some plots with few species and others to which they added species. They found that the plants in chambers with more species tended to produce more biomass, the sum total of living matter in the plants. An accompanying commentary in the journal called the paper "the first unambiguous documentation of the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem processes." But critics asserted that flaws had tainted the experiments and biased the results. Some quick library research on the plants in the British experiment pointed to a major problem, says Michael A. Huston, an ecologist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the most outspoken critic of the biodiversity experiments. "As they increased diversity, they were adding larger plants. All their results were inevitable," since larger plants produce more biomass. It wasn't the only time that skeptics would find a flaw in a study. That same year. in the same journal, Mr. Tilman's research group described how the worst drought in 50 years affected an experiment on the Minnesota prairie. The plots with higher species diversity had resisted the drought better than those with fewer species. But the more-diverse plots also had received less fertilizer in an earlier experiment, so it wasn't clear which factor produced the result. In 1996, Mr. Tilman reported in Nature on a study that eliminated that confounding factor. He seeded 147 plots, each about 100 feet square, with between one and 24 species, randomly chosen from plants native to the prairie. After two years, he found that the more-diverse plots produced more vegetation. Again Nature published a commentary praising the work, and again critics chafed, pointing out that the more-diverse plots had a greater likelihood of containing large plants. That "sampling effect" is nothing but an artifact of the experimental design of randomly choosing species, Mr. Huston and other scientists say. The experiments don't model reality well, they charge, because natural ecosystems do not contain random assemblages of species, nor are extinctions random. David A. Wardle, an ecologist with Landcare Research, a government research institute in Lincoln, New Zealand, goes even further in his critique: "Use of a randomeffects model is, to be blunt, simply a nonsense." The aff studies are biased any study that comes to a different conclusion receives little publicity due to the lack of conservation appeal. Guterman 02, Lila, Lila Guterman is a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, The Importance of Biodiversity to Ecosystem Health Is in Dispute, Current Controversies: Biodiversity. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002, A.Z. "There are quite a lot of experiments that have used different designs to Tilman and Naeem that do not show the results they get," says Mr. Wardle, of Landcare Research. "These studies don't have the same sort of conservation appeal, and therefore do not get the publicity." What's more, he points out, the most productive natural ecosystems are not the most diverse. Mr. Wardle even accuses major journals of bias toward papers that purport to link biodiversity to ecosystem function. "I'm skeptical about who gets to referee them," he says. "How did they get published?" asks Mr. Grime. "There are senior figures in science who are associated with them." The skeptics also object to the generalizations made in many of the research papers and in the report, which imply that the results support consenting biodiversity. Mark W. Schwartz, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California at Davis, says the experiments are not conclusive enough and have been performed on too few ecosystems to translate into general conservation strategies. He says, "If we grab onto the idea before there's actually support for it, we're going to be making mistakes and leaving ourselves vulnerable to people who oppose conservation and say, what's the evidence for that?"
AT ADV Carrying Capacity

Malthus was wrong Economic growth checks population growth. Leonard 07 (Andrew, July 31, p. l/n, Salon.com, twm) The historian Niall Ferguson wishes he could have a free lunch every time he hears "someone declare: 'Malthus was wrong.'" But the converse assertion is equally popular. Throw in some free cocktails every time someone declares that "Malthus was right" and you could be living large for the rest of your natural-born life. (Thanks to Mark Thoma for the link.) How the World Works' own opinion is that our sample size for determining Malthusian veracity is simply too small. Judged against the history of human civilization, the 200 years or so since the industrial revolution hasn't been long enough to settle whether humanity will survive its own ingenuity. Right now, how you answer the question is more of a personality test than a scientifically provable fact. Glass half-full? We'll figure out a way. Glass half-empty? We're doomed. Be that as it may, there's a great big goofy hole in Ferguson's dour argument. Ferguson recapitulates Malthus' basic premise: "'Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio,' he observed. but 'subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.'" Malthus concluded from this inexorable divergence between population and food supply that there must be "a strong and constantly operating check on population." This would take two forms: "misery" (famines and epidemics) and "vice", by which he meant not only alcohol abuse but also contraception and abortion (he was, after all, an ordained Anglican minister). Even with the great advances in agricultural yields spawned by the green revolution, argues Ferguson, agricultural yields have indeed only grown linearly. But so too, he suggests, has human population, because Malthusian limits have already been operating. Meanwhile, vice and misery have been operating just as Malthus foresaw to prevent the human population from exploding geometrically. On the one hand, contraception and abortion have been employed to reduce family sizes. On the other hand, wars, epidemics, disasters and famines have significantly increased mortality. Together, vice and misery have ensured that the global population has grown at an arithmetic rather than a geometric rate. Indeed, they've managed to reduce the rate of population growth from 2.2 per cent per annum in the early Sixties to around 1.1 per cent today. Ferguson has an esteemed reputation as a historian, but if this is an example of his normal intellectual coherency, one wonders on what basis he attained his fame. Population size has stabilized or is actually declining in most of the economically developed nations of the world -- but to argue that this is due to "vice and misery" requires intellectual sleight-of-hand: defining birth control as "vice." If famine, epidemics or war have been responsible for population declines in Italy or Japan in the last few decades, it's the first I've heard of it. The actual evidence available suggests that people in rich countries have fewer children. The facts seem pretty clear: Economic affluence checks population growth. And only a disingenuous pessimist could consider that reality to be a dire Malthusian limit. Free market stops population growth from having overall negative impacts. Strassel 06 (Kim, Oct. 16, CNBC News Transcripts, p. l/n, ellipses in original, twm) Ms. STRASSEL: No, I mean, that's it, and, look, I mean, people right now are complaining that we haven't done enough planning over the past however many decades for the population growth that we had, and it's all worked out perfectly fine, largely because the market managed to allocate all of these things. You know, the...
Your argument is racist and classist in addition to being factually wrong. Searjent 06 (Graham, Nov. 2, The Times, p. 59, twm) ECONOMICS became the dismal science overnight in 1798, when Robert Malthus published the first version of his Essay on Population. Malthus argued that as human nature must be taken as it is, population would tend to grow exponentially while food production would grow only in a straight line as more capital was invested, constrained by diminishing returns. Unless folk restrained their sexual urges, which was unlikely, population would be controlled by war, famine and disease in a struggle for food. Two hundred years later it is clear that Malthus oversimplified. Untold millions have been killed by war and famine in the struggle for land, power and resources, and even more by disease. That process continues. Yet world population has multiplied many times and farmers produce a healthy surplus of food in good years and bad. Hundreds of millions are still hungry, but that is because of maldistribution of incomes. With respect to Sir Nicholas Stern, whose report this week focuses on failure to price costs of carbon dioxide emissions, the apparent need for income to be wildly unequal for economies to work well is the greatest market failure ever seen. From the beginning, this apocalyptic streak in economics, as in other fields, has had disagreeable moral overtones. Before Malthus it was generally thought that rising population was a sign of wellbeing. But Malthus argued that it was wrong to subsidise the poor because, being driven by "vice", they would only have larger families and defeat the object. Parents should face the full costs of their actions. Ever since, poor folk with large families have been seen in some quarters as selfish or antisocial. This element infused the "neo-Malthusian" revival in the 1960s and 1970s, only this time the domestic poor were replaced by Third World masses. There was a real problem. Advances in medicine slashed infant mortality before families adjusted to this new reality. Drastic authoritarian action was taken in China, but, overall, the market delivered the food needed by a doubled world population. We could boost food production much faster, by use of genetic modification, but generally do not need to. Rates of increase in population have slowed drastically. In many advanced countries, including Britain, market economies need a constant influx of migrant labour to function. China aside, the projections of Malthus's followers did not come true thanks to the interaction of self-interested choices, technical advances and knowledge acquired by better education, particularly of women. Ehrlich and Malthus were just wrong. Kudlow and Strassel 06 (Larry and Kim, Oct. 16, CNBC News Transcripts, p. l/n, twm) ANCHORS: LARRY KUDLOW LARRY KUDLOW, host: All right. The US population should hit 300 million tomorrow, according to the Census Bureau. That's right, 300 million. It is a cause for celebration in my view, not alarm. The Malthusian prophets of doom will be wrong again. All right. We're joined now by our Monday labor vs. capital match-up: Jared Bernstein, senior econ at the Economic Policy Institute and author of "All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy," and Kim Strassel from The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Welcome. Kim Strassel, who is Reverend Malthus? Ms. KIM STRASSEL (The Wall Street Journal): Well, you--I mean, this is great news, Larry. This is--I mean, I for one am very happy that you were born, and we can make the--make... KUDLOW: And likewise! I put it back to you. Ms. STRASSEL: But, you know, what a change this is! KUDLOW: Jared, I'm even glad you were born. Mr. JARED BERNSTEIN (Economic Policy Institute Senior Economist): Yeah. No, I--let's all have a love fest here. Ms. STRASSEL: Yeah, well--what a remarkable change here! You go back to the '60s which is the last time we hit a milestone like this, and you had the Paul Ehrliches of the world, the ultimate Malthus disciple, out there saying that, you know, railing, saying that we were going to have overpopulation, people were going to starve. It now turns out that not only was he wrong, but probably one of the greatest threats we face as a globe at the moment is population decline. And there's one reason why, and that gets into the fact that the West has set up entitlement programs. You have fewer workers, you've got fewer people out there supporting older people, and this is why America's in great shape at the moment, because we actually are just about managing to replace our population which puts us in a far better situation than most Western countries.
AT ADV Civil society

Civil society increasing now. Africa News 06 (Jan. 23, p. l/n, twm) African Civil Society Organisations (CSO) have reiterated their support to their mother body, the African Union, declaring that they were prepared to help the continental structure achieve its set Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). "As the African civil societies, we have declared to join efforts with governments in Africa in achieving the MDGs," said CSO chairperson Hashim Mohammed Al-Hadi. The MDGs are the world's developmental targets to halve poverty and underdevelopment by 2015, curb spread of diseases such as malaria, TB and HIV and Aids by 2015. The formation of the African CSO was inspired and informed by a recently held meeting in South Africa, which was hosted by the Peace and Development Civil Society Organisations of South Africa. The CSO is entrusted with mobilising civil societies across Africa and in the Diaspora around issues of development, peace and stability in the continent. Addressing a media briefing here yesterday, Prof Mohammed Al-Hadi said civil society bodies across the continent were increasingly starting to view the African Union not as a flawed institution, but as an opportunity that could be seized to advance Africa's development priorities. The CSO held its summit yesterday. Professor Al-Hadi confirmed that more than 100 civil societies attended the summit. AU helping to improve civil society now. Africa News 06 (Jan. 23, p. l/n, twm) Prof Al-Hadi said that the cooperation between the African Union and the CSO was highly beneficial to both parties in many ways. "For example, the dialogue between us will help the AU to inform us about its evolving programmes, so as to obtain our feedback and support," he said. He added that the collaboration would help the AU learn from CSO about the concerns, needs and interests of civil societies and communities and changing conditions across Africa.
AT ADV Coercion
Abortion is used coercively for population control. US Fed News 07 (June 20, p. l/n, twm) Fallin discussed how abortion has been used as a means of population control in other nations and argued that it would be wrong for the U.S. to fund such practices. In China, for example, reports have cited instances of government coerced late term abortions, used to keep population levels low. In India, studies have suggested that more than 10 million unborn baby girls have been killed by sex-selective abortions.Fallin said, "I am disturbed that some Members of Congress would use federal funds to support pro-abortion organizations in foreign countries, even after hearing stories of coerced abortions and the systematic killing of female fetuses in other nations. We should not support family planning agencies that do not respect the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn." Mexico City policy stops coercive abortions. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) "The Mexico policy exists to draw a bright line between U.S. family planning policy and abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts, RPa. "However, it appears that there are some out there who wish to blur this line, (which) is what leads to coercive abortions and forced sterilizations." Plan increases coercive abortions. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) The Mexico policy exists to draw a bright line between U.S. family planning policy and abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts, RPa. "However, it appears that there are some out there who wish to blur this line, (which) is what leads to coercive abortions and forced sterilizations." Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., proposed alternative legislation intended to reinforce the existing policy. That was rejected 218-205, with 25 Democrats and 180 Republicans voting to uphold Bush's policy. While Republicans had been doubtful they had enough votes to pass Smith's measure, they were confident they could sustain a presidential veto. "If we provide either cash or in-kind contributions or anything of value to pro-abortion organizations in other countries, we empower, enrich and enable them to expand abortion," Smith said.
GGR repeal would increase funding for organizations that help promote coercive abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) I WANT TO SAY AT THE OUTSET, I, FRANK WOLF, SUPPORT FAMILY PLANNING. PERIOD. ON MAY 22 A "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE DESCRIBED A RECENT CRACKDOWN ON CHINESE FAMILIES THAT VIOLATE CHINA'S ONE CHILD POLICY. CHINESE BIRTH CONTROL BUREAUCRATS SHOWED UP IN HALF A DOZEN TOWNS CARRYING SLENL HAMMERS AND CATTLE PRODS TO DESTROY THE HOMES AND BUSINESSES OF THOSE WHO FAILED TO PAY THEIR FINES UNDER THE ONE-CHILD POLICY. FAMILY PLANNING OFFICIALS WITH WERE RANSACKING BUSINESSES OWNED BY PARENTS OF MORE THAN ONE CHILD. THOSE WHO PROTESTED WERE BLOODIED IN THE STRUGGLE AND VILLAGERS WERE BLOODIED THE VIOLENCE. I HEARD THAT ON NPR, TOO. IT WAS BRUTAL THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO CITY POLICY PREVENTS FUNDING TO GO TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE ABORTIONS AS A MEANS OF FAMILY PLANNING. THE INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION AND MARIE STOPS INTERNATIONAL CLOSELY TIED TO THE CHINA ONE POLICY. I WILL NOT YIELD UNTIL I FINISH. THEY MRS. LOWEY: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? MR. WOLF: I WILL WAIT. CHINA WAS THE SECOND COUNTRY TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A QUALIFIED MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOUNDATION, THEY TOUTED, SALUTED, SAID IT WAS A GREAT THING, CHINA'S EFFORT TO EXPORT EXPLOITATION FAMILY PLANNING PLSI REGIME WORLDWIDE.
AT ADV Conflict
The aff oversimplifies the situation the root cause of conflict isnt population its about ethnic and political conflict. Reducing population wont solve. AAGM 06 (April 18, This Day [Nigeria], p. l/n, twm) Africa is still reeling from series of conflicts and crises, with a rebel putsch in Chad a recent reminder of the continent's fragile state. In a response to the situation, the Africa Leadership Forum (ALF) in partnership with the African Union Commission (AUC) held a tri-regional (North, Central and West Africa) consultative forum on peace and security in Abuja, Nigeria, from 5-7 April 2006, with civil society playing key roles. Abimbola Akosile, who was there, reports It is ill-advised to always propagate bad news, but it is equally difficult to find any region in Africa that has not recently experienced (or is not presently experiencing) one conflict or the other, be it ethnic, electoral, natural, or political. From Chad, where rebels are at war with the sitting government, allegedly taking over sections of the arid country and spreading tension ahead May presidential elections (expected to be won by President Idriss Deby (who is standing for re-election); to Darfur in Sudan where a three-year old political and ethnic conflict is tearing Central and West Africa apart; to Sierra Leone and Liberia where the return of exiled leader Charles Taylor to face trial for war alleged crimes has un-settled a long-sought after peace process. From Nigeria where the polity is rapidly overheating because of a 'rumor' of planned administrative longevity; to Kenya and Ethiopia where both neighbours are massing troops at borders over issues of cattle rustling attributed to the latter country; the general picture is one of a disquieted giant in the throes of war, hunger, politics, and insecurity, all of which definitely undermine growth and desired development.
The root cause is diamond conflict not overpopulation.

Warah, Board member of the East Africa Chapter of the Society for International Development., no date cited (Rasna, UN
Chronicle Online, http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue3/0304p20.asp, accessed on 7-11-07, DY) The link between diamonds and conflict in Africa and the role of international players in the illicit diamond trade were recently discussed at a seminar in Nairobi, Kenya, on resource-based conflicts organized by the Society for International Developments East Africa Chapter. It is interesting to note that Africas most conflict-ridden countriesAngola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congoare also the most diamond-rich countries on the continent, as well as the most poor and under-developed. Conflict or blood diamonds have fuelled wars and led to the massive displacement of civilian populations in many African nations. While conflict diamonds represent a small proportion of the overall diamond trade, illicit diamonds constitute as much as 20 per cent of the annual world production. The level of illegality gives an opportunity and a space for conflict diamonds. The link between diamonds, poverty and conflict is evident in countries such as Sierra Leone, where the rich alluvial diamond fields of the Kono District and Tongo Field were among the most prized targets of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). In 2000, Partnership Africa Canada (PAC) published a report entitled The Heart of the Matter: Sierra Leone, Diamonds and Human Security, which placed much of the blame for the civil war in the country on diamonds, describing them as small bits of carbon that have no beyond their attraction to foreigners.
Diamonds fuel conflict. PAC, 01 (Partnership Africa Canada, http://www.pacweb.org/e/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=67, DY)

Diamonds mined in Sierra Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been used by rebel movements to pay for weapons and fuel their destabilizing and destructive wars over the past decade. Diamonds have also sustained the conflict in Liberia and are a potential revenue source for future conflicts if the trade in rough diamonds is not effectively managed and monitored.
Diamond trade causes massive conflict- human suffering, deaths of millions, and war. Oxfam America, 06 (Conflict Diamonds,
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/campaigns/no_dirty_gold/news_publications/blood_diamond, November 13, DY) The illegal diamond trade has been the cause of enormous human suffering. Over the past decade, millions of civilians have lost their lives in the violent conflicts of Sierra Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These wars were fueled and funded by what is known today as "conflict" or "blood" diamonds. In some of these wars, armed groups fought for control of diamond-rich areas, terrorizing local populations and seizing diamond resources to buy weapons. An estimated $300-$500 million worth of diamonds was being used every year to fight wars in Africa. These diamonds were all part of an illegal trade that brings massive volumes of diamonds to the trading centers of Antwerp, Tel Aviv, Bombay and New York.
AT ADV Dehuminization/Self-Actualization
Women who have abortions are dehumanized. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) MR. SMITH: RECENTLY, A NEW ORGANIZATION FORMED IN THE UNITED STATES CALLED THE SILENT NO MORE AWARENESS CAMPAIGN AND MADE UP OF WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS. ONE OF THE WOMEN, DR. KING, HAS HAD TWO ABORTIONS. SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST PASSIONATE SUPPOSE WOMEN ON EARTH IN FAVOR OF THE UNBORN CHILD AND IN FAVOR OF WOMEN WHO ARE HARMED AND WOUNDED BY ABORTION. SHE HAS POINTED OUT THAT WOMEN IN AMERICA, AND INCREASINGLY IN THE WORLD AS IT IS LEGALIZED, BECOME THE WALKING WOUNDED AND CARRY WITH THEM THE SCARS OF HAVING HAD AN ABORTION UNDER THE CHOICE. SHE USED TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE AND NOW OTHER WOMEN ARE ADAMANTLY PRO-LIFE. Abortion allows society to artificially limit disabled people's ability to participate in the present. This dehumanization is an ideology of exclusion is based on looking to future to secure the genetic purity of the human race.
Andrew J. Imparato, President and CEO of American Aassocition of People with Disabilities, November 17, 2004 (on prenatal genetic testing technology held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space,
Chaired by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. , http://www.aapd-dc.org/News/frompres/Andytestimony2.html [ajt])
One of the most basic principles of the disability rights movement is that disability
is a natural part of the human experience that in no way should limit a person's right to make choices, pursue meaningful careers, live independently, and participate fully in all aspects of society. Disability need not be seen a tragedy to be avoided, but as part of human diversity that can be accommodated and viewed as a source of strength, pride and identity. Tragedies occur
when individuals are warehoused in nursing homes and other institutions because of a lack of funding for community-based supports; when children are isolated and fall victim to the low expectations of teachers who lack the preparation or imagination to meet their needs; or when qualified workers seek employment and encounter prejudice that thwarts their career goals.
when our society artificially limits the ability of disabled people to participate fully in community life;
As we examine the implications of prenatal genetic testing technologies, it is important that we remember the history of eugenics in the U.S. and the very real negative impact that this history had on the lives of people with disabilities, especially people with mental disabilities. In 1927, in the case of Buck v. Bell, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a decision for the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the practice of involuntary sterilization of people who were classified as "feeble-minded" (a broad category that included not just people with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities but also people with seizure disorders and other neurological
conditions). Writing for the nation's highest court, Justice Holmes opined: "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). In this now infamous ruling, Justice Holmes was supporting a world view that was in vogue among many American intellectuals at the time, and a view that became widely held among the Nazis in Germany. Physically and mentally "defective" people were among the first targets of the Holocaust, as Hitler's "T-4" program systematically exterminated disabled and chronically-ill Germans who were perceived as threatening the genetic purity of the Aryan race. One would hope that reactions to the Holocaust and the advent of the disability rights and independent living movements in the U.S. and around the world would have put an end to the eugenic efforts to eliminate people with disabilities. Certainly, the Holocaust should have sensitized the medical and
if we examine the rhetoric of some influential modern scientists and ethicists, we can see the emergence of a new eugenics tied to the rapid advances in scientific understanding of the human genome. For example, Bob Edwards, the esteemed embryologist who created Britain's first test-tube baby, remarked at an international fertility conference
ethical communities to the dangerous potential of eugenic ideologies. Unfortunately, in 1999 that the increasing availability of prenatal screening for genetic disease gave parents a moral responsibility not to give birth to disabled children. "Soon," he pronounced, "it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children." Closer to home, Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton, has written that "it does not seem quite wise to increase any further draining of limited resources by increasing the number of children with impairments." Singer has even gone so far as to defend the ethics of a parent's choice to kill a disabled infant
within a certain number of days after its birth. His Princeton colleague, molecular biologist Lee Silver, writes about a future in which the wealthiest in society will be able to
pay for genetic modifications, resulting in a societal segregation between the "GenRich" and the "Naturals." In this society, according to Silver, "The GenRich-who account for 10 percent of the American population-all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class. Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee." From Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (New York, Avon Books, 1997, pages 4-7).
This kind of rhetoric, which should trouble anyone concerned about American ideals like equal opportunity and a just society, is particularly alarming for many of us in the disability rights movement. As Colorado disability activist and writer Laura Hershey has observed, "The application of genetic knowledge to the repair of damaged genes, for the purposes of treating certain illnesses, may offer welcome benefits to some people with disabilities. But genetic research is likely to be put to other, more insidious, uses - such as denying health insurance, even jobs, to people whose genes predispose them to medical problems. Another threat is the implementation of eugenic policies to "weed out" certain types of people from the population. Thus, along with the much-heralded scientific advances offered by genetic research, disability activists nervously witness a resurgence of eugenic thinking."
AT ADV Democracy
The U.S. isnt key Iraq, Israel, and designer democracy dooms US credibility to promote democracy. Porteous, Feb 27, 06 (Tom, BBC Mideast Analyst, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/27/americas_downward_spiral.php, Slottje) Across the regionand beyond Arabs and Muslims are now glaring at U.S. power in the same way as those Iraqi families glared at the soldiers of the 101st Airborne. With its war on terror, the U.S. is frittering away the last vestiges of its moral authority in the Middle East. Its influence increasingly rests on military might aloneand that is not enough to ensure a peaceful
end to all this, as the deteriorating situation in Iraq demonstrates. After the events of the past week it should be clearer than ever that Washington and London's fanciful political strategies in Iraq and the region are as full of vitality and potential as the limbs of those dead insurgents flapping in the air atop a U.S. Army Humvee. Iraq's real power brokers the clerical and militia leaders, more than the weak politicians who make up the government may yet prevent an all out sectarian conflict between Shi'a and Sunni from being triggered by the bombing of one of Shi'a Islam's holiest shrines on February 22. But if they do it will be no thanks to the U.S., whose military presence in Iraq is providing nationalist legitimacy to the
most extreme Iraqi political tendencies and a magnet for the most militant and dangerous groups in the region. Blaming terrorists for the attack on the Askariya mosque in Samarra, President Bush said on February 24 that the sectarian violence it had sparked was "a test for the Iraqi security forces" as though the U.S. government had no role in Iraq's affairs and bore no responsibility for the current situation. But the increase in Sunni-Shi'a violence (and Kurd-Arab violence in the north) has exposed the flaw in Bush's mantra "as the Iraqi security forces stand up, we stand down," on which the U.S. exit strategy is based. Equally prone to ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions as the rest of Iraqi society, the Iraqi police and army, so far from being able to stop this kind of civil conflict, are drawn into it, bringing with them their equipment and guns paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. If the civil war in Iraq escalates, the chances of regional contagion are high: Middle East powers, including not only Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, but also Turkey and Israel, would get drawn even further into the Iraqi mess in what would become a new regional power struggle. Al Qaeda would fan the flames and use Iraq as a base from which to launch operations in the neighbourhood. It claimed the February 24 suicide bombing at the huge and tightly guarded Abqaiq oil in facility in Saudi Arabia, which did no serious damage to the plant, but pushed the price of oil up by more than two dollars a barrel. Sectarian violence in Iraq is also straining relations between Sunni and Shi'a communities elsewhere in Middle East. Meanwhile, last week's tour of the Arab nations by Bush's transformational diplomat-in-chief, Condoleezza Rice, demonstrated the extent to which another pillar of the U.S. strategy in the Middle East the push for democracy is collapsing under the unbearable lightness of the strategic thinking on which it rests. Yes, a push for political pluralism may well be a good way to lance the angry boil of extremism in the region, as Bush says. But only if it curtails the power of the "tyrannies" (Bush's word) which have served Western interests so well for so long; only if it brings to power representative governments which will certainly in the current circumstances want to renegotiate the terms of U.S. and Israeli influence in the region. Since the victory of the Islamist Hamas in the Palestinian elections, the U.S. and Israel have indicated clearly that they are ready for no such renegotiation. Indeed The New York Times has reported they are now colluding to suffocate the Arab world's first democratically elected government. Rice's Middle East tour was aimed at convincing Arab leaders that they should not fund a Hamas-run Palestinian Authority (a "terrorist authority" according to acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert). But Arab leaders are understandably reluctant to concur. This is not because these Arab leaders love either democracy or Hamas, whose Islamist colleagues are threatening their regimes by winning similar victories wherever elections are held in the Middle East. But Arab rulers are all too aware that a U.S. diplomacy which calls for sanctions on the victims of Israeli military occupation is not only hypocritical but a gift to opposition forces across the region. Washington's new-found coolness towards Arab democracy was on display during Rice's stopover in Egypt. Her last visit in June was all about pushing for greater democracy. Since then the Muslim Brotherhood has won a stunning 88 out of 454 seats in parliamentary elections that were heavily weighted against them. Last week in Cairo, Rice publicly made little of the fact that local council elections had just been postponed for two years. Nor did she seem keen to bring up the fate of the jailed secular opposition leader Ayman Nour, whose cause she had taken up in June, let alone the estimated 15,000 political prisoners (mostly Islamists) in prolonged detention without trial under draconian colonial-era emergency laws. The impression given is that the U.S. only wants political freedom in the Middle East on its own and Israel's terms "designer democracy," as Egyptian broadcaster Mervat Mohsen described it bluntly in an interview with Rice. No acceptance of Islamist victories at the polls, as this would amount to appeasement of terrorists. No compromise with any political development, however democratic, that might challenge absolute U.S. dominance of the region.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 16 of 290 Democracy increasing in Africa now. Africa News 07 (Mar. 8, p. l/n, twm)
A recently concluded international conference has resolved that democracy is alive in Africa, having noted the work of the African Union and the experiences of a number of African states which had successfully held elections. The International Conference on Sustaining Africa's Democratic Momentum took place from Monday until Wednesday to strengthen ongoing efforts to improve and enhance democracy, elections and governance in Africa. Some of the positive examples cited by delegates included the growing number of African countries that embraced democracy by holding elections in recent years; the developments that accompanied that democracy and the adoption by AU member states of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance in January 2007. Democracy increasing in Africa now. Africa News 07 (Mar. 8, p. l/n, twm) She added that democracy also had to empower citizens. "We need to give more voice to the unrepresented and to bridge the gender gap. In addition, political parties in Africa are very important and need to be supported and encouraged if they are to be real agents for change and democracy." Former President of the Republic of Botswana Sir Ketumile Masire also participated in the conference, and reminded delegates how far democracy in Africa had come over the past decade. "A few years ago, my country was indeed a loner in a sea of neighbouring countries under undemocratic, and in some cases oppressive rule. "More and more African countries have embraced multiparty democracy, good governance, had successive competitive regular elections, albeit there have been challenges here and there." Aff overgeneralizes. Africa News 07 (Mar. 8, p. l/n, twm) Speaking at the conference's conclusion, Chairperson of the IEC Brigalia Bam said democratic reform in Africa was dependent on the history and circumstances in each country.
AT ADV Disease
Even if there is a mutated form of a disease extinction is highly unlikely. Gladwell 95 [Malcolm, New York bureau chief of The Washington Post, The New Republic July 17 lexis] But these are, to some extent, side issues. There is no question that for whatever reason, as a result of what man does to himself or what he does to his environment, the threat of infectious disease is on the rise in the world right now. The re-emergence of tuberculosis and untreatable strains of malaria, for example, are worrisome trends. Should we be scared? Well, yes and no. In his brilliant study, Evolution of Infectious Disease, Paul Ewald describes how the chaos at the end of the First World War directly contributed to the rise of an unusually vicious strain of influenza. The result was the influenza pandemic of 1918, which left 20 million people dead. This could happen again. But whether or not some new virus could emerge that could wipe us all out is an entirely different matter. It is simply very difficult to imagine where such a super-virus would come from or what it would look like. No chance for extinction from mutated disease they arent super viruses. Gladwell 95 [Malcolm, New York bureau chief of The Washington Post, The New Republic July 17 lexis] I could go on, but the point is obvious. Any microbe capable of wiping us all out would have to be everything at once: as contagious as flu, as durable as the cold, as lethal as Ebola, as stealthy as HIV and so doggedly resistant to mutation that it would stay deadly over the course of a long epidemic. But viruses are not, well, superhuman. They cannot do everything at once. It is one of the ironies of the analysis of alarmists such as Preston that they are all too willing to point out the limitations of human beings, but they neglect to point out the limitations of microscopic life forms.
AT ADV Ethics/Morality We should embrace a precautionary principle on the issue of abortion it is better to be wrong and protect non-life than be wrong and kill life
Eugene Diamond, M.D., is Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, and a Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, 2005 (An open letter to the open minded, http://www.cultureof-life.org/?Control=ArticleMaster&aid=1444&c=1&p=1) If we conclude that a human life of a human person does not exist until some arbitrary stage of life after conception (quickening, nervous system development, viability, or birth) we may feel free to carry out lethal measures against pre-born individuals against whom we have passed this judgment. If we are incorrect, there is no remedy for the individual who has thus suffered a wrongful death. If, on the other hand, we extend protection to all stages in the human continuum, we avoid the wrongful death without causing any injustice to the unborn individual in the process. It has been customary in other contexts in the American experience to act in favor of life where the existence of life is uncertain. When there is a coal mine cave-in, for example, we do not board up the shaft but rather we dig for survivors. In almost every instance we continue to dig even when we are morally convinced that the oxygen supply has been long exhausted. It would seem reasonable to act similarly with regard to the unborn child. That is, presume that he qualifies for protection unless and until we can be certain that he is not a live human person.
If we conclude that when life begins is uncertain, we have a serious quandary.
Must vote to protect the unborn they cant speak for themselves. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) FROM FAMILY PLANNING IN CERTAIN FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS. IT ENSURES THAT FAMILY PLANNING IS THE EXCLUSIVE ACTIVITY OF THE ORGANIZATION AND NOT ABORTION. IF WE PROVIDE OTHER CASH OR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS OR ANYTHING OF VALL WE AGAIN EMPOWER, WE EN-- OF VALUE, WE, AGAIN, EMPOWER AND ENRICH THESE ORGANIZATIONS. IT IS ABOUT WHO WE GIVE TO TO EXPAND ABORTION ALL OVER THE WORLD. I SAY WITH DEEP RESPECT TO MY PRO-LIFE COLLEAGUES ESPECIALLY ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE AISLE UNDER PRESSURE TO OPPOSE MR. STUPAK AND I. IF PROTECTING BABIES AND WOMEN FROM ABORTION REALLY, REALLY MATTERS TO YOU THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANY OF US CAN WORK TO OVERTURN THE MEXICO CITY POLICY. THIS IS THE TIME TO STAND FOR THE INNOCENT AND THE INCONVENIENT ONES WHO CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. GGR is a moral policy. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) LIFE MEXICO CITY PROTECTIONS THAT WERE STRIPPED FROM THIS BILL. HUMAN RIGHTS IS A PRECIOUS COMMODITY AND AROUND THE GLOBE IS STILL TAKEN FOR GRANTED. LIKE MILLIONS IN MY HEART AND MIND, I BELIEVE LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. I BELIEVE I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHENEVER I CAN. THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT NOW TODAY IS TO SUPPORT THE MEXICO CITY POLICY, WHICH WOULD PREVENT OUR INTERNATIONAL AID FROM GOING TO FOREIGN ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT OR PROMOTE ABORTIONS. Its immoral to make people pay taxes that are then used to advocate for or pay for abortions. States News Service 07 (June 21, p. l/n, twm) "As divisive as this issue is among many Americans, this issue is a consensus issue. The American people know whatever your view of abortion, whether it is morally right or morally acceptable, most Americans agree that it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who cherish the sanctity of human life and use it to fund and underwrite organizations that promote abortion's overseas.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 19 of 290 First duty of government is to stop abortion. Doolittle 07 (John, US Fed News, June 25, p. l/n, twm)
During consideration of the Fiscal Year 2008 spending bill for foreign operations, House Democrats voted to gut the "Mexico City Policy," which protects taxpayers from subsidizing foreign organizations and programs that perform or actively promote abortion. My conservative colleagues and I supported an amendment that would have removed this language and prevented the government from forcing American taxpayers to subsidize the highly immoral act of abortion. Despite our efforts, Democrats used their new majority to defeat this amendment. As a result of this provision, the President has indicated his intent to veto the bill, and I will vote to sustain that veto. The very first duty of the government is to protect its citizens against violence. I believe human life begins at conception. Therefore, the government must protect innocent unborn children from abortion. Repeal of GGR doesnt solve there are multiple provisions in appropriations bills that stop funding of abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) AMENDMENT OFFERED BY GOOD FRIEND. THE STATE FOREIGN OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AND I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE SOMETHING PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT IN THIS BILL, THERE ARE 10 PROVISIONS, 10 PROVISIONS THAT SPECIFICALLY OUTLAW OR PROHIBIT THE USE OF U.S. FUNDS IN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FOR ABORTION OR THE PROMOTION OF ABORTION. WE HAVE IT RIGHT HERE ON THESE CHARTS. 10 PROVISIONS IN TOTAL THAT PROHIBIT THE SPENDING OF ANY U.S. FUNDS ON THE PROMOTION OF ABORTION OR ABORTION.
Even if there are other possible frameworks for individuals, moral governments must be consequentialist Larry A. Alexander, Professor at the School of Law, University of San Diego, 1987, (Scheffler on Agent Centered Prerogatives: Comments and Criticism, The Journal of Philosophy, pp. 282-283, hl) First, the response exposes the precarious status of the agent-centered prerogative. A moral agent may have an agentcentered prerogative to do A only if another moral agent does not exercise her agent-centered prerogative to do B. Of course, within consequentialist moral theories other than certain (implausible) types of rule- consequentialist theories, the permissibility or obligatoriness of an act is always dependent upon how others are acting. Usually, however, it is possible theoretically for properly motivated actors to coordinate their acts at an optimal level." Given Scheffler's agentcentered prerogative-his enclave of discretion to deviate from producing optimal consequences-no stable coordination is morally obligatory and thus realizable (except fortuitously) among properly motivated actors. Second, there is not even available to Scheffler a stable floor, a consequentialist baseline, a state of affairs that is the worst such state an actor is permitted to produce. For any actor facing such a state of affairs would, in the absence of agent-centered restrictions, presumably still be able to weight her projects more than they are weighted in the measurement of the baseline state of affairs. She may then presumably act to produce an even worse set of consequences, which in turn permits other actors themselves to produce still worse consequences, ad infinitum. Even if each actor can give her projects only slightly more weight than they are accorded in the impartial consequentialist calculus, the absence of agent-centered restrictions results in the possibility of an endless downward spiral of worse and worse consequences. An equally important reason why Scheffler cannot plausibly posit conflicting moral permissions across the board, rather than as limited to discrete spheres such as athletic and business competition and (more problematically) self-defense, is that, without agentcentered restrictions, there is one important actor that is always obligated to produce an optimal set of consequences. That actor is the government. The government is not the kind of moral agent which can possess an agent-centered prerogative with respect to its own acts. It must always act as a thoroughgoing consequentialist, giving only impartial consideration to individuals' weightings of their own projects. Now Scheffler's positing of an agentcentered prerogative has absolutely no implications for how government must act. Because it has no such implications, it also places the government in direct opposition to all exercises of Scheffler's agent-centered prerogatives. To the extent that the agent-centered prerogative entails moral permissions beyond those which are consequentialist-justified, to that extent it necessarily conflicts with what the state is morally required to see happen. The state would be obligated to attempt to prevent all non-consequentialist-justified exercises of the agent-centered prerogative, perhaps even to the extent of denying the existence of such a prerogative and inculcating a purely consequentialist morality. Moreover, because resisting the government might have dire consequences where the government is acting as a proper consequentialist and where resistance would be contagious, the consequentialist limit on the agent-centered prerogative might dictate that the prerogative never be exercised.
AT ADV Famine
They are wrong about the root cause famine isnt caused by population increases.
Altieri Professor of Entomology at UC Berkeley 99 (Miguel A. Altieri & Peter Rosset, Executive director of the Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy , Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world, Food First, October 1999, pg. http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/altieri-11-99.html)
1. There is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. For every densely
populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a sparsely populated and hungry nation like Brazil and Indonesia. The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds every person everyday: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but often
poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves (Lappe, Collins and Rosset l998).
Production is not the issue. AFF cant solve for the root cause
Drago 06 (Tito Drago, Hunger Due to Injustice, Not Lack of Food, Inter Press Service, October 16 2006, pg. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3162.cfm)
Millions of people die of hunger-related causes every year. However, that is not because of actual shortages of food, but is a result of social injustice and political, social and economic exclusion, argue non-governmental organisations that launched a
campaign in Spain on World Food Day Monday. Oct.16 was established as World Food Day in 1979 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), commemorating the agency's Oct. 16, 1945 founding date. Monday also marked the first day of Anti-Poverty Week, which will include events in Spain and around the world to raise awareness of the issue. FAO's slogan for World Food Day this year is "Invest in Agriculture for Food Security". But NGOs argue that the problem is not a lack of food production, but of the injustice surrounding access to and use of foods. Theo Oberhuber, head of the Spanish environmental NGO Ecologists in Action (EEA), told IPS that enough food is produced in the world to cover the needs of everyone, so that no one would have to go hungry. But, he added, there are two problems that stand in the way of this. The first is that a large part of all food, whether agricultural products or food obtained from oceans or rivers, goes towards feeding livestock "whose meat and by-products are consumed mainly in the countries of the industrialised North." The second, he said, is social injustice. In many countries, the majority of the population cannot afford food, "not even food of lesser quality."
Food security increasing IMF 07 [International Monetary Fund, Regional Economic Outlook: Sub-Saharan Africa, April 07, pg. sreo0407)
Food security has improved as the result of another good harvest in 2006. It is estimated that cereal production in Africa increased in the 2006 agricultural season, with bumper harvests in several West and Southern African countries.
Too many causes of food insecurity. They cant solve

Taylor - Senior fellow at Resources for the Future 04 (Michael R. Taylor & Jerry Cayford, Former research associate at RFF ,American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Spring 2004, 17 Harv. J. Law & Tec 321)
The pressure from a growing human population is but one source of the food security problem. There are many other causes of food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa, including natural disasters, like drought and pestilence, and human-made problems, like corruption in government, warfare, and civil strife. 18
AT ADV First Amendment

Alternate cause commercial sex worker provisions. Graham 07 (Adam, Newstex, Jan. 4, p. l/n, twm) The groups are urging a federal appeals court to reject a U.S. policy known as the "AIDS Leadership Act," which requires organizations that receive U.S. federal funding-regardless of their mission-to explicitly pledge to oppose commercial sex work. Two federal courts have already ruled that the policy violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. organizations, but the government is appealing those decisions. Turn: The Aff violates free speech. They compel taxpayers to subsidize promotion of abortion in other countries. U.C. Davis Law Review April, 2005, 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1087 When describing the First Amendment right against compelled subsidization, the Court and individual justices have repeatedly invoked Thomas Jefferson's statements that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." 97 Justice Stevens's Wileman opinion explained the freedom-of-belief argument as follows: Compelled contributions for political purposes unrelated to collective bargaining implicated First Amendment interests because they interfere with the values lying at the "heart of the First Amendment ... the notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the State." 98 Withholding government funds cannot violate free speech Theodore C. Hirt 88 Harvard Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 8. (Jun., 1988), pp. 1895-1915, JP The government's decision not to subsidize abortion counseling in publicly funded programs cannot be characterized as an unconstitutional penalty on the intermediary providers who otherwise would provide such services. Viewpoint specific subsidization of speech on this issue does not violate the first amendment, because it reflects constitutional policy and the prerogative of the government to advocate policies considered to be in the public interest. The government's insistence upon adherence to the restriction neither obtains participation in a program through compulsion or the threat to withhold other benefits, nor obstructs private speech, and thus does not constitute a "penalty" on the exercise of free speech. When recipients accept federal or state funds for a family planning program or other health-related services, their role is to implement the goals articulated in that program. The government has no antecedent obligation to create the program in question or to award grants or contracts to any particular intermediary provider. Therefore, the government can condition participation in the program upon adherence to the governmental social Because participation in such programs is voluntary, the providers have no right to insist that their views on abortion counseling, as possibly reflected in their separate private programs, be advanced by the government's program.
AT ADV Global Warming

Global warming is a political lie and the IPCCs reports should be ignored. Marshall, political science student at Simon Fraser University, 07 (March 15, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086, NS) The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. He further stated that, Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winters billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. Global warming is exaggerated. United Press International 06 (October 30th, http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/article_1216356.php/U.S._analyst_knocks_global_warming_report) A U.S. policy analyst says a global warming report by Britain`s Nicholas Stern 'flies in the face of most studies on the subject.' Jerry Taylor, a senior follow at Washington`s libertarian Cato Institute, said Stern`s report, which warns of catastrophic economic consequences from global warming, is a gross exaggeration that is out of the scientific mainstream. 'The Stern report flies in the face of most studies on the subject, which find that climate change would have, at best, only a modest negative effect on the (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) economies,' he said Monday. 'Only a very small percentage of gross domestic product in industrialized nations is affected by climate one way or the other, and there are about as many economic gains associated with warming as there are costs in OECD nations.' Global warming is not occurring. American Policy Center, No Date Cited (American Policy Center United Nations, http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm, accessed 08-10-2007, NS) There is no global warming. Period. You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us." There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming. Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.
Global warming is not happening. Bast, president of Heartland Instititue, 03 (Feb. 1, Eight Reasons Why Global Warming Is a Scam, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548, NS) Eight Reasons to End the Scam Concern over global warming is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs. 1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earths climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate. (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism. 2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. 3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers expectations, modelers resort to flux adjustments that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says climate modelers have been cheating for so long its almost become respectable. 4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCCs latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: The Earths atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes Global warming is exaggerated. Jowit, environment editor, 07 (Juliette, The Observer, March 18th, p. 5, NS) LEADING CLIMATE change experts have warned of the 'Hollywoodisation' of global warning and criticised American scientists for exaggerating the message of global warming. Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier of the Royal Meteorolgical Society said scientists, campaign groups, politicians and the media were all guilty of making out that catastrophic events were likely when this could not be proved. They also criticised the tendency to say individual extreme events - such as the Birmingham typhoon and the Boscastle floods - were evidence of climate change. They singled out for criticism a report last month by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which said intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wild fires and storms were 'early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come'. 'It's certainly a very strong statement,' said Collier, warning that it was a bit too early to 'make the blanket assumption that all extreme weather events are increasing.' Media reporting of the recent study written by the UN International Panel on Climate Change, was also criticised, especially for the use of words such as 'catastrophic', 'terrifying' and 'devastating' that were not in the report.
The data that proves that global warming is occurring is flawed. Singer, atmospheric physicist at George Mason University, 98 (S. Fred, Natural Science, http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/natsci_gw.html, January 29th, NS) Trenberth informs us that "climate is changing." No problem there. Mean temperatures rose steeply in the decades before 1940 and dropped from 1940 to about 1975. Most climatologists agree that these changes were of natural origin-although Trenberth tries to present them as of human origin. But then he claims that "global mean temperature is rising." Not so. The weather satellite data, the only truly global data set we have, actually show a global cooling trend during the past 19 years. Trenberth then cites his critique of these satellite results. Thats all good and proper, and part of the ongoing scientific debate about global warming. But he should have informed the reader of the able response by John Christy and Roy Spencer, who are responsible for the analysis of these data. And he should have also mentioned that balloon-borne weather sondes provide an independent set of data that confirm the satellite results of ongoing global cooling. In fact, it is the surface data that are suspect, and especially the data that purport to measure the temperature of the sea surface. The oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth, but only a small fraction is actually observed. At least four different techniques are somehow combined to give a "global" value, with grave doubts about the intercalibration. As the mix of data sources changes over time, it is likely to introduce a temperature trend that is largely an artifact. Trenberth is out of his specialty when he describes some of the imagined consequences of a global warming, such as floods and droughts. Along with Vice President Al Gore, he cites the 1997 North Dakota flood as an example. Trenberth should find himself a better expert, like Harry Lins of the US Geological Survey, who has actually analyzed flood data and reports no increasing trend (Am. Geophys. Union Meeting, December 1997). Trenberth bemoans the "politicization of science"-and so do we. He refers the reader to the George Brown article in the March 1997 issue of Environment, which is based on a blatantly partisan staff report. The reader is not told about the replies to Brown in the May issue that sets the record straight. The IPCC does not have many qualified experts and the ones that are qualified disagree. Singer, atmospheric physicist at George Mason University, 98 (S. Fred, Natural Science, http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/natsci_gw.html, January 29th, NS) Finally, Trenberth drags out the hoary consensus of "over 2000 IPCC scientists." I have analyzed this fabricated claim in some detail (see Wall Street Journal, July 25, 1997). There are, at best, only about 100 climate scientists in this IPCC listing of economists, political scientists, government functionaries, and public relations specialists. Not that numbers matter, but among the 100 bona-fide experts there are many who disagree with the "consensus"--as determined by several independent polls. (See also the May 16, 1997 issue of Science.) And there are even some who have publicly expressed their disagreement by signing the "Leipzig Declaration"--which now numbers over 100 signers.
AT ADV Human Rights

GGR repeal would undermine human rights worldwide. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Worldstream, June 21, p. l/n, twm) The House of Representatives was casting a landmark vote Thursday when it decides whether to reverse U.S. policy and provide contraceptive grants to groups overseas that also provide abortions. The legislation states the United States cannot deny grants to any group so long as the assistance includes funding for contraceptives. President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the measure, and Republicans say they have enough support to uphold the veto. In the face of stiff opposition to the plan, Democrats drafted an amendment that would restrict the aid to U.S.-donated contraceptives. The bill would help "reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies, and abortions ... and save the lives of mothers," said Rep. Nita Lowey, the Democrat who chairs the House appropriations panel that oversees the foreign aid budget. "I'm seriously concerned about the ramifications that such a policy change would have on our ability to respect the innocence of human life and human rights worldwide," said Rep. Ileana RosLehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
AT ADV Imperialism
GGR isnt imperialists developing countries wanted the U.S. to stop promoting abortion in their countries. US Newswire 07 (June 19, p. l/n, twm) In his letter, Cardinal Rigali noted that the U.N. conference's policy was supported not only by the United States, the Holy See, and many developed nations such as France, Italy and Germany, but also by the great majority of developing nations, many of whom resent Western efforts to promote abortion to them. He continued: "This policy of excluding abortion from family planning programs was reaffirmed by member nations a decade later, at the U.N. population conference in Cairo -- despite the U.S. delegation's support at that time for an international 'right' to abortion -- and at the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, as well as by the U.N. General Assembly's resolution of 2000 setting future directions for implementing the Beijing report." "This policy was never an imposition by the United States on reluctant developing nations, for it was enthusiastically supported by those nations," Cardinal Rigali said. "Nor was it about opposition to family planning itself. On the contrary, the legislation creating the United States' own domestic family planning program in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Services Act, has always prohibited funding 'programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'" GGR protects innocent life, culture and family planning. US Newswire 07 (June 19, p. l/n, twm) "Those who now oppose the Mexico City policy seem to be ignoring these realities," Cardinal Rigali said. Moreover, "logic and common sense dictate that we cannot reduce abortions by supporting groups dedicated to promoting abortions. Such a policy is simply at war with itself," he said. "Respect for innocent human life, a due regard for the culture and the rights of vulnerable developing nations, and even the practical concerns of those committed to effective family planning programs all argue for the same conclusion," the Cardinal said. "Therefore I urge you to support the Stupak/Smith amendment, so the Mexico City Policy can remain in effect." Plan is imperialist its not what women in developing countries want. PR Newswire 07 (June 22, p. l/n, twm) Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill authored by Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) to preserve the Mexico City Policy. This policy specifies that federal funds for family planning are not available to non-governmental organizations that perform and promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. Deirdre A. McQuade, Director of Planning and Information for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), reacted with disappointment to the 205-218 vote. "If this bill were signed into law, the United States would undermine international -- and even domestic -- consensus that abortion is not family planning," Ms. McQuade said. "Exporting abortion overseas will not lower abortion rates, is resented by developing nations, and is not supported by the American people," Ms. McQuade said. "Poor women in developing nations want food, clean water, housing, and affordable medicine for themselves and their families, not 'assistance' to abort their own children." Repeal of GGR isnt enough the U.S. has lots of other policies that try to impose cultural value of anti-abortion. Beyerstein 07 (Lindsay, Majikthise, June 21, p. l/n, twm) The Mexico City measure is but one of more than a dozen provisions banning Medicaid recipients, D.C. public health patients, prison inmates, government workers and even Peace Corps volunteers from getting a federally funded abortion. Current foreign aid bill has 15 provisions that stop support for abortion. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) CAN'T SAY YOU'RE FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND THEN WE PROVIDED SOME OF THE CONTRACEPTIVES TO SHIP OVER AND THEN THEY VOTE AGAINST IT. MRS. LOWEY: I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST BEFORE I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN, MR. LEVIN, THAT THESE PROVISIONS , THE CHARTS DISAPPEARED, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, THERE ARE 15 PROVISIONS THAT I LEFT IN THIS BILL THAT MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT NO U.S. DOLLARS MAY GO FOR ABORTION.
AT ADV Modeling
Western Europe proves that abortion laws arent about modeling. Marcus 07 (Imogen, The Observer, Jan. 14, p. 30, twm) Currently, abortion is prohibited in 73 countries around the world. In November 2006, Nicaraguan president Enrique Bolanos signed a law banning all abortions, regardless of whether a woman's life is at risk . In the same month a US law, which would have banned all abortions was rejected by South Dakotan voters. However, Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma and West Virginia are pushing for an outright ban. As it stands, in Poland abortion is permitted in cases of rape, gross abnormality of the foetus or where a woman's life is under threat. But in October 2006, the government began debating a constitutional amendment that would tighten the country's abortion laws to eliminate rape or incest as reasons for abortion. In Asia, an estimated 38,000 women die each year from complications related to unsafe abortion. Abortion is still banned in Ireland, Portugal, Malta and Cyprus, despite Western Europe having the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
AT ADV Patriarchy
Multiple alternate causalities stopping womens empowerment. Many of these issues existed long before colonial occupation which proves GGR has nothing to do with it. Gathi, Law Professor Albany, 06 (James, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, twm) Traditional norms in many sub-Saharan African countries exacerbate problems relating to unsafe abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV including: the unequal social, cultural, and religious status of women as compared to men and women's lack of empowerment; and more specifically, practices such as early marriages, multiple partners, polygamy, wife sharing, wife inheritance, widowhood practices and lack of inheritance rights, violence against women, as well as practices such as female circumcision. n113 While some of these traditions are more extreme in their expression than others, they largely coincide with male dominance particularly in the private and economic spheres of the market and the family. Further, to the extent that these practices are inimical to the equal rights of woman, in many ways they parallel the values promoted by the new right. In particular, these practices and the values of the New Right reject sexual and labor equality between men and women while placing a high value on the traditional male headed family. n114 Within the African countries, [*85] such practices intersect with the sheer lack or denial of reproductive rights. The pre-colonial value placed on reproductive labor of women in Africa, was ""controlled and exploited by men through customs such as brideprice and polygamous marriages.'" n115 Further complicating women's access to reproductive services in these countries is the reality that a husband may forbid a woman from receiving such services. n116 The practice of female circumcision has been the target of the Bush administration's vociferous condemnation. n117 While such condemnation of the practice is certainly welcome, the global gag rule endorses de-funding reproductive health care programs thereby undermining the objective of consistently promoting the goals of freedom of individual choice and equality of opportunity for women. n118 Another customary practice inconsistent with the rights of women is the use of women as compensation or cure. n119 For example, in Ghana, there exists a practice of imprisoning women in trokosi shrines "ostensibly to atone for sins committed by family members," n120 further reflecting the propensity in particular renditions of culture to use women as means to other ends, rather than as individuals. South Africa, despite its progressive legislation legalizing abortion, still has incidents of offensive traditional practices, including virginity testing of adolescent girls and engagement in sex with such virgins as a cure for AIDS, n121 reflecting the explosive legacy of "racialized sexual subordination" in a patriarchial society. n122 Practices which emphasize male pleasure over that of the woman [*86] include the tradition in South Africa and Zimbabwe of preparing a woman's vagina before sex "in order to make it "dry'" for the purpose of enhancing the male partner's pleasure; this practice being associated with increased risk of HIV and STD infection. n123 Arguably, the patriarchal assumptions that justify and underlie these practices parallel the patriarchal beliefs on the subordinate position of men in relation to women.. n124 The power and economic dynamics in the family exacerbate the increased risk of AIDS resulting from these practices. As a result of relationships based upon ideas, such as those asserted by the New Right, that it is natural and proper that women be dependent upon their husbands, women in many African countries have compromised bargaining power within their marital relationships, and therefore are often not in a position to insist their husbands use condoms. n125 Practices associated with traditional labels may also become dangerous for women. Widows in Ghana may be stoned to death based on accusations of witchcraft and communities sometimes banish women labeled as witches (usually unmarried women) to the outskirts of the country. n126 Economic control is yet another area where tradition persists, such as in Zimbabwe, where a man makes payments to the family of his prospective bride in a practice called lobola. n127 This tradition brings to mind the image of the male breadwinner, as endorsed by the principles of the New Right, justifying his control over his wife and his children by his economic role in the family.
Effectiveness of Gag Rule proves that the U.S. didnt export the patriarchy it was already in Africa. The aff internal link to oppression is overly simplistic ignoring all the alternate causalities. Gathi, Law Professor Albany, 06 (James, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, twm) Conservative religious and customary norms and practices in many developing societies mirror the commitments of the New Right in the U.S. I do not mean to suggest that these norms and practices in these societies are uniformly nonegalitarian, n102 far from that. n103 Rather, just like the New Right in the U.S., these norms are based on the beliefs of traditionalists who mobilize conservative traditional and religious family values, which: promote the hierarchical maleheaded family; relegate the role of women to the home; deny women access to opportunities to education; legitimize repressive practices such as female genital mutilation in developing countries. [*82] Identifying such practices as either oppressive or not is too simplistic, as developing societies "are fraught with complexity, not simple and static lines of oppressors and victims." Views are changing in Africa despite GGR. The Nation 07 (The Nation[Kenya], June 9, p. l/n, twm) When US President George W. Bush took over power, he imposed what is known as the Global Gag Rule. This forced organisations supporting reproductive health services incorporating contraceptives and abortion care to re-modify their activities or have funds from the American Government frozen. Thousands of reproductive health clinics in developing countries especially in Asia and Africa were forced to close down due to lack of support. Kenya suffered the same fate. Clinics in Nairobi, Embu, Kisii, Meru and other parts of the country were forced to close down, needs of women who were using them notwithstanding. The crisis emanating from this is anybody's guess. With current efforts though, the reproductive health service sector is struggling to meet the needs of the population albeit with minimal government help. The outcry from the medics is that the government should do more. Society too, should look into these issues with open mind. "Let the people have all the information they need on reproductive health then let them be accessible and affordable to them. When this is effected a woman will have control of her reproductive rights and may not be in a position of wanting to procure an abortion," says Prof Joseph Karanja of the University of Nairobi. While critics of contraceptives have been busy preaching against their use, figures on the ground present a different picture. It is for this reason that gynaecologists, in touch with the reality of the problem, are upbeat about society re-thinking the contraception and abortion debate.
Reproductive rights are disempowering for women because they uphold a hierarchal system which disadvantages the feminine identity
Reilly, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law, 1996 (Elizabeth, The American University Journal of Gender & the Law, Fall page lexis gjm)
Rights are generally accompanied by legal respect and are usually effective in empowering individual actors. In a legal world without respect for womens moral judgments, rights can disempower women. Rights analysis contains two different components. The
first is the substantive recognition of the right. The second is the process of determining if the right has been improperly restricted by the States action in light of the States valid goals. The process of rights-based analysis is hierarchical, abstract and isolationist. n206 The power of connection, context and relationship, necessary for mature peo- [*189] ple to make individual moral judgments, can also be negated by this process of rights analysis. n207 Therefore, the power of a womans right can easily be trumped by explicitly recognizing the womans low position in any hierarchy of moral being. This hierarchy includes the State, parents (father), n208 male mate (husband and father-to-be), the fetus, and even the community. Thus, the failure to respect women leads to a devaluing of the substantive right they seek to enforce, permitting the apparently neutral process of rights analysis to disempower women.
Abortion rights create roadblocks to the achievement of actual equality because it accepts the cultural norms of pregnancy.
Pacillo, Clerk to Chief Judge Karen Lansing, Idaho Court of Appeals, 1997 (Edith, The American University Journal of Gender & the Law, page lexis gjm)
To a large extent, the feminist approach to the pregnancy problem has focused on securing and preserving the abortion right as a means of promoting women's reproductive autonomy and equality. This article argues that feminists should be skeptical about the efficacy of making abortion the rallying point it has become because the abortion right, as it exists today, has limited potential to enhance women's
substantive equality. Making abortion the central issue may impede women's chances for equality because it detracts from other [*115] important issues facing women, namely, the pregnancy problem - discriminatory treatment of pregnant women by society and the criminal justice system. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, feminist rhetoric about abortion has largely failed to acknowledge the moral issues surrounding abortion. 6 This failure has ultimately damaged the feminist cause by oversimplifying this complex issue and alienating many supporters in the process. Because the abortion right is only one component of women's equality, this article urges feminist legal scholars to change the scope of their analysis from securing and preserving the abortion right to the broader issue of exposing the underlying fallacies supporting state power to disproportionately regulate female reproduction.
AT ADV Poverty
Turn - The focus on overpopulation detracts from the causes of poverty. Hartmann 06 (Betsy, 10 Reasons to Rethink Overpopulation, http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf, p.1, Fall, NS) The focus on population masks the complex causes of poverty and inequality. A narrow focus on human numbers obscures the way different economic and political systems operate to perpetuate poverty and inequality. It places the blame on the people with the least amount of resources and power rather than on corrupt governments and economic and political elites. It ignores the legacy of colonialism and the continuing unequal relationship between rich and poor countries, including unfavorable terms of trade and the debt burden. It says nothing about the concentration of much wealth in a few hands. In the late 1990s, the 225 people who comprise the ultra-rich had a combined wealth of over US $1 trillion, equivalent to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the worlds people.
Religious strife and lack of modern institutions are the root cause of poverty. BRW 6-8-2001 (Business Outlook: Access Economics, p. Lexis, hl)
In June 2001, the Australian Department of the Treasury has released data regarding the benefits of globalisation. Countering arguments that globalisation has increased poverty, the department says wars, religious strife and an absence of modern institutions are usually the causes of poverty, but globalisation receives the blame.
AT ADV Racism Abortions are targeted at minority populations to secure the future because of cost and time it takes to care for them. This makes life contingent on someone else wanting you to exist and justifies the extermination of outgroups.
Wanda Franz, Ph.D., is a developmental psychologist and a professor of child development in the division of Family and Consumer Sciences at West Virginia University, posted online on 20 Jun 2000 ("Wantedness" and Social Justice, http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/abort/abort_hitler.html[ajt]) , there are about 1.2 million abortions a year. The abortion industry defends these abortions as serving a high moral purpose: "Every child, a wanted child," goes the Planned Parenthood slogan. In other words, the "unwanted" child is better off being dead: we are doing the child a favor. And a Planned Parenthood advertisement from 1985 proclaims: "The right to choose makes all other rights possible."
Currently Since I am speaking to the Catholic Press Association, it is appropriate to present the counter view as expressed by Pope John Paul II. He declared "the right to life" to be "the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights." Planned Parenthood is, of course, not above appealing to baser motivations. An advertisement from its Minnesota affiliate blares: "Babies are loud, smelly and expensive. Unless you want one." In fact,
according to Planned Parenthood's own figures, only 3% of abortions are done for the sake of the mother's health; another 3% are done because of health problems of the baby; and 93%, are done for social reasons, because "babies are loud, smelly and expensive" and inconvenient. What we have then is killing on a massive scale as a form of birth control. Legalized abortion on demand places the unborn child in America today as much in jeopardy as a disabled person in Nazi Germany--except that abortion does not even involve the pro-forma review by a panel of experts, which the Nazi program required. Indeed, the unborn child has no rights whatsoever. There is no provision for defense on behalf of the victim, and there is no presumption of innocence until proven guilty; in fact, the victim's innocence is completely immaterial. The only thing that matters is "wantedness." The plain fact is that social justice is impossible if our right to life and our personhood are contingent upon somebody else wanting us to exist. "Every child, a wanted child" ultimately implies "every person, a wanted person," and that implies the end of liberty and a state of injustice.
1% are reported for rape or incest. The vast majority of abortions, or The social injustice generated by abortion is also evident when you look at who gets aborted. A survey for the years 1994 and 1995 found in the July/August 1996 issue of the journal Family Planning Perspectives reveals a heavy racial and ethnic bias. While black women made up only 14% of women of child-bearing age, they accounted for 31.1% of all abortions. Hispanic women constituted only 10.6% of that age group, but accounted for 20.2% of all abortions. In other words, these two minority groups alone suffered over 51% of all abortions although these minorities together amounted to less than 25% of women of child-bearing age. As an aside, let me note that Catholic women had abortion rates very close to the national average. Non-Hispanic, white Catholic women, however, had a 43% lower abortion rate than the national average. It is the heavy promotion of abortion among Hispanic Catholics that raises the overall "Catholic" rate to the national level. If you look at the history of the eugenics and abortion rights movements in this country you will notice heavy prejudice against minorities and Catholics. Aborting Catholic Hispanics satisfies both prejudices.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the percentage of abortions on Hispanic women nearly doubled from 1990 to 1996. This surely reflects Planned Parenthood's increasing effort to target this ethnic minority. These numbers come as no surprise when you remember that abortion advocacy in this country has its roots in eugenics. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, remarked that "all our problems are the result of over-breeding among the working class." While Planned Parenthood does not openly admit to its systemic prejudice against the poor and non-white minorities, it admits that its "core clients" are "young women, low-income women, and women of color."
AT ADV Soft power

Plan would hurt soft power. US Newswire 07 (June 20, p. l/n, twm) FRC Action Senior Vice President Connie Mackey said, "This is Ms. Lowey's not-too-subtle way of overturning the President's Mexico City policy and pouring U.S. tax dollars into the hands of abortion groups. The continuous attempts by the pro-abortion forces within the United States Congress to attach a pro-abortion agenda to every piece of legislation that comes across their desks does great damage to worthwhile programs that bring real aid and comfort to those most in need in this country and overseas. We call on Congress to support Rep. Chris Smith and Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to strike her language and help save lives instead of take them. We do not need to continue tarnishing the image of our nation with indigenous peoples around the world."
If their internal link were true the upcoming increase in PEPFAR would solve it. US Department of State 2007 [The United States and International Development: Partnering for Growth, Aug 6, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90348.htm]
President Bushs Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) continues to fight the pandemic around the world. Before the G8 Summit in June 2007, President Bush announced his intention to work with Congress to reauthorize PEPFAR. The five-year, $30 billion proposal would double the initial $15 billion commitment made in 2003, which is already the largest international health initiative dedicated to a specific disease. Building on prior success and in partnership with the host nations, PEPFAR has supported antiretroviral treatment for over 1.1 million people through March 2007. Additionally, in Fiscal Year 2006, PEPFAR supported prevention outreach to 61.5 million people, and cared for more than 4.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, including over 301,000 who received treatment and care for tuberculosis and more than 2 million orphans and vulnerable children. These results demonstrate important progress towards the 5-year goals of supporting antiretroviral therapy for at least two million people, supporting prevention of seven million new infections, and supporting care for 10 million people infected with or affected by HIV. The Emergency Plan works in over 120 countries worldwide with a focus on 15 of the most afflicted countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. In Fiscal Year 2007, the Emergency Plan is committing an additional $4.6 billion to the global fight against AIDS. If Congress supports the Presidents request for Fiscal Year 2008, for an additional $30 billion planned over the next five years, the American people will have committed $48.3 billion over 10 years to fight global HIV/AIDS.
Regaining Soft Power requires massive foreign policy reform, not just one program, and a new president. John Brown 2006 Americas fading glow, Senior Fellow at USC Center for Public Diplomacy, June 5,
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/05/americas_fading_glow.php, JP More than 30 reports have been written in recent years about how to improve Americas public diplomacy. Many of their recommendations are laundry lists of recycled Cold War programs and they fail to emphasize, with rare exceptions, three crucial ways to regain Americas soft power. First, the U.S. must drastically modify its foreign policy from top to bottom so that it is more in tune with the aspirations of the rest of the world. The underpinning of Bushs foreign policythe so-called war on terrormust be abandoned, and its macabre manifestations, such as the Guantanamo detainee facility, should be terminated. Second, given the difficulty of achieving the first goal under present leadership, Americans must show other nations that we no longer tolerate Bushs travesties, either at home or abroad. If we say no to Bush loud and clear through our votes and grass roots protests, it will be a significant step in hearing from abroad that America, we are with you once again. Finallyand this, regrettably, will also have to wait for a new administration with a vision of life that goes beyond the provincial and evangelicalour public diplomacy must be rejuvenated with ground-breaking cultural and educational programs that show the United States in all its infinite artistic and creative variety. With these kinds of changes, the rest of the world will know that we intend to renew our membership in the family of humanity.
AT ADV Terrorism
The risk of terrorism is overestimated and exaggerated. Huddy et.al., Department of Poltiical Science at NY State University, 02 (Leonie, Political Psychology, http://ispp.org/publications/journal/back/v23no3Terrorism.pdf, p. 487-8, NS) As noted, personal threat is also likely to elicit the effects associated with threat more generally that is, some form of cognitive shutdown that produces moa more information. Decision theorists have found that risks are exaggerated for events that are highly vivid, widely reported in the news, involuntary, responsibility for a large number of deaths, and unusual. Such events lead to the exaggeration of risk because they are more readily available in memory (Lichenstein, Slovic, Fischhoff, Layman, & Combs, 1928; Thaler, 1983). Events that arouse negative feelings also lead to an overestimation of risk (Johnson & Tversky, 1983). Taken together, these findings help explain why Americans wildly overestimated the personal risk of terrorism after 9/11. In reality, a large number of people but a small proportion of the U.S. population died in the attacks. Nonetheless, in a poll conducted on the day of the attack by Gallup 58% of Americans were somewhat or very worried that they or a member of their immediate family will become the victim of a terrorist attack. The concern eroded over time but still remained remarkably high in late Novemeber (26-27) when 35% of Americans remained worried about being victimized by terrorism in response to the same Gallup question as that asked on 9/11 (Huddy, Khatib, & Capelos, 2002). It would not be surprising to find that Americans not only overestimated the risk posed by terrorism but also exaggerated its broader consequences. Terrorism is being controlled. Mueller, Prof of Political Science at Ohio State Univ., 06 (John, Foreign Affairs, http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501-p0/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat-the-myth-ofthe-omnipresent-enemy.html, Sep/Oct, NS) The post-9/11 willingness of governments around the world to take on international terrorists has been much reinforced and amplified by subsequent, if scattered, terrorist activity outside the United States. Thus, a terrorist bombing in Bali in 2002 galvanized the Indonesian government into action. Extensive arrests and convictions -- including of leaders who had previously enjoyed some degree of local fame and political popularity -- seem to have severely degraded the capacity of the chief jihadist group in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah. After terrorists attacked Saudis in Saudi Arabia in 2003, that country, very much for self-interested reasons, became considerably more serious about dealing with domestic terrorism; it soon clamped down on radical clerics and preachers. Some rather inept terrorist bombings in Casablanca in 2003 inspired a similarly determined crackdown by Moroccan authorities. And the 2005 bombing in Jordan of a wedding at a hotel (an unbelievably stupid target for the terrorists) succeeded mainly in outraging the Jordanians: according to a Pew poll, the percentage of the population expressing a lot of confidence in bin Laden to "do the right thing" dropped from 25 percent to less than one percent after the attack. The results of policing activity overseas suggest that the absence of results in the United States has less to do with terrorists' cleverness or with investigative incompetence than with the possibility that few, if any, terrorists exist in the country. It also suggests that al Qaeda's ubiquity and capacity to do damage may have, as with so many perceived threats, been exaggerated. Just because some terrorists may wish to do great harm does not mean that they are able to. The terrorist threat is exaggerated. Mueller, Prof of Political Science at Ohio State Univ., 06 (John, Foreign Affairs, http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501-p0/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat-the-myth-ofthe-omnipresent-enemy.html, Sep/Oct, NS) But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited? One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.
Large scale terrorism is decreasing. Perl, Specialist in International Affairs, 01 (Raphael F., Terrorism, the Future, and U.S. Foreign Policy, www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/crs20010913.pdf, Sep. 13, p. 5, NS) The destruction of the World Trade and the severe damage to the Pentagon, together with other incidents such as the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in East Africa, of the World Trade Center in1993, and of the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires may indicate a desire to inflict higher casualties on what are generally less protected civilian targets. It may be that state-sponsored terrorism is decreasing significantly as, in a post-Cold War era, groups find it harder to obtain sponsors and rogue states are less willing to risk exposure to broad based and severe international sanctions. In this environment, access to private sources of funding for terrorist enterprises becomes critical. Terrorism is decreasing. ERRI, The Emergency Response And Research Institute, 03 (ERRI, Annual Report Into International Terrorist Activity 2002, http://www.emergency.com/2003/ERRI_2003_Ann.pdf, June 18th, p. 4, NS) Most assessments, including that of ERRI analysts, suggest that the year 2002 saw a reduction in world-wide terrorism. By varying amounts, the number of incidents involving U.S. targets, and number of dead and wounded as the result of terrorism decreased in 2002. ERRI statistics, which are more inclusive than those compiled by a number of other private and government organizations, saw a lesser drop in these numbers...but they did decrease nonetheless. While many would like to view this diminution of deadly attacks as a trend and believe that the intensity of world-wide terrorism is decreasing, ERRI analysts suggest that the statistics for 2002 are more probably a single year aberration...rather than a "trend." ERRI Annual Report into International Terrorist Activity 2002 Copyright 2003 Emergency Response and Research Institute 5 It should be noted that 2002 is the first year that U.S. military began to actually undertake proactive operations against terrorist bases and forces, in various parts of the world. It is believed that confrontation of terrorist organizations on a number of fronts may have contributed to the noted lesser number of incidents, deaths, and injuries. Secondarily, our assessment would suggest that 2002 saw a movement and reorganization of several terrorist organizations, most notably the Al-Qaeda network of militants. This was necessitated by the dismantling of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Worst case bioterrorism attacks would kill millions not cause extinction and even those acts are extremely unlikely. Hettena 02 (Seth, Associated Press, p. online, Sept. 3) In a worst-case scenario, a nuclear or chemical attack in San Francisco, San Diego or Los Angeles would kill as many as 80,000 people. But 220 pounds of anthrax, if properly dispersed under optimum conditions, would cover 180 square miles. Deaths could reach in the millions. Russell W. Glenn, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who co-authored the report, noted that when such strikes have occurred they do far less harm than predicted. Glenn said he offered the numbers to help the state prepare into the future as terrorist groups refine their knowledge of lethal technologies. "The chances of these kinds of casualties occurring in the near term are pretty remote," he said. "To truly cause these kinds of casualties not only takes excellent organization, you've got to have the right quantities. You've got to have the right kind of agent."
The Aff leads to increasing US involvement in Africa, subsequently destabilizing the region
MOTLAGH 06
[Jason is a freelance journalist currently based in Washington, DC He has covered conflicts in Asia and Africa; US opens New War Front in North Africa Asian Times online June 14 2006; page accessed online June 22, 2007 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HF14Aa01.html]
Despite a setback in Somalia, where anti-Islamist warlords recently lost control of the capital, Mogadishu, to a jihadist militia, the United States is plunging into a far vaster set of commitments, stretching across the "Wild West" of Saharan Africa some observers say terrorism in the Sahara is little more than a mirage and that protracted, high-profile US involvement could destabilize the region. "If anything, the [initiative] ... will generate terrorism, by which I mean resistance to the overall US presence and strategy
With an increase in US involvment in Africa will come an increase in terrorist attacks on US troops and instalations in the region this turns case
MOTLAGH 06
[Jason is a freelance journalist currently based in Washington, DC He has covered conflicts in Asia and Africa; US opens New War Front in North Africa Asian Times online June 14 2006; page accessed online June 22, 2007 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HF14Aa01.html]
They also argue that the effect of this policy at the grassroots is a witches' brew of anti-American sentiment and Islamic radicalism among Somalis fed up with US Involvement in their affairs, particularly when the Americans are backing forces that have torn the country apart. Critics say the same scenario threatens to take hold in Saharan Africa, only there the warlords are dictators, and national borders substitute for city blocks. Analysts say a recent threat by one ranking militant that US installations may come under attack is more than a little hot air.
AT ADV Unsafe Abortions

Plan would increase abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) ORGANIZATIONS THAT WANT U.S. GRANTS ONLY ENGAGE IN FAMILY PLANNING AS ADVERTISED. IF WE SUPPORT PROABORTION ORGANIZATIONS UNBORN CHILDREN AND THEIR MOTHERS AND THE LAWS THAT TODAY PROTECT THEM WILL BE PUT INTO JEOPARDY AND THE VIOLENCE OF ABORTION WILL INCREASE AND NOT BE DIMINISHED. No solvency - GGR repeal wont solve unsafe abortions abortion is already illegal in most African countries. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) SMITH AMENDMENT WILL NOT CUT FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS IN THIS BILL, HOWEVER, IT WILL DRAMATICALLY DECREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING AID BY WITHHOLDING CONTRACEPTIVES TO THE AREAS OF THE WORLD THAT NEED THEM MOST TO PREVENT UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES, ABORTIONS AND THE SPREAD OF HIV-AIDS. THE OTHER SIDE WILL ALSO SAY THAT MY PROVISION ENCOURAGES ABORTION AS A MEANS OF FAMILY PLANNING. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. ABORTION IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN MANY OF THE AREAS THAT WOULD RECEIVE CONTRACEPTIVES UNDER MY PROVISION, PARTICULARLY IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES. FURTHERMORE, THESE ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT PROMOTE ABORTION AS A MEANS OF FAMILY PLANNING, THEY PROVIDE FAMILY PLANNING TO PREVENT UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES. Legalized abortion increasing in SSA. Gathi, Law Professor Albany, 06 (James, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, twm) Ethiopia, Ghana, and Zimbabwe, recently amended their abortion laws to allow more liberal applications, so that when women seek and receive abortions, they are conducted in a safe manner. n111 South Africa has legalized the practice during the first trimester [*84] of the pregnancy. n112
AT ADV Water Wars

Experts say that Water Wars Will Not Occur Deen 06 (IPS, Thalif, http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=88823, August 25th, NS) The world's future wars will be fought not over oil but water: an ominous prediction made by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the British ministry of defence and even by some officials of the World Bank. But experts and academics meeting at an international conference on water management in the Swedish capital are dismissing this prediction as unrealistic, farfetched and nonsensical. "Water wars make good newspaper headlines but cooperation (agreements) don't," says
Arunabha Ghosh, co-author of the upcoming Human Development Report 2006 themed on water management. The annual report, commissioned by the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), is to be released in December. In reality, Ghosh told the meeting in Stockholm, there are plenty of bilateral, multilateral and trans-boundary agreements for water-sharing -- all or most of which do not make good newspaper copy. Asked about water wars, Prof. Asit K. Biswas of the Mexico-based Third World Centre for Water Management, told IPS: "This is absolute
nonsense because this is not going to happen -- at least not during the next 100 years." He said the world is not facing a water crisis because of physical water scarcities. "This is baloney," he said. "What it is facing is a crisis of bad water management," argued Biswas, who was awarded the 2006 international Stockholm Water Prize for "outstanding
achievements" in his field. The presentation ceremony took place in Stockholm Thursday. According to the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), one-third of all river basins are shared by more than two countries. Globally, there are 262 international river basins: 59 in Africa, 52 in Asia, 73 in Europe, 61 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 17 in North America. Overall, 145 countries have territories that include at least one shared river basin. Between 1948 and 1999, UNESCO says, there have been 1,831 "international interactions" recorded, including 507 conflicts, 96 neutral or non-significant events, and most importantly, 1,228 instances of cooperation. "Despite the potential problem, history has demonstrated that cooperation, rather than conflict, is likely in shared basins," UNESCO concludes. The Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) says that 10- to 20-year-old arguments about conflict over water are still being recycled. "Such arguments ignore massive amounts of recent research which shows that water-scarce states that share a water body tend to find cooperative solutions rather than enter into violent conflict," the institute says. SIWI says that during the entire "intifada" -- the ongoing Palestinian uprising against Israel in the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza -- the only thing on which the two warring parties continued to cooperate at a basic level was their shared waters. "Thus, rather than
reaching for arguments for the 'water war hypotheses,' the facts seem to support the idea that water is a uniting force and a potential source of peace rather than violent conflict." SIWI said. Ghosh, co-author of the UNDP study, pointed out several
agreements which were "models of cooperation", including the Indus Waters Treaty, the Israel-Jordan accord, the Senegal River Development Organisation and the Mekong River Commission. A study sponsored by the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars points that despite newspaper headlines screaming "water wars are coming!", these apocalyptic warnings fly in the face of history. "No nations
have gone to war specifically over water resources for thousands of years. International water disputes -- even among fierce enemies -- are resolved peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues," it says. The study also points out instances of cooperation between riparian nations -- countries or provinces bordering the same river -- that outnumbered conflicts by more than two to one between 1945 and 1999. Why? "Because water is so important, nations cannot afford to fight over it. Instead, water fuels greater interdependence. By coming together to jointly manage their shared water resources, countries can build trust and prevent conflict," argues the study, jointly co-authored by Aaron Wolf, Annika
Kramer, Alexander Carius and Geoffrey Dabelko. The study also says most of the conflicts have been within nations, and that international rivers are a different story, although a vice president of the World Bank predicted in 1995 that "the wars of the next century will be about water." In the early 1990s, California farmers bombed pipelines moving water from Owens Valley to Los Angeles, and in 2000 Chinese farmers in Shandong clashed with police to protest government plans to divert irrigation water to cities and industries. Ghosh cited two recent incidents impacting on water supplies. When Israeli fighter jets recently reduced parts of the Lebanese capital Beirut into rubble, the U.S.-made F-16s also destroyed an important source of life sustenance: water pipelines from the Litani River to farmland along the coastal plain and parts of the Bekaa Valley. The longstanding conflict in Sri Lanka -- which has been dragging for over 20 years -- was resumed last month over the diversion of a canal by the rebel group, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, fighting for a separate nation state. "These are two more cases for those who predict water wars," Ghosh said.
Water wars would never happen it is too critical a resource to provoke a lasting war. Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August, http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm, bcs) With all due respect to my friends, have battles been fought over water? Is water scarcity a casus belli? Does it in fact divide nations? My own answer is no, no and no. I recognise the obvious value to sensational Water War rhetoric. Alarmists awaken people to the underlying reality of water scarcity, and rally troops to become more progressive and interdependent. By contrast, to challenge or dispute that rhetoric is to risk making us passive or smug about the status quo, or delay badly needed innovations or co-operation against stress. And yet I do challenge 'Water War' rhetoric. For there is no hard evidence to back it up. If the 'water's-forfighting' chorus is off key, then its disharmony affects lives as well. It shifts energy and resources from local priorities to foreign affairs. It scares off investment where it is most in need. It inverts priorities, delays implementation of policy. And it forgets that water management is, ultimately, about real people. Mahatma Gandhi said, "When you are unsure of a course of action, remember the face of the poorest, weakest person in society and ask yourself what impact the action you are about to take will have on that person." More recently Nelson Mandela reiterated that democratic systems lose their validity if they fail to combat and eradicate poverty. We thus would be well advised to remember that, for the poorest and weakest, water's for drinking, not fighting over. The poor are most affected by rhetoric, just as they are by war. It is easier to ignore their thirst than to divert attention to potential foreign threats, real or imagined. Easier, not better. To help the poor and weak, let us reform our unstable, consumptive, ultra-nationalistic habits to share our resource. Disputes over water lead to peaceful agreements and further negotiations, not wars it's easier to share such a valuable resource than fight a war. Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August, http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm, bcs) Indeed, just as rain does not start but rather cools and suppresses fire, so water, by its very nature, tends to induce even hostile co-riparian countries to co-operate, even as disputes rage over other issues. The weight of historical evidence demonstrates that organised political bodies have signed 3600 water related treaties since AD 805. Of seven minor water-related skirmishes in that time all began over non-water issues. Most dealt with navigation and borders, but since 1814 states have negotiated a smaller proportion of treaties over flood control, water management, hydropower projects and allocation for consumptive and non-consumptive use. There are strategic reasons. Of all the 261 trans-boundary waters, in only a few cases: 1. is the downstream country utterly dependent on the river for water; 2. can the upstream country restrict the river's flow; 3. is there a legacy of antagonism between riparians; and 4. is the downstream country militarily stronger than upstream. Another reason involves scale and focus. For water peace to emerge, negotiators think local, act local, and draft treaties that stem from local water project on a specific local river, lake or aquifer that straddles two or more nations. These appear to have more real and lasting authority than broad, vague, undefined agreements with far reaching scope but little impact. This does not mean that states should not ratify the UN Convention on Shared Water Courses, as such ratification would reflect a willingness to be bound by co-operative incentives, in which agreement over water leads to other things. North America's water treaties covering fisheries, acid rain, navigation, climate change, the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence and the Columbia Basin -- expanded directly from that tiny, focused accord between farmers a century ago. Yet another reason involves communication: keep talking before, during and after a project. Prior notification of water development plans goes a long way towards water security. This does not mean nations must obtain consent, or permission, for national interest comes first. To notify is not to end water disputes, or potential for stress and tension. But it engages both, or all-riparian parties, in a frank discussion from which "good faith negotiation" helps define where national interests, for a finite resource, compete and where, like a river or aquifer, they overlap and can be shared. In the treaty between Argentina and Brazil, the very principles that were at issue in the dispute -- prior notification and consultation -- were enshrined in the agreement that resolved it.
Their arguments are the efforts of the press to obscure the truth in reality, water is a catalyst for peace empirically proven across the globe. Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August, http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm, bcs) Water also becomes a catalyst for peace over equity. Most treaties that allocate quantity or quality between states, or establish ground rules for management, reflect the principle of equity, or equitable use. This may seem odd, when there is not a perfect balance of power between nations. And the definition of equitable varies from case to case, and according to facts and circumstance. But in this regard water, a potentially renewable resource, can be a common denominator, a leveller in the search for equity. The negotiated result may not be what a national spokesman or leader tells in the press. Between Pakistan and India, or the US and Mexico, both countries announced "they don't have the right to our water," then sat down and work out an equitable solution. Altruism and solidarity, as in the agreement between India and Bangladesh, can provide the basis for future collaboration, if the political will is there. Nations may vow war, and then quietly broker equitable water for peace. Water tensions spur treaties, which lead to further beneficial cooperation water wars have never and will never happen. Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August, http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm, bcs) For some of these reasons, nations repeatedly unite over water. In all cases, what could -- and by all indications, should -- erupt into violence and escalation over resource competition and environmental stress instead healed, like a scar or broken bone, into something stronger than before tensions flared. Hot words over resources were cooled by shared water. The first small water treaties spur later agreements over trade, weapons, transport, communications or fisheries. Somehow nations resolve their trans-national water stress without the help of great powers; and yet when looking at potential water conflicts elsewhere in the world, superpowers appear to forget their own history. Insofar as Secretary of State seeks to foster the growth of these river-specific treaties through the United Nations, World Bank or International Court of Justice has done in the past, fine. Judicial or multi-lateral dispute settlements is the only way, if we are to move away from great power politics that verges on hegemony: "Water War" rhetoric should not replace the vacuum left by the Cold War's end. For no nations have gone to war strictly over water and, even with supply running low, let me go on record to say that I doubt they ever will. That is not naivete, or even blind optimism. That is a belief -- based on our growing awareness of water scarcity weighed against the historical evidence of water as a catalyst for co-operation -- that we can infuse each generation who comes with the capacity, understanding and political will to experience, use and enjoy waters as much as our own generation has.
AT Inherency
GGR isnt reducing funding for family planning assistance. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) LET ME NOTE THAT THE MEXICO CITY POLICY NOR THE AMENDMENT MR. STUPAK AND I OFFER TODAY REDUCED FAMILY PLANNING BY A PENNY. IT STRIKES THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL THAT CARVES OUT A EXCEPTION FOR THE PRO ABORTION ORGANIZATIONS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SINCE THE RESTORATION OF THE MEXICO CITY POLICY, SEVERAL COUNTRIES ETHIOPIA, THE KNGO, UGANDA, HAITI, PAKISTAN HAVE GOTTEN HUGE INCREASES IN CONTRACEPTIVES AND FAMILY PLANNING ASSISTANCE. ETHIOPIA WENT TO $19.5 MILLION UNDER THE MEXICO CITY POLICY. CONGO $ MILLION TO $9 MILLION, PAKISTAN $1.4 MILLION TO $16.5 MILLION. FUNDING TO UGANDA DOUBLED WHILE TO HAITI TRIPPED, U.S. AIDE TARGETS -- U.S.A. I.D. TARGETS. MR. CHAIRMAN, UNDER THE MEXICO CITY POLICY, THE U.S. HAS REMAINED THE LARGEST DONOR NATION BY FAR TO INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING. GGR doesnt cut family planning funding. US Fed News 07 (Virginia, US Fed News, June 21, p. l/n, twm) "Let me be clear," Foxx said. "The Mexico City Policy and this amendment do not reduce funding for family planning programs. The focus is instead on channeling funds to organizations that remain neutral on the abortion issue. There is, therefore, no overall reduction in family planning funds." This amendment reinstates the Mexico City Policy which would improve the credibility of international family planning programs by ensuring that they are entirely separated from abortion activities. It does not reduce funding for international family planning efforts. GGR doesnt reduce family planning funding. States News Service 07 (June 21, p. l/n, twm) The Mexico City Policy and this amendment do not reduce funding for family planning programs. The focus is instead on channeling funds to organizations that remain neutral on the abortion issue. There is, therefore, no overall reduction in family planning funds. This amendment reinstates the Mexico City Policy which would improve the credibility of international family planning programs by ensuring that they are entirely separated from abortion activities. It does not reduce funding for international family planning efforts. GGR doesnt reduce overall funding. US Fed News 07 (June 20, p. l/n, twm) The Mexico City Policy does not affect funding for family planning programs that do not promote abortion, nor does it affect the overall funding levels for HIV/AIDS prevention. GGR hasnt decreased funding IFP still gets $441 million per year. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, ellipses in original, twm) IT IS NOT TRUE. IN ETHIOPIA FUNDING HAS NEARLY QUADRUPLED, INCREASING FROM 4.9 TO 19.5 MILLION UNDER THE MEXICO CITY POLICY. IN UGANDA FUNDING HAS ALMOST DOUBLED FROM $5.2 MILLION TO $9.8 MILLION. INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING IS FUNDED AT $441 MILLION AND STILL BE FUNDED AT $441 MILLION IN THIS BILL UNDER THE SMITH-STUPAK AMENDMENT. . IT'S AN AMENDMENT THAT REALLY UNDERMINES THE MEXICO CITY LANGUAGE.
AT Solvency
Abortion advocacy undermines family planning. US Newswire 07 (June 19, p. l/n, twm) Supporters of the legislation saw such a policy as "essential," said the Cardinal, due to evidence that including abortion in a family planning program can undermine its effectiveness.
T Substantially 1NC Shell

A. Definitions Increase - American Heritage Dictionary 00 (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Compan http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increases, mc) Increase: To become greater or larger. 2. Substantially - Should be used in context. CJS 83 (Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 83) Substantially: A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance with the context in which it is used. 3. A contextual definition proves that a $30 billion increase or $6 billion per year IS substantial. White House Documents and Publications, 07 (June 8, Pg Lexis, JGD) President Bush Has Announced A Five-Year, $30 Billion Plan To Substantially Increase America's Commitment To Fight Global HIV/AIDS. The President will work with Congress to reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and double the initial $15 billion commitment, already the largest international health initiative dedicated to a specific disease. Assuming Congress meets the President's request for Fiscal Year 2008, and with the new $30 billion plan, the American people have committed $48.3 billion across 10 years to fight global HIV/AIDS. B. Violations 1. the plan doesnt increase aid to Sub Saharan Africa by $6 billion or more. 2. The plan removes a barrier which isnt an on face increase.
C. Voting issue topicality is an a priori voting issue for reasons of fairness, jurisdiction and ground. 1. Limits even if you perceive substantially as an arbitrary term it must be given some meaning within context the affirmative team should be forced to read contextual evidence that their plan would be a substantial increase. Failure to do so makes substantially meaningless completely unlimiting the topic. Affirmatives that allocate an extremely small amount of money or even just the sending of small specific technology creating literally 100s of cases. Their particular interpretation allows affs that just remove a barrier like abstinence programs, prostitution loyalty oath, debt relief, and lifting sanctions cases. There are hundreds of different sanctions and barriers the aff could potentially lift. Our interpretation allows several of the core affirmatives on the topic like fully funding the Water for Poor Initiative, Health Worker expansion and health clinics infrastructure cases. 2. Moving target the aff should be required to specify in the plan the amount of funding they provide to do otherwise allows them to shift the amount of funding they provide in the 2ac forcing us to waste time reading this T violation just to get a link to the spending DA. 3. Ground our interp is key to the spending DA. We shouldnt have to read that DA to prove in round abuse. Even if we read the DA and they conceded the link that would just prove they are dumb not that the plan really requires them to link to spending and tradeoff DAs. Also, the counterplans to lift a barrier but not increase funding or completely ban aid is core counterplan ground. Our contextual evidence proves that a major spending increase is key to overall ground not just spending because the Bush Administration is planning to increase PEPFAR funding substantially.
CP Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR 1NC Shell

Observation One Counterplan Text The United States Federal Government will provide sufficient funding to ensure that adequate family planning clinics who abide by the Mexico City Policy exist to provide contraceptive and maternal health services for people desiring those services. We reserve the right to clarify our intent. Observation Two Theoretical Concerns A. Status the counterplan is unconditional. We will either go for the counterplan or a procedural argument. B. Non-topical the counterplan is at best extra-topical it doesnt specify assistance for SSA its a worldwide program. C. Competition 1. Mutually exclusive the CP doesnt change the GGR it merely provides massive funding for NGOs that comply with GGR. 2. Net beneficial - The CP solves all the case and avoids the politics DA. Observation Three Solvency The counterplan would substantially decrease overall abortions, unsafe abortions, and save 525 million lives. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) HERE ARE THE FACTS, IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 120 MILLION MARRIED COUPLES WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONETHEIR NEXT PREGNANCY, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES. IN SUBSA HARRAH AFRICA, 20% OF THE WOMEN WHO DESIRE TO DELAY OR END THEIR CHILD BEARING REMAIN WITHOUT ACCESS TO VOL UNTEARM FAMILIAR APPLY PLANNING AND THEN THEY RISK AN UNINTENDED PREGNANCY. 525 MILLION WOMEN DIE FROM CAUSES RELATING TO PREGNANCY AND CHILD BIRTH WITH 99% OF THESE DEATHS OCCURRING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. AND EIGHT MILLION WOMEN SUFFER NEEDLESS COMPLICATIONS FROM PREGNANCY AND BIRTH. AND LACK OF SPACING BIRTH, THIS IS REALLY KEY, BECAUSE I HAVE SPOKEN TO WOMEN IN AFRICA AND IN LATIN AMERICA, LACK OF SPACING BIRTH RESULTS IN NINE TO 14 MONTHS, RISK HIGH MATERNAL DEATH RATE. VOTE FOR VOLUNTARY FAMILY PLANNING AND VOTE FOR 22 VOLUNTARY COUNTRIES FOR FAMILY PLANNING.
CP Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR Solvency

GGR has led to the closure of hundreds of reproductive health clinics across Africa. Ngesa 07 (Mildred, June 9, The Nation[Kenya], p. l/n, twm) The Global Gag Rule by the US on organisations that fund reproductive health projects has worsened the situation. It has led to closure of hundreds of reproductive health clinics across Africa. GGR forced thousands of health clinics to close. The Nation 07 (The Nation[Kenya], June 9, p. l/n, twm) When US President George W. Bush took over power, he imposed what is known as the Global Gag Rule. This forced organisations supporting reproductive health services incorporating contraceptives and abortion care to re-modify their activities or have funds from the American Government frozen. Thousands of reproductive health clinics in developing countries especially in Asia and Africa were forced to close down due to lack of support. CP would increase soft power. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) THIS AMENDMENT AND THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION BUT ABOUT PREVENTION. AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT PREVENTION. HERE WE HAVE -- THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK IS TRYING TO PREVENT 5 MILLION UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES, 29 MILLION ABORTIONS EACH YEAR, 1.4 MILLION INFANT DEATHS EACH YEAR, 142,000 PREGNANCY-RELATED DEATHS EACH YEAR AND HALF A MILLION CHILDREN FROM LOSING THEIR MOTHERS EACH YEAR. THAT'S WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS ABOUT AND THE GENTLELADY IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE IS SAYING THEY ARE FOR FAMILY PLANNING. HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW NOT ONLY THE CONGRESS BUT THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD AND ESPECIALLY THE DEVELOPING WORLD, THAT YOU ARE FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND HELPING TO EXTEND NOT ONLY LIFE, BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN MANY OF THESE COUNTRIES. WE OUGHT TO BE APPLAUDING WHAT THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK IS TRYING TO DO TODAY AS OPPOSE TRYING TO DERAIL THAT. IF YOU ARE FOR FAMILY PLANNING, HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY. IF YOU ARE FOR PRESENT VENTING OF TRANSMITTABLE SEXUAL DISEASE, STAND UP FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND SUPPORT THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK IN HER AMENDMENT AND THE UNDERLYING BILL AS WELL. AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE CHAIRMAN: THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA MR. WOLF: I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA, MR. BURTON, ONE MINUTE. Contraceptive availability would decrease abortions. The Nation 07 (The Nation[Kenya], June 9, p. l/n, twm) According to an obstetrician gynaecologist, Dr Solomon Orero, this logic is simple: "It does not matter which stand-point you want to look at but no matter what we do or say, sex is something we cannot prevent people from having but abortion is one of those issues that can at least be prevented if we have the proper mechanisms in place." While castigating those who argue that allowing safe abortions in hospitals will escalate promiscuity and carelessness by women, Dr Orero is forthright. "I am yet to see a woman who deliberately sets out to get pregnant with the deliberate intention of having an abortion. Contraceptive availability would decrease abortions. The Nation 07 (The Nation[Kenya], June 9, p. l/n, twm) Ever since women became aware of their reproductive health rights, use of contraceptives to plan families and stop unwanted pregnancies has saved them from the wrath of reproductive health lapses. There has, however, been a lull on the side of authorities to make reproductive health right a priority. Donor aid especially from American and European organisations is what has been funding the sector in Kenya.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 47 of 290 Problem with GGR is that it undermines access to contraceptives. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, ellipses in original, p. l/n, twm)
Initiated by President Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City, the policy bars any assistance to organizations abroad that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Democrats say an unintended consequence is an alarming shortage of contraceptives, particularly in poor rural areas. The bill would help "reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies and abortions ... and save the lives of mothers," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who chairs the House appropriations panel that oversees the foreign aid budget. "It is simply not enough to say you support family planning, so long as the current restrictions remain in law," Lowey said. The House voted to attach the measure to a $34.2 billion bill that pays for State Department operations and foreign aid in 2008. The spending bill passed by a 241-178 vote. Before it reaches Bush, the measure will have to pass the Senate, which is under control by a much more narrow majority of Democrats. Lowey initially drafted the legislation to guarantee funds to any group so long as the assistance included funding for contraceptives. Facing stiff opposition, Lowey wrote an amendment that restricted the aid to U.S.-donated contraceptives. Voting in favor of her amendment to expand contraception aid were 207 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Voting against it were 24 Democrats and 177 Republicans. More than a dozen members did not vote. The legislation does not affect other aspects of the Mexico City policy and would uphold the ban on other types of assistance to noncompliant groups. CP would stop 29 million abortions and save over 600,000 lives. States News Service 07 (June 21, p. l/n, twm) Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland), the Chairwoman of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, tonight praised House passage of legislation she introduced to reduce abortion and unintended pregnancies and combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic worldwide. "The House voted twice today in favor of common-sense family planning to prevent abortions, curb unintended pregnancies, save the lives of mothers, and fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic," said Lowey. "I look forward to working with the Senate to send this life-saving provision in the state/foreign operations appropriations bill to the President." The House tonight approved an amendment introduced by Congresswoman Lowey that allows international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who do not comply with the Mexico City Policy to receive donated contraceptives for millions of men and women who desperately need them. Filling the unmet need for contraceptives could prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies; an estimated 29 million abortions; 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths; and 505,000 children from losing their mothers in just one year.
CP Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR CP is popular

Counterplan would be popular. Young 07 (John, Cox News Service, July 10, p. l/n, twm) As Reuters reported in a story shared by digg.com, Kirk, who attended college in Mexico and holds a master's degree from the London School of Economics, "may have offered an idea that might appeal to some fiscal conservatives. Shipping condoms to the poor in Mexico could be cheaper than the multibillion-dollar fence being constructed along the U.S.-Mexico border." It is amazing that in this roiling world, where controlling one's reproductive destiny is baseline consideration to one's quality of life, we would need such discussions. To have 21st century family-planning options is, or should be, as fundamental as having potable water or diphtheria vaccine. It's a matter of public health. When people choose large families, that's their right. When large families are not of choice, then we have poverty, which breeds despair. Unwanted pregnancy also results in abortions, which today's elephant party says it is committed to stopping at every turn. OK, try this turn: Proclaim the imperatives of contraception. Be evangelical about the pill. Be born-again about Plan B. Preach abstinence, too, but be just as zealous about common-sense precautions for when people do what birds and bees do. You say that matters of religion make contraception a non-starter among many Americans. Well, consider: A 2006 Harris poll found that 90 percent of Americans support the use of contraception. Check that. Ninety percent of Catholics in America support contraception.
CP Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR AT CP links to politics

CP isnt a flip flop - Bush supports contraception programs. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) PRESIDENT BUSH, IN FACT HAS SAID THAT ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO PREVENT ABORTION IS TO PROVIDE QUALITY FAMILIAR APPLY PLANNING.
CP Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR AT GGR will stop solvency
1. Fiat solves we provide funding for contraception and maternal health services fiat stops those services from being repealed. 2. The CP causes circumvention we create a massive number of family planning clinics overwhelming the ability of USAID to monitor compliance with the Mexico City Policy. 3. Aborition isnt the vital internal link none of the aff evidence says women need access to abortions. Our 1nc evidence, and most, if not all of their evidence, says the key is providing contraception which the CP does. 4. More evidence that contraception not abortion services are key. Brown 07 (Colin, The Independent, p. 4, Jan. 31, twm) The earth's population will approach an unsustainable total of 10.5 billion unless contraception is put back at the top of the agenda for international efforts to alleviate global poverty. A report by MPs released today challenges world leaders to put the contraceptive pill and the condom at the centre of their efforts to alleviate global poverty, tackle starvation and even help to avert global warming. Gordon Brown has staked his future premiership on leading the world in tackling global poverty. And the report, by the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive growth, makes the point that the population surge presents a massive stumbling block for his ambition. Since the 1970s, when coercion was used in India and China, family planning has become a dirty word among environmental and hunger campaigners. But the report warns that eight UN targets for reducing poverty in the developing world will be missed unless world leaders do more to stop the soaring birth rates.
CP Fund NGOs but dont lift GGR AT DA to the CP generic

Family planning assistance is increasing in the status quo there isnt a link differential between status quo increases and the massive increase of the counterplan. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) I WOULD REMIND MY COLLEAGUES AGAIN THAT NOTHING IN OUR LANGUAGE TODAY CUTS BY A PENNY THE MONEY THAT IS ALLOCATED IN THIS APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND IF YOU LOOK AND WE'LL DO THIS AGAIN LATER AT ONE COUNTRY AFTER ANOTHER WE HAVE SEEN DOUBLING AND TRIPLING, QUADRUPLING EVEN OF MONEYS GOING TO COUNTRIES ESPECIALLY IN AFRICA FOR FAMILY PLANNING UNDER THE MEXICO CITY POLICY.
CP Lowey Bill/donate contraceptives 1NC Shell

Observation One Counterplan Text The United States Federal Government will provide sufficient funding to ensure that contraceptives are available for people desiring those services. We reserve the right to clarify our intent. Observation Two Theoretical Concerns A. Status the counterplan is unconditional. We will either go for the counterplan or a procedural argument. B. Non-topical the counterplan is at best extra-topical it doesnt specify assistance for SSA its a worldwide program. C. Competition the counterplan solves all the case, avoids the politics DA and avoids the corruption turns and its mutually exclusive with the plan which ignores all of the Mexico City Policy. The CP only rescinds a small part of GGR. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, ellipses in original, p. l/n, twm) Initiated by President Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City, the policy bars any assistance to organizations abroad that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Democrats say an unintended consequence is an alarming shortage of contraceptives, particularly in poor rural areas. The bill would help "reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies and abortions ... and save the lives of mothers," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who chairs the House appropriations panel that oversees the foreign aid budget. "It is simply not enough to say you support family planning, so long as the current restrictions remain in law," Lowey said. The House voted to attach the measure to a $34.2 billion bill that pays for State Department operations and foreign aid in 2008. The spending bill passed by a 241-178 vote. Before it reaches Bush, the measure will have to pass the Senate, which is under control by a much more narrow majority of Democrats. Lowey initially drafted the legislation to guarantee funds to any group so long as the assistance included funding for contraceptives. Facing stiff opposition, Lowey wrote an amendment that restricted the aid to U.S.-donated contraceptives. Voting in favor of her amendment to expand contraception aid were 207 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Voting against it were 24 Democrats and 177 Republicans. More than a dozen members did not vote. The legislation does not affect other aspects of the Mexico City policy and would uphold the ban on other types of assistance to noncompliant groups. Observation Three Solvency Contraceptives arent fungible so we avoid the corruption turns and we solve. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm)
THEREBY, REDUCING ABORTION. YOU MAY ALSO HEAR THAT BY PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVES THESE ORGANIZATIONS WILL BE ABLE TO USE THEIR OWN FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES PROHIBITED BY MEXICO CITY. I'VE ALREADY MADE CLEAR THE INCREDIBLE UNMET NEED FOR CONTRACEPTIVES IN UGANDA ALONE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BIRTHS PER WOMAN IS 7.1 WHILE THE UNMET NEED FOR FAMILY PLANNING IS REPORTED BY MARRIED WOMEN AS 35%. THE BILL WILL PROVIDE DONATED CONTRACEPTIVES, NOT FUNDING TO GROUPS THAT ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH CONTRACEPTIVES IN AREAS WITH SHORTAGES. CONTRACEPTIVES ARE NOT FUNGIBLE. THEY ARE USED FOR CONTRACEPTION, PERIOD. BY FILLING THE UNMET NEED FOR CONTRACEPTIVES EACH YEAR WE CAN PREVENT 52 MILLION UNWANTED PREGNANCIES AN ESTIMATED 29 MILLION ABORTIONS, 142,000 PREGNANCY RELATED DEATHS AND 505,000 CHILDREN FROM LOSING THEIR MOTHERS. IT'S CLEAR THAT VOTING FOR THE SMITH AMENDMENT AND AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES IS AN EXTREME POSITION THAT WILL, IN FACT, HURT OUR EFFORTS TO DECREASE ABORTION SO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DECREASE ABORTION, IF YOU REALLY SAY YOU ARE FOR FAMILY PLANNING, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SAVE LIVES, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DECREASE HIV-AIDS, WHICH IS SPREADING THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, VOTE NO ON THE SMITH AMENDMENT.
CP Lowey Bill/donate contraceptives Solvency

Exempting contraceptives from GGR would decrease abortions and save lives. PR Newswire 07 (June 20, p. l/n, twm) The following is a statement from CFFC president Jon O'Brien to the House of Representatives to support the targeted exemption for contraceptives from the restrictive Mexico City Policy: "Access to contraception should be something that everybody who has an interest in reducing the need for abortion can agree on. Studies from all over the world show that Catholics use contraceptives at the same rate as do other women and support free access to contraceptive methods. In the US, 97% of sexually active Catholics use a method of contraception that the bishops oppose, and two-thirds support the funding of international family planning programs. These types of figures are replicated internationally, especially among those who would benefit from the proposed change in policy. In Colombia and Mexico, 91% of Catholics support access to contraception. In Bolivia, 91% of Catholics think that public health services should provide free access to contraception, a policy that has the support of 96% of Catholics in Colombia and Mexico. "Access to contraception not only helps women plan their families, it also saves lives, especially for those who need to avoid pregnancy for health reasons. Around the world, some 70,000 women die each year as a direct result of unsafe abortion, and 600,000 more are seriously injured. Providing these women with the means to avoid unplanned pregnancy will not only reduce the need for abortion, it will save lives. Members of Congress need to think about those women and their families, safe in the knowledge that their Catholic constituents will be supporting them as they vote to amend this dangerous policy. CP would increase soft power. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) THIS AMENDMENT AND THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION BUT ABOUT PREVENTION. AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT PREVENTION. HERE WE HAVE -- THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK IS TRYING TO PREVENT 5 MILLION UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES, 29 MILLION ABORTIONS EACH YEAR, 1.4 MILLION INFANT DEATHS EACH YEAR, 142,000 PREGNANCY-RELATED DEATHS EACH YEAR AND HALF A MILLION CHILDREN FROM LOSING THEIR MOTHERS EACH YEAR. THAT'S WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS ABOUT AND THE GENTLELADY IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE IS SAYING THEY ARE FOR FAMILY PLANNING. HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW NOT ONLY THE CONGRESS BUT THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD AND ESPECIALLY THE DEVELOPING WORLD, THAT YOU ARE FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND HELPING TO EXTEND NOT ONLY LIFE, BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN MANY OF THESE COUNTRIES. WE OUGHT TO BE APPLAUDING WHAT THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK IS TRYING TO DO TODAY AS OPPOSE TRYING TO DERAIL THAT. IF YOU ARE FOR FAMILY PLANNING, HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY. IF YOU ARE FOR PRESENT VENTING OF TRANSMITTABLE SEXUAL DISEASE, STAND UP FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND SUPPORT THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK IN HER AMENDMENT AND THE UNDERLYING BILL AS WELL. AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE CHAIRMAN: THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA MR. WOLF: I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA, MR. BURTON, ONE MINUTE. CP would stop 29 million abortions and save over 600,000 lives. States News Service 07 (June 21, p. l/n, twm) Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland), the Chairwoman of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, tonight praised House passage of legislation she introduced to reduce abortion and unintended pregnancies and combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic worldwide. "The House voted twice today in favor of common-sense family planning to prevent abortions, curb unintended pregnancies, save the lives of mothers, and fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic," said Lowey. "I look forward to working with the Senate to send this life-saving provision in the state/foreign operations appropriations bill to the President." The House tonight approved an amendment introduced by Congresswoman Lowey that allows international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who do not comply with the Mexico City Policy to receive donated contraceptives for millions of men and women who desperately need them. Filling the unmet need for contraceptives could prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies; an estimated 29 million abortions; 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths; and 505,000 children from losing their mothers in just one year.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 54 of 290 CP decreases abortions and hiv spread. Abrams 07 (Associated Press Worldstream, June 5, p. l/n, twm)
Lowey said the bill allows for donations of contraceptives, but no money, for those groups that have been denied U.S. aid because of their abortion policies. She said this would reduce abortions and the spread of AIDS and cut the number of high-risk and unintended pregnancies. "Contraceptives prevent abortion, plain and simple," said Terri Bartlett, vice president for public policy and Population Action International. "Cutting off the flow of contraceptives to women and couples in impoverished countries makes no sense at all."
CP Lowey Bill/donate contraceptives AT CP links to DA Politics

Making an exception from GGR to give contraceptives has support of the majority of Congress. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) Initiated by President Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City, the policy bars any assistance to organizations abroad that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Democrats say an unintended consequence is an alarming shortage of contraceptives, particularly in poor rural areas. The bill would help "reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies and abortions ... and save the lives of mothers," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who chairs the House appropriations panel that oversees the foreign aid budget. "It is simply not enough to say you support family planning, so long as the current restrictions remain in law," Lowey said. The House voted to attach the measure to a $34.2 billion bill that pays for State Department operations and foreign aid in 2008. The spending bill passed by a 241-178 vote. Before it reaches Bush, the measure will have to pass the Senate, which is under control by a much more narrow majority of Democrats. Lowey initially drafted the legislation to guarantee funds to any group so long as the assistance included funding for contraceptives. Facing stiff opposition, Lowey wrote an amendment that restricted the aid to U.S.-donated contraceptives. Voting in favor of her amendment to expand contraception aid were 207 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Voting against it were 24 Democrats and 177 Republicans. More than a dozen members did not vote. The legislation does not affect other aspects of the Mexico City policy and would uphold the ban on other types of assistance to noncompliant groups. Catholics overwhelmingly support contraception and the counterplan. PR Newswire 07 (June 20, p. l/n, twm) The following is a statement from CFFC president Jon O'Brien to the House of Representatives to support the targeted exemption for contraceptives from the restrictive Mexico City Policy: "Access to contraception should be something that everybody who has an interest in reducing the need for abortion can agree on. Studies from all over the world show that Catholics use contraceptives at the same rate as do other women and support free access to contraceptive methods. In the US, 97% of sexually active Catholics use a method of contraception that the bishops oppose, and two-thirds support the funding of international family planning programs. These types of figures are replicated internationally, especially among those who would benefit from the proposed change in policy. In Colombia and Mexico, 91% of Catholics support access to contraception. In Bolivia, 91% of Catholics think that public health services should provide free access to contraception, a policy that has the support of 96% of Catholics in Colombia and Mexico. "Access to contraception not only helps women plan their families, it also saves lives, especially for those who need to avoid pregnancy for health reasons. Around the world, some 70,000 women die each year as a direct result of unsafe abortion, and 600,000 more are seriously injured. Providing these women with the means to avoid unplanned pregnancy will not only reduce the need for abortion, it will save lives. Members of Congress need to think about those women and their families, safe in the knowledge that their Catholic constituents will be supporting them as they vote to amend this dangerous policy. "CFFC supports the excellent efforts in Congress to make prevention more of a real option, especially for poor women. It is important that Members of Congress know that statements against this initiative by the U.S. bishops may reflect the views of most of this country's 275 bishops, but clearly do not reflect the views or practices of the country's 64 million Catholics -- who use contraception and support funding for international family planning."
CP Lowey Bill/donate contraceptives CP solves corruption.

Direct donations of condoms wouldnt create fungible money. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) CAN'T SAY YOU'RE FOR FAMILY PLANNING AND THEN WE PROVIDED SOME OF THE CONTRACEPTIVES TO SHIP OVER AND THEN THEY VOTE AGAINST IT. MRS. LOWEY: I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST BEFORE I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN, MR. LEVIN, THAT THESE PROVISIONS , THE CHARTS DISAPPEARED, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, THERE ARE 15 PROVISIONS THAT I LEFT IN THIS BILL THAT MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT NO U.S. DOLLARS MAY GO FOR ABORTION. AND I YIELD TO MR. LEVIN ONE MINUTE. THE CHAIRMAN: THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. MR. LEVIN: OVER 25 YEARS AGO, I WAS THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF A.I.D. RUNNING THE POPULATION PROGRAM. THIS ISSUE OF FUNGBILT CAME UP. WE WERE IMPLEMENTING THE HYDE AMENDMENT. SO WE TRIED TO THROUGH ACCOUNTING MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS THE FUNGIBLE ISSUE. AND THEN MEXICO CITY WAS PROPOSED AND IMPLEMENTED. THIS IS NOT A REPEAL OF THE MEXICO CITY POLICY. WHAT EVERYONE THINKS OF IT, IT IS NOT. THIS ISN'T ABOUT ABORTION AND IT REALLY ISN'T ABOUT FUNGIBLE MONEY.
DA Abortion Bad - Links

Plan would increase abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) THEY CALL ON US TODAY NOT TO EXPORT ABORTION. WE ARE ALL GOING TO SUPPORT 441 MILLION FOR OVERSEAS FAMILY PLANNING. THAT'S IN THE BILL. IT'S UNTOUCHED BY THE STUPAK AMENDMENT. BUT WHO WE GIVE TO MATTERS. AND WHEN YOU POUR MONEY, IN THIS CASE, WHEN YOU POUR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS INTO PRO-ABORTION ORGANIZATIONS AND JUST READ THEIR WEB SITES AND LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN COUNTRY IS TO LEGALIZE ABORTION ON DEMAND AND CLINICS AND THE REST, YOU REALIZE THAT A VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT IS A VOTE TO ENABLE ABORTION ON DEMAND. Plan would increase abortion. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) The Mexico policy exists to draw a bright line between U.S. family planning policy and abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts, RPa. "However, it appears that there are some out there who wish to blur this line, (which) is what leads to coercive abortions and forced sterilizations." Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., proposed alternative legislation intended to reinforce the existing policy. That was rejected 218-205, with 25 Democrats and 180 Republicans voting to uphold Bush's policy. While Republicans had been doubtful they had enough votes to pass Smith's measure, they were confident they could sustain a presidential veto. "If we provide either cash or in-kind contributions or anything of value to pro-abortion organizations in other countries, we empower, enrich and enable them to expand abortion," Smith said. Plan would increase abortions. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Worldstream, June 21, ellipses in original, p. l/n, twm) The proposal ignited a firestorm of angry protests from conservative Republican congresswomen, who said they would back an amendment to strip the measure from the funding bill. That amendment, offered by Republican Reps. Christopher Smith and Bart Stupak, would reinforce Bush's existing policy. "It makes sense that if we do not use U.S. taxpayer funds to fund abortions in the United States, we should not use taxpayer dollars to export this procedure to other countries," said Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican. "Congress should not ... be entering into the position as being seen exporting abortion all over the world."
The fetus is a life

Eugene Diamond, M.D., is Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, and a Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, 2005 (An open letter to the open minded, http://www.culture-oflife.org/?Control=ArticleMaster&aid=1444&c=1&p=1) The existence of biologically independent life in the unborn from the moment of conception is supported by the following observations: A Human life can be made to begin under in-vitro conditions by fertilization of an ovum by sperm. B The zygote and embryo thus produced are independently viable and not "part of" the Petri dish or the uterus into which it will be implanted . C Criteria necessary for the definition of "life" rather than "death" (e.g. heartbeat, electroencephalographic activity) are present early in the first trimester. The unborn child has a unique dependency on its mother but it will continue to be totally dependent on others long after it is born. The existence of life is intrinsic and demonstrable. The existence of "personhood" is extrinsic and conferred by consensus, at times arbitrarily (the Supreme Court, for example, in the Dred Scott decision declared black slaves to be non-persons or chattel for purposes of the law). The Harvard conference on Abortion, in both its ethical and medical committees concluded unanimously that life begins at fertilization.
Expert testimony before the East committee in the Senate regarding the beginning of life fell into two categories: 1.) Life begins at conception(majority view), or 2.) When life begins is uncertain (minority view).
DA Abortion Bad Impacts We should embrace a precautionary principle on the issue of abortion it is better to be wrong and protect non-life than be wrong and kill life
Eugene Diamond, M.D., is Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, and a Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, 2005 (An open letter to the open minded, http://www.cultureof-life.org/?Control=ArticleMaster&aid=1444&c=1&p=1) If we conclude that a human life of a human person does not exist until some arbitrary stage of life after conception (quickening, nervous system development, viability, or birth) we may feel free to carry out lethal measures against pre-born individuals against whom we have passed this judgment. If we are incorrect, there is no remedy for the individual who has thus suffered a wrongful death. If, on the other hand, we extend protection to all stages in the human continuum, we avoid the wrongful death without causing any injustice to the unborn individual in the process. It has been customary in other contexts in the American experience to act in favor of life where the existence of life is uncertain. When there is a coal mine cave-in, for example, we do not board up the shaft but rather we dig for survivors. In almost every instance we continue to dig even when we are morally convinced that the oxygen supply has been long exhausted. It would seem reasonable to act similarly with regard to the unborn child. That is, presume that he qualifies for protection unless and until we can be certain that he is not a live human person.
If we conclude that when life begins is uncertain, we have a serious quandary.
Abortion causes death. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) ABORTION IS CHILD ABUSE. THAT MAY NOT BE NOT SOMETHING NICE TO SAY ON THIS FLOOR, BECAUSE YOU THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICE, CHOICE TO DO WHAT, DISMEMBER, CHEMICALLY POISON A CHILD. THESE ARE CHILDREN. WELCOME TO 2007. THE ULTRASOUND HAS SHATTERED THE MYTH THAT AN UNBORN CHILD IS NOT HUMOR NOT ALIVE. BIRTH IS AN EVENT THAT HAPPENS TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US. PRENATAL SURGERY HAS SHATTERED IT AS WELL. UNBORN CHILDREN ARE PATIENTS. GGR repeal would increase funding for organizations that help promote coercive abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) I WANT TO SAY AT THE OUTSET, I, FRANK WOLF, SUPPORT FAMILY PLANNING. PERIOD. ON MAY 22 A "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE DESCRIBED A RECENT CRACKDOWN ON CHINESE FAMILIES THAT VIOLATE CHINA'S ONE CHILD POLICY. CHINESE BIRTH CONTROL BUREAUCRATS SHOWED UP IN HALF A DOZEN TOWNS CARRYING SLENL HAMMERS AND CATTLE PRODS TO DESTROY THE HOMES AND BUSINESSES OF THOSE WHO FAILED TO PAY THEIR FINES UNDER THE ONE-CHILD POLICY. FAMILY PLANNING OFFICIALS WITH WERE RANSACKING BUSINESSES OWNED BY PARENTS OF MORE THAN ONE CHILD. THOSE WHO PROTESTED WERE BLOODIED IN THE STRUGGLE AND VILLAGERS WERE BLOODIED THE VIOLENCE. I HEARD THAT ON NPR, TOO. IT WAS BRUTAL THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO CITY POLICY PREVENTS FUNDING TO GO TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE ABORTIONS AS A MEANS OF FAMILY PLANNING. THE INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION AND MARIE STOPS INTERNATIONAL CLOSELY TIED TO THE CHINA ONE POLICY. I WILL NOT YIELD UNTIL I FINISH. THEY MRS. LOWEY: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? MR. WOLF: I WILL WAIT. CHINA WAS THE SECOND COUNTRY TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A QUALIFIED MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOUNDATION, THEY TOUTED, SALUTED, SAID IT WAS A GREAT THING, CHINA'S EFFORT TO EXPORT EXPLOITATION FAMILY PLANNING PLSI REGIME WORLDWIDE.
Abortions cause more than a million murders a year

Wardle in 1999 [62 Alb. L. Rev. 853 lexis] Roe has resulted in a tremendous increase in the number, rate, and ratio of abortions as abortion has become the most frequentlyperformed surgical procedure in the United States. n548 Appendix 2 shows the number, rate, and ratio of abortions in the United States as reported between 1972 and 1992 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the most accurate (but not disinterested) collector of abortion data in the United States. n549 Abortions increased during this period from about 600,000 to about 1,600,000. After rising dramatically for seven years, the number of abortions stabilized at about 1.5 to 1.6 million abortions per year for a dozen years from 1979 to 1990 - and has shown a slight
drop since then. Overall, the number, rate and ratio of abortion are significantly higher (more than double) today than they were twenty-five years ago. The slight decline in abortions over the last few years is probably due [*941] more to demography than cultural values. That is, the large group of "baby boomers" who came into their child-bearing years about twenty-five years ago are now passing out of the fertility years; as the cohort of women capable of getting pregnant grew, the abortion rate rose; as that group wanes, abortions have modestly fallen.
DA EU - Links
GGR spurs EU funding of reproductive health care services. Gathi, Law Professor Albany, 06 (James, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, twm) The global gag rule also sits uncomfortably with the U.S.'s support for building democracy and good health care services around the world. n164 In fact, because the U.S.'s credibility in supporting reproductive health has been undermined by the global gag rule, the European Commission announced a multimillion-dollar donor program in 2006 to support reproductive health care services the U.S. had stopped funding in 1973. n165 At last, the message seems to be getting across on the other side of the Atlantic that ideological politics ought to play no part in broadening access to reproductive health care in the poorest countries in the world.
DA Gordon Brown 1NC Shell

A Uniqueness Voters are still undecided on Brown. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, Aug. 5, The Observer (England), p. 27, twm) If he reads the detailed data from the polls - and, of course, he pores over the fine print - he will know that many of the public haven't yet come to a firm conclusion about him. He is on probation. Those expressing satisfaction with him exceed those saying they are dissatisfied, but the biggest group of voters are those who do not express an opinion one way or another. About four in 10 people are reserving judgment on their new Prime Minister. Which is another good reason for him to reserve his judgment about when to ask the people to give their verdict in the ballot boxes. B. Link 1. Getting the U.S. to lift the GGR would be a huge win for Gordon Brown he has staked his premiership on it. His own party is insistent that Brown take Bush to task on this issue. Brown 07 (Colin, The Independent, p. 4, Jan. 31, twm) The earth's population will approach an unsustainable total of 10.5 billion unless contraception is put back at the top of the agenda for international efforts to alleviate global poverty. A report by MPs released today challenges world leaders to put the contraceptive pill and the condom at the centre of their efforts to alleviate global poverty, tackle starvation and even help to avert global warming. Gordon Brown has staked his future premiership on leading the world in tackling global poverty. And the report, by the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive growth, makes the point that the population surge presents a massive stumbling block for his ambition. Since the 1970s, when coercion was used in India and China, family planning has become a dirty word among environmental and hunger campaigners. But the report warns that eight UN targets for reducing poverty in the developing world will be missed unless world leaders do more to stop the soaring birth rates. The group says the UK will have to take on the religious ideology of the neoconservatives in the White House against contraception. The MPs call for an end to the so-called "global gag rule", that was reintroduced by President George Bush. It has put non-governmental organisations outside the US "in an untenable position" and forced them to choose between carrying out their work safeguarding the health and rights of women or losing their funding from the US. The Labour MP Christine McCafferty, who chairs the group, said there would be a 50 per cent rise in the world's population by 2050 unless family planning was made more freely available in the developing world, where 99 per cent of the growth is expected to occur. 2. Looking like a winner is key to Brown. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, July 1, The Observer (England), p. 33, twm) Follow the money. Business leaders don't like to be seen anywhere near a loser. So it helps Mr Brown to look like a winner when he successfully recruits the bosses of BP, Marks & Spencer, Tesco, HSBC and Vodafone to one of his new advisory panels. C. Impact 1. Brown will maintain an independent British nuclear arsenal. Easton 07 (Susan, Human Events Online, May 15, p. l/n, twm) As for concerns that Brown will do a quick sprint back in the direction of his socialist roots, he has let it be known that he will push for certain reforms which the trade unions, backbone of Old Labour, vehemently oppose. He has further angered the left-of-center faction by pledging to keep Britain's nuclear arsenal independent rather than give up control to the European Union.
2. Britain keeping their nuclear weapons makes it more difficult to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. AFP 06 (Agence France Presse, Nov. 27, p. l/n, twm) Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix will on Monday call Prime Minister Tony Blair to account for his support for updating Britain's nuclear arsenal, The Independent reported. Blix will argue that Britain updating its nuclear weapons system, Trident, would put the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under "strain" and would make it more difficult to stop Iran acquiring nuclear technology. 3. This impact outweighs on probability- Middle East instability makes proliferation likely and makes nuclear terrorism easy Noah Feldman 2006 Nuclear holocaust: A risk too big even for martyrs?, IHT, October 27, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/27/news/bombforweb.php, JP Given the increasing instability of the Middle East, nuclear proliferation there is more worrisome than almost anywhere else on earth. As nuclear technology spreads, terrorists will enjoy increasing odds of getting their hands on nuclear weapons. States - including North Korea - might sell bombs or give them to favored proxy allies, the way Iran gave Hezbollah mediumrange rockets that Hezbollah used this summer during its war with Israel. Bombing through an intermediary has its advantages: deniability is, after all, the name of the game for a government trying to avoid nuclear retaliation. Proliferation could also happen in other ways. Imagine a succession crisis in which the Saudi government fragments and control over nuclear weapons, should the Saudis have acquired them, falls into the hands of Saudi elites who are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, or at least to his ideas. Or Al Qaeda itself could purchase ready-made bombs, a feat technically much less difficult than designing nuclear weapons from scratch. So far, there are few nuclear powers from whom such bombs can be directly bought: as of today, only nine nations in the world belong to the nuclear club. But as more countries get the bomb, tracing the seller will become harder and harder, and the incentive to make a sale will increase.
DA Gordon Brown Uniqueness Brown will lose now

Brown faces a huge challenge to remain PM he needs to prove he can create a fresh start. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, The Observer (England), p. 31, June 24, twm) 'He wanted to be Prime Minister. He wanted to be Prime Minister now. There was nothing else.' Gordon Brown started to hammer at Tony Blair to resign and give way to him as soon as they had won the 2001 election. That is the utterly believable account of Barry Cox, a close and non-Westminster friend of the Blairs who has never spoken in public before. 'And ever since then it's been continuous.' This week, Gordon Brown will finally complete that long quest when he is enthroned as Prime Minister. The challenge facing him is immense. It is exceptionally hard to regenerate a government after more than 10 years in power. To win a fourth term for Labour, he will have to defy the laws of political gravity. If he succeeds, it will be a huge feat of revival. God knows what the Conservatives will do to themselves if they are beaten for a fourth time. And if he can't pull it off? Then Gordon Brown will live the nightmare that has stalked him through all those years of tortured waiting. His premiership will turn out to be a bleak postscript to the Blair decade. Terror of that dismal fate was one reason why he agitated so aggressively to take over earlier. His great fear is to be another Jim Callaghan, a fag-end premier. This is obviously how the Conservatives will want to depict him. Even before the band has struck up, the Tories are already trying to rain on his parade by suggesting that he can't offer a fresh start. George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, sneers: 'In Westminster and the country, there is not the remotest buzz or excitement about Gordon Brown taking over.'
DA Gordon Brown - Links

Prime Minister can be brought down by a variety of issues. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, The Observer (England), p. 31, June 24, twm) As Chancellor, you can brood deep in your silo and concentrate on one big project at time. You can also, as he often has over the past 10 years, disappear from sight when it suits you. As Prime Minister, you cannot duck below the parapet, not in the 24/7 media age. Tony Blair has excelled at finding the words to respond to great domestic drama and high international crisis. When a princess is killed in a road tunnel in Paris, when suicide bombers wreak carnage in the capital, when bolts explode from the blue, a modern political leader must find the right instant response. Fail and the damage to reputation is immediate and often irreparable. Gordon Brown will have tried to grid-out his premiership. But one thing he surely must have learnt from observing his predecessor is that the most testing times for leaders are the events that they didn't plan for. Tony Blair could never have predicted the death of Diana. He did not see the fuel blockades coming, nor the attacks on the Twin Towers. Gordon Brown cannot know what will be the shock events of his premiership. He can only know that they will happen when he least expects them. The story of Tony Blair tells us this. However hard Gordon Brown strives to plan his long-awaited premiership, lightning can strike in an instant and define a premiership forever. Imaginative leadership is key to Brown staying in power. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, July 1, The Observer (England), p. 33, twm) David Cameron is telling friends that he will stick to his centrist strategy. 'We mustn't lose our nerve,' the Tory leader has told allies, which demonstrates his fear that his party will succumb to panic. Things are not going according to the script that the Conservatives wrote for themselves as Mr Brown proves to be a lot more imaginative and supple than either his opponents or quite a few in his party had expected. Showing flexibility is key to Brown. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, July 1, The Observer (England), p. 33, twm) The other way in which Gordon Brown has gone about surprising people is by confounding expectations of what he would be like as Prime Minister. As his appointments were announced, I could hear the great calculating machine that is the Brown brain as it worked down the list of everything negative that anyone has ever said about him. You thought he was a man who can't bear criticism and nurtures his grudges like other people do their geraniums? He gives a cabinet job to John Hutton who was of the opinion that Gordon Brown would make 'a fucking awful Prime Minister'. You reckoned he was a sectarian tribalist? Into his Big Kilt he has beckoned non-Labour figures such asDigby Jones, late of the CBI, and Alan West, formerly head of the Royal Navy, and Shirley Williams, darling of the liberal classes. You thought he preferred slavish loyalty in a colleague over talent? He has given big promotions to promising proteges of the departing Prime Minister while letting down some of his best friends. His most difficult meeting was with Margaret Beckett, an old ally who declared her support for him long before most of her colleagues. That did not save her from having to spend more time with her caravan. The able Blairites James Purnell and Andy Burnham have seats at the top table. So has Mr Brown's closest ally, Ed Balls, who has a portfolio packed with the new Prime Minister's domestic priorities. But Yvette Cooper, who might reasonably have expected to join her husband as a full member of the cabinet, only gets visiting rights for the moment. Nick Brown is so close to the new Prime Minister that they share the same surname. He is resurrected, but only as deputy chief whip. Ten years ago, he was chief whip. He may feel that is poor reward for all those years of loyal service, but it demonstrates that Gordon Brown can be ruthless with old friends as well as generous to old foes.
Staying in the centre yet looking like an agent of change is what will keep Brown in power. Oborne 07 (Peter, Daily Mail [London], p. l/n, June 30, twm) DAVID CAMERON'S strategy over the past 18 months has been extremely clear. It has been founded on the proposition that Tony Blair was a genius who possessed a unique understanding of Middle England and the political centre ground. Cameron viewed Gordon Brown as an entirely different kettle of fish: clannish, brooding, averse to reform and socially disastrous. He judged that English voters would never tolerate Brown. Cameron's strategy seemed to be based on the dogmatic assumption that the arrival of Gordon Brown was the solution to every Tory problem: the party would immediately establish a commanding lead in the polls, Cameron would emerge as heir to Tony Blair and Labour would meekly collapse. This week, Cameron's yearned-for moment finally came, and Gordon Brown has duly become Prime Minister. I suppose it remains possible that all the consequences of the Brown succession that David Cameron so confidently forecast may yet occur. However, the signs are by no means reassuring from a Conservative point of view. Judged purely on the events of the past few days, Gordon Brown is not in trouble. He has not emerged as the redblooded socialist hoped for by the Conservative Party. Rather than a maladroit and clumsy operator, he has so far managed affairs with a light and skilful touch. Most observers conclude that it is Cameron, not Brown, who is now in the most difficulty. This is because the incoming prime minister has deliberately set out to wreak maximum havoc among the Tories, and utterly confound David Cameron's political strategy. He has done this in two principal ways. First, he has refused to abandon the centre ground, as the Conservatives assumed he would. Indeed, he has planted himself there all the more firmly by cleverly importing talent from outside the Labour Party, thus refuting claims that he is a dour and cliquish Labour Party man. Second, he has daringly put himself forward as the real agent of change. Cameron can still take over unless Brown proves he can really create change. Oborne 07 (Peter, Daily Mail [London], p. l/n, June 30, twm) But, I would argue, things are not nearly as bad as they look for the Tory leader. While conceding that Cameron has indeed made a mistake of being too impressed by Tony Blair, and being far too dismissive of Brown, I will try to show that his fundamental strategy remains correct. First, Gordon Brown's new cabinet is by no means the work of artistry which its admirers claim. The new Prime Minister, despite having had a luxurious two months to prepare, has made a series of errors of judgment, the worst of which is the retention of his crony and near namesake, Des Browne, as Defence Secretary. Browne should have resigned after his culpable handling of the capture of 15 naval personnel by Iran. I spoke to one of Britain's most famous generals about this episode last week and he was still spitting blood at the damage inflicted not just on the Navy, but on the reputation of all our armed forces. Gordon Brown has made matters worse by giving Des Browne the additional responsibility of Scottish secretary. Britain is at present engaged in two major conflicts on separate fronts, and it is astonishing that the Prime Minister should even have contemplated distracting the attention of the Defence Secretary at such a delicate time, let alone put such an idea into practice. Another mistake concerns Harriet Harman, the surprise winner of the deputy leadership contest. Gordon Brown has behaved outrageously by simultaneously making Harman Labour Party chairman and Leader of the Commons. Leadership of the Commons is an impartial role, involving speaking up for MPs of all parties. It is impossible to reconcile with the partisan duties of a party chairman. The Prime Minister's attempt to combine the two jobs casts real doubt on his pledge to restore the independence and reputation of the Commons. The second point in David Cameron's favour is that Gordon Brown has yet to demonstrate that he really does want a government of all the talents. He has constructed his new Government with marvellous tactical adroitness and played skilfully on the boundless vanity of outof-office politicians, such as Shirley Williams from the Liberal Democrats, to create the impression of a broadly based government. BUT the idea that Brown really cares a fig about the opinions of Baroness Williams (or of Tory defector Quentin Davies, eaten up by the two least attractive human emotions, bitterness and envy) is preposterous. The main thing going on here is very clever positioning. My guess is that Gordon Brown will continue to rule Britain just as he governed the Treasury for a decade, with the aid of a handful of henchmen and everybody else kept in the dark. I am prepared to be proved wrong about this, and nobody will know for sure for some time. The third point in David Cameron's favour is that Gordon Brown's claim to embody change is fundamentally incredible. Once again, the new Prime Minister has been adroit, putting new faces like the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the heart of his administration. But the unavoidable truth remains that Gordon Brown gave his full support to every single action of the Blair government.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 66 of 290 Brown needs to end the disillusionment with Labours policies. ABC 07 (ABC Transcripts (Australia), May 18, p. l/n, twm)
DAVID BLUNKETT, FORMER CABINET MINISTER: The public won't necessarily love Gordon Brown but they deeply respect him. They'll want him to be successful. They'll understand that his commitment is to them and to Britain as a whole, and above all, to taking on the challenge of a global economy, of preparing Britain, helping people to cope with change. STEPHANIE KENNEDY: While he sailed into number 10, the challenge now is to win back an electorate disillusioned with Labour's foreign and domestic policies.
DA Gordon Brown Impacts Brown will keep it

Brown is committed to an independent nuclear arsenal. Fox 05 (Robert, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/200506130008, June 13, p. l/n, ellipses in original, twm) So far, the only public pronouncement has been Labour's 2005 election manifesto, which declares delphically: "We are committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent and we will continue to work, both bilaterally and through the UN, to urge states not yet party to non-proliferation treaties . . . to join." This is one of those rare issues where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown see eye to eye. As if stalked by the spectre of Aneurin Bevan going naked to the negotiating table, both Prime Minister-present and Prime Minister-future have allowed themselves to be convinced that, if Britain is to continue to have global ambitions, it has to have a credible nuclear weapon..
DA Gordon Brown Impacts AT No prime minister would give up nukes

There is an ongoing debate about whether Britain should keep their nuclear arsenal. Fox 05 (Robert, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/200506130008, June 13, p. l/n, twm) While the row in the country, party and parliament will be over whether a medium-sized country such as the UK should have a nuclear weapon at all, the argument within the government is about the choice and cost. There is strong support for ending Britains nuclear program and not replacing Trident. AFP 06 (Agence France Presse, Nov. 27, p. l/n, twm) Blix's Commission believes, he will say, that the top priority should be the ratification of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, one that would include North Korea, the newest nation with nuclear technology. The government is due to reveal its preferred option for how to proceed in terms of replacing Trident in December. Lawmakers will be allowed to vote on whether the government should replace Trident. But members of the governing Labour Party will be expected to follow the party line -- despite more than 120 Labour lawmakers having lobbied ministers to give them a free vote, raising the prospect of another rebellion against Blair. There is lots of support for Britain giving up its nuclear arsenal. IRNA 06 (Nov. 27, p. l/n, twm) The British premier has promised parliament that MPs will be allowed a vote on the government's nuclear proposals early next year, but he is expected to face strong opposition from backbench members of his ruling Labour Party. Religious leaders, peace groups, trade unions and academics have also raised concerns about plans to upgrade the country's nuclear missiles, warning not only that it would breach the NPT but would leave the public with multi-billions to pay over the next 30 years. There is support for getting rid of the British independent arsenal. IRNA 05 (Feb. 28, p. l/n, twm) Former deputy leader of the Labour Party Toy Hattersley called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to decommission Britain`s nuclear weapons, if, as expected, his government is re-elected at the forthcoming general election."The next (Labour) government will be bright enough to accept the strategic logic of abandoning the `so-called independent` nuclear weapon," Hattersley said. "The idea that military might is proof of national greatness is an outdated notion that a radical and reforming government should dismiss with a combination of derision and contempt," he said.
DA Gordon Brown Impacts AT Britain needs it for Deterrence

Britains arsenal wont deter terrorists. Fox 05 (Robert, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/200506130008, June 13, p. l/n, twm) The odd dissident takes a different view, such as the former guru of Britain's cold war nuclear theology and former permanent under-secretary at the MoD Sir Michael Quinlan. He has argued vociferously that nuclear weapons will do nothing to deter a terrorist bent on destruction. The top expert has concluded that Britains nuclear arsenal doesnt increase their security. The Times 04 (John, Sept. 9, The Times [London], p. 32, twm) In 1997 John Slater received a MacArthur grant to write a history of British nuclear weapons. He became very committed to the project, and Fiona went back to full-time work so that he could concentrate on it. The book re-examines Britain's efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal. It shows that Britain has never had an independent nuclear deterrent and that Britain's postwar defence was built upon a succession of false and vain hopes -an arsenal of nuclear weapons could not independently defend the country. Slater came to this conclusion by studying more than 100,000 documents from the US and the UK; many of them top secret and previously unavailable. All the arguments in favor of Britain needing a nuclear force are wrong. IRNA 05 (Feb. 28, p. l/n, twm) In an article published in the Guardian newspaper Monday, the former deputy Labour leader said that the world had moved on from the old days of the Cold War when nuclear weapons were used as a deterrence. "In the modern world, where deterrence is impossible, the only reason to keep nuclear weapons is the genuine belief that one day they might be used," he said. Hattersley, who served as a Labour cabinet minister during the 1970s, said that a nuclear arsenal was `not going to stop a man with suitcase full of ricing wiping out Greater London`. He criticized the huge expense of maintaining what was called `the balance of terror` and Britain`s total subservience to the US in developing and deploying such strategic weapons. "No one seriously imagined that the British bomb - or the British missile warhead into which it evolved - could ever be used without US agreement," said the former Labour leader, who is now a member of the House of Lords. He suggested that it was a delusion to think that the arsenal was `so-called independent nuclear deterrent` when in recent years, , Britain has `not even been possible to deploy it without American assistance`. "It would be absurd to spend money that is desperately needed for other government enterprises on `upgrading` and `hardening` the missile system so that it can be used, as it always must be, in conjunction with the US," Hattersley warned. "Fifty years ago, we should have limited our role in the alliance to providing convenient bases for our American allies. Now we should abandon the nuclear weapons business altogether," he said.
DA Gordon Brown Impacts AT It doesnt violate the NPT

Britains upgrade of nuclear forces violates the NPT. Fox 05 (Robert, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/200506130008, June 13, p. l/n, twm) There is another, possibly more important issue at stake. There is a school of thought among government lawyers that Trident's renewal could violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Britain was a founder signatory in 1968 in particular Article VI, by which members pledge to eradicate nuclear weapons, their own included. Britain giving up its independent nuclear arsenal is key to the NPT. Dr. Young 06 (Benedict, The Independent, Nov. 30, http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2026774.ece, twm) A better argument against replacement is that to retain Trident is to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Without the Treaty, the nuclear weapon states will either have to enforce global nuclear apartheid or accept every state's right to bear nuclear arms. The first option will be untenable; the latter disastrous. Disarmament, coupled with a diplomatic initiative for others to do likewise, is in the world's - and therefore the UK's - best interests. Britains nuclear arsenal makes it more difficult to stop proliferation. IRNA 06 (Nov. 27, p. l/n, twm) Blix, who now chairs the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction based in Sweden, also warned the UK government against updating its Trident nuclear missiles, saying it would put the NPT under strain and make it more difficult to stop others from acquiring technology. The British government is due to publish a white paper next month which is expected to set out plans to approve replacement of the country's aging nuclear deterrent. But in a speech to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in London, Blix was due to call Prime Minister Tony Blair to account for his support for updating Britain's nuclear arsenal, the Independent newspaper reported Monday.
DA Gordon Brown AT Britain doesnt have an independent arsenal

Failure to get rid of the independent arsenal risks nuclear holocaust. Dr. Young 06 (Benedict, The Independent, Nov. 30, http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2026774.ece, twm) Sir: Your editorial on Trident (27 November) claims that Britain cannot use its nuclear weapons without the approval of the United States. This would be comforting if true, since the need for American approval could stop the UK unleashing a holocaust. But in fact there is no evidence that it's true: see, for example, Commodore Tim Hare's authoritative denial at the Commons Defence Committee, 28 March 2006. The argument that the UK's independent nuclear deterrent is not actually independent is no help to the cause of disarmament.
DA Gordon Brown Impacts Iraq

Brown is committed to staying in Iraq but is facing intense pressure for a quick pullout. CNN 07 (July 30, p. l/n, twm) ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I can tell you, in the background here at the White House, interesting. As they were speaking, there was a small group of antiwar protesters shouting across the White House gates here, "Gordon Brown, don't let us down! British troops in Iraq, bring them back!" That gives you a sense of the pressure on Gordon Brown. This was just a small group of protesters, but you realize back in Britain he also faces domestic pressures. And while both men were saying the right things about a partnership, the real question is going to be whether there will be action, whether they will follow through on this, whether they will keep this alliance together. Mr. Bush went at it right away, saying a lot of people are wondering whether we can find common ground. I believe we can. He called it a productive, strategic relationship. Mr. Brown, meanwhile, also talked about a generational struggle in dealing with international terrorism and said he would give no quarter (ph), and they would fight as one. Certainly what Mr. Bush wanted to hear. But I would point to what Mr. Brown also said on Iraq. While he said we have responsibilities to keep, he also talked about how three of the four provinces where British troops have been have now been secured, and he talked about trying to get that fourth province secured. And obviously, the potential of eventually pulling British troops, the 5,500 or so that are still there, and turning responsibility over to Iraqis. The big question -- how quickly will that come? Obviously, the U.S. doesn't want the British to pull out too soon. But clearly, in terms of the words, Mr. Bush got what he wanted to hear from Mr. Brown about we have responsibilities to keep in Iraq -- Jim. CLANCY: All right. Let's quickly go over to Robin Oakley in London. And Robin, how much of what you heard there about, you know, we are -- let's see, how did he put it? He said we were in "over-watch mode" in three out of four provinces in southern Iraq, where the British troops are stationed. What did he mean by that? And what is he really saying there to the British people that are listening? ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN EUROPEAN POLITICAL EDITOR: He's responding to the eagerness of the British people to have troops come back from Iraq. But he went there himself before he came prime minister and said, look, we're going to keep our promises to the Iraqi people, we're going to keep our promises to the United Nations. He's still saying the decision will be made by commanders on the ground. But significantly, the chief of Britain's armed forces has said in the past 10 days that he expects British troops could be out of Basra by the end of the year. What struck me was Gordon Brown saying something there about reporting to parliament if developments happen while parliament is not sitting. Reporting to parliament when parliament gets back together. That's six or eight weeks ahead of now. Whether he was suggesting there could be a pullback from Basra as early as that, I don't think that could be what he meant. But it was a significant straw in the wind there. What was very striking was the number of compliments that President Bush paid to Gordon Brown, calling him a problem solver, thanking him constantly for his leadership on terrorism, for his ideas on the world trade talks, for his ideas on Darfur, and saying that he's a glass half full man, not the (INAUDIBLE) Scot that some had led him to believe, but a humorous Scot. Brown is committed to keeping troops in Iraq. ABC 07 (ABC Transcripts (Australia), May 18, p. l/n, twm) And after winning Government, the so called "Brown ites" worked tirelessly to undermine Tony Blair's Prime Ministership. Largely responsible for domestic policy, Gordon Brown is little known on the international stage. Embroiled in an unpopular war, Mr Brown has made the commitment to stay in Iraq. Gordon Brown is also an American file, and he's also pledged to follow Mr Blair's lead with the US. GORDON BROWN: I'm not announcing new policies in relation to foreign affairs today. What I do say, however, is that the values that unite America, Britain and Europe on foreign policy are more enduring than either one single set of events or what happens in one country.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 73 of 290 Iraq improving now. CNN 07 (July 30, p. l/n, twm)
CLANCY: While the British prime minister and U.S. president talked about Iraq and some of the pressures to draw down troops. A war skeptic who just returned from Baghdad said he's surprised by how much progress is being made under the new U.S. strategy. Ken Pollack, a senior researcher Brookings Institution the surge in Iraq has clearly created a surge in U.S. troop morale because soldiers on the ground see real progress. He says the most dramatic evidence can be found in the volatile Anbar Province, where he says Al Qaeda and its allies, have overplayed their hands. KEN POLLACK, SR. RESEARCHER, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Is that Al Qaeda, the Zawahiri groups, and even to some extent Jay Shal Machdi (ph), are overplaying their hands. Often times in war, you have to be lucky. You set yourself up to be lucky. I think in this case the U.S. was lucky. Al Qaeda started taking actions in those areas, which it controlled -- which really alienated the Iraqis. Killing local sheiks, kidnapping their children, seizing their daughters and marrying them off to their loyalists, against their will and their parents' wills. All of this really turned Iraqis, and particularly the Sunni Arabs, against Al Qaeda. And it was they who came to the Americans, and said, you know what, we are sick of these people. We want to get rid of them and we want your help. That's been a critical element in the success that the U.S. and new Iraqi army have been having over the last three or four months. (END VIDEO CLIP) CLANCY: Now, Pollack warned that political drive in Congress to force an early withdrawal poses security risks not only Iraq but the surrounding region. In his view the current strategy should be allowed to develop into early 2008 -- Hala. Brown will pull Britain out of Iraq quickly. Easton 07 (Susan, Human Events Online, May 15, p. l/n, twm) He also has that unfortunate squint which moved a Daily Mail reader to compare Brown's campaign speeches to a man pleading his case before the parole board.By the next day, it was clear that Brown intended on slicing clean through the chalk and cheese divide. He promised, upon becoming Prime Minster around the first of July, to institute a flurry of reforms designed to increase government accountability, especially regarding decisions about going to war. Brown's agenda here is made clear by his appointment of former Home and Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, as his campaign manager. Rumor has it that Blair took Straw out of the foreign office a few years back at the behest of George W. Bush. True or not, Straw had become increasingly vocal in his opposition to the war in Iraq and has since made so many visits to Tehran that he has acquired the nickname "Ayatollah Straw." For his part, Brown says he plans visits to Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible to "listen and learn." It is no secret that he and Straw want to end British military involvements in the Middle East as fast as they can manage it."I want a government humble enough to know its own place," Brown announced, an unmistakable jab at the often Presidential-like Blair. "As a politician I have never sought the public eye for its own sake. I have never believed presentation should be a substitute for policy. I do not believe that politics is about celebrity, " Brown added, taking aim at the failed rock star who raised spin cycle politics to an art form.
DA Gordon Brown Impacts

Brown believes in the state Cameron believes in freedom. Oborne 07 (Peter, Daily Mail [London], p. l/n, June 30, twm) David Cameron's fundamental critique of Gordon Brown remains as valid as ever. Our new Prime Minister as Cameron has argued right from the start is a big government man. He believes in the state above the individual, and in the duty of government to meddle in our lives. David Cameron believes the opposite: that human beings can only flourish better when set free. Brown will maintain UK support in Iraq. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, The Observer (England), p. 31, June 24, twm) One surprise in store - a nasty one for some on the left of his party - is the extent to which he won't break with his predecessor. Having been a great sceptic about ID cards, he has become converted to them. Gordon Brown has told friends that David Cameron can be painted as a 'libertarian' who is weak about security. There has been a vast amount of conjecture that the new Prime Minister will try to take the sting out of Iraq by quickly announcing an inquiry. I have it on the very best authority that he certainly will not have an inquiry while British forces are still in a combat role. Brown will push a new constitution solving SOP issues. Easton 07 (Susan, Human Events Online, May 15, p. l/n, twm) On the other hand, to assuage the left, Brown has hinted that he might be open to forming a coalition government by inviting strong participation by members of the Liberal Democrats (who are Old Labour by default). This may keep his links to the left in tact, but to win a national election against the Conservatives, Brown will have to assure middle income families in the South of England that he will not revert to Old Labour's socialist economic policies. A no-win, no-win situation. Nor can Brown afford to appear soft on crime and terrorism, which is why the idea of promoting a new constitution has a special place in Brown's plans. Multiculturalism has fragmented the social fabric of the United Kingdom. New waves of immigrants are not assimilating. Thus Gordon Brown has expressed the hope to write a 21st century constitution for Britain with specific delineations of the rights and responsibilities of all citizens and spell out, in modern terms, the roles of the three branches of government. If he could pull it off, this single achievement would assure Brown's place in history. It is also necessary since Blair allowed his chief of staff and spin doctors to run roughshod over the separation of powers, giving them the authority to leap frog over the heads of civil servants.
DA Gordon Brown Early Election scenario

Browns plan was to hold off on a new election but that assumption is being reconsidered because of recent poll success. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, Aug. 5, The Observer (England), p. 27, twm) About that, let me make a confession. After intensive research into the question and following many conversations with people at the most senior level in both the government and the opposition parties, I still don't have a clue when Gordon Brown is going to call a general election. Let me reveal something else to you: everyone else who is speculating about his intentions doesn't have the foggiest whether he will go to the country this autumn, next spring, the year after or the year after that. The cabinet does not know. Ed Miliband, who is putting together Labour's next manifesto, doesn't know. Douglas Alexander, who is in charge of planning the election campaign, doesn't know. What I do know is this. Before he got to Number 10, the working assumption of Mr Brown and his inner circle was that the government was so damaged that it would take a lot of time to win back the confidence of the voters. The earliest they expected to be able to call an election with any confidence of winning was in the spring of 2009. Those assumptions are certainly being recalibrated. One reason is the surge in the opinion polls. In the six months before Gordon Brown moved into Number 10, Labour was behind the Tories in all but one poll. Since he moved into Downing Street, Labour has been ahead in every single poll. Labour MPs who once despaired of keeping their seats are now much more upbeat; Tories who once thought they were finally on their way back to power are now much more downcast. Talk of an early election adds to the panic attack afflicting the Conservatives after David Cameron's most torrid period as their leader. Which is why it suits Labour to excite speculation by dropping hints that the manifesto is already in production and putting Labour MPs 'on alert' to start campaigning in September. The possibility of a snap poll helps Gordon Brown impose unity and discipline on his party while destabilising the Tories. It is an encouragement to Labour supporters to start writing cheques for their penniless party. It puts pressure on David Cameron to rush into policy commitments earlier than he might otherwise have done and sooner than might be clever if an election turns out to be two or more years away. T he truth about Gordon Brown is that, like any sensible politician in his position, he is trying to keep his options open and his cards close to his chest. I've little doubt that a large part of him would love to go to the country early. As one member of the cabinet puts it: 'Gordon wants his own mandate.' He may have had a much better start than many of the sceptics in Labour's ranks had anticipated. But in one crucial respect, he remains in the shadow of his predecessor. Tony Blair won three elections in a row; Gordon Brown has yet to win one election on his own. If he could be sure of victory, he'd obviously announce a general election tomorrow. His trouble is that he cannot be sure. And there is an enormous penalty for calling this wrong and chucking away a perfectly good majority by going to the polls sooner than he had to. Gordon Brown knows he would look like one of the greatest fools ever to occupy Number 10 if he called an early election and wound up with an emaciated majority. It would be worse still if he lost all of his majority and found himself trying to negotiate an extended lease on power courtesy of Sir Menzies Campbell. Were he to lose altogether, he would become one of the shortest-serving Prime Ministers of all time, forever ridiculed by historians and condemned by his party. It is with good reason that people have always called this the loneliest decision that a Prime Minister ever has to make. The first question nagging him is whether the 'Brown bounce' is merely that. Does it signal the beginning of an improvement in the government's fortunes that will prove durable or is this just an upwards blip that will soon fade away? In conversation about election timing with close allies, Mr Brown has been heard to remark that modern voters are 'volatile'. He has taken an interest in the fate of Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Prime Minister. After taking over from a charismatic and combative predecessor of the same party, his honeymoon with the voters proved to be short. His poll ratings crashed, and he has just been humiliated at the ballot box. Gordon Brown's inner circle are palpably unsure how to read the public mind and wary of over-interpreting these opening weeks of his premiership. That caution was expressed publicly by Ed Miliband when he remarked the other day: 'It's important not to get carried away by opinion polls.' As this key ally of the Prime Minister went on to say: 'We've got a big job to do to earn people's trust.'
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 76 of 290 Brown would lose an early election. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, Aug. 5, The Observer (England), p. 27, twm)
Would people trust an early election? Sure, most respondents tell pollsters that's what they want. But voters don't always react well to being given something just because they have asked for it. Gordon Brown is being sold as a serious leader for serious times. The initiatives, plans and reviews that he has announced since he arrived at Number 10 are designed to establish him as a leader with a long-term project for Britain. An early election could be read as a sign that he hasn't got confidence about the future. The Tories would cry that he is cutting and running early because he knows there are bad things just around the corner. They would not be deterred from saying that simply because they had previously urged an immediate election. Gordon Brown will also want to have a much more precise idea about the nature of his support than you get from the headline figures of the polls. It will not look good for his prospects if Labour is piling up more votes in places where its seats are already safe, but is still in trouble in the southern marginals that he has to win to secure a fourth term. Brown wont call an early election now. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, Aug. 5, The Observer (England), p. 27, twm) If he reads the detailed data from the polls - and, of course, he pores over the fine print - he will know that many of the public haven't yet come to a firm conclusion about him. He is on probation. Those expressing satisfaction with him exceed those saying they are dissatisfied, but the biggest group of voters are those who do not express an opinion one way or another. About four in 10 people are reserving judgment on their new Prime Minister. Which is another good reason for him to reserve his judgment about when to ask the people to give their verdict in the ballot boxes.
DA Gordon Brown AT Brown cant be brought down

Brown is still in the honeymoon phase. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, July 1, The Observer (England), p. 33, twm) Most of the media have decided to give him a honeymoon. The new Prime Minister may lack the presentational skills of his predecessor, but he was once a journalist himself and he understands what animates them. The media hunger for novelty and he has dished up plenty for headline writers to feed on. In Jacqui Smith, there is the first female Home Secretary. In David Miliband, there is the youngest Foreign Secretary in 30 years. In David and his younger brother, Ed, the first siblings to sit in the cabinet for more than 50 years. In Patricia Scotland, the first female Attorney General. In Shaun Woodward, the first Labour cabinet minister to have a butler. In Quentin Davies, the defector from the Tories, the first Labour MP to be called Quentin.
DA Gordon Brown AT Crisis will bring down Brown

Brown has responded well to crises. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, Aug. 5, The Observer (England), p. 27, twm) Gordon Brown has always been known as a great planner. And yet it is the unplanned that has worked out to his advantage. Harold Macmillan was only half-right when he talked about 'events, dear boy, events'. It is not the events themselves that define a leader; it is how he responds to those events. Mr Brown's performance in a crisis was one of the apprehensions about him before he moved into Number 10. Tony Blair's fear on that score was one of the reasons he was doubtful about his successor. The general judgment is that Mr Brown has responded well in an emergency. Overall, he has had a better start at Number 10 than either his enemies - or indeed many of his friends - anticipated. So much so that it is exciting speculation that he might be tempted to call an early election.
DA Gordon Brown AFF Answers

Britains independent nuclear arsenal doesnt violate the NPT. Fox 05 (Robert, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/200506130008, June 13, p. l/n, twm) There is another, possibly more important issue at stake. There is a school of thought among government lawyers that Trident's renewal could violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Britain was a founder signatory in 1968 in particular Article VI, by which members pledge to eradicate nuclear weapons, their own included. Here Blair, as ever, will follow the lead of the Bush administration. It has constructed the following argument: Britain and the United States are negotiating in good faith, and it is only possible to negotiate from a position of strength. To remain armed to the teeth is vital in such an uncertain world. British arsenal is necessary to deter terrorists. Fox 05 (Robert, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/200506130008, June 13, p. l/n, twm) The post-9/11 world has merely confirmed Blair in his view of him and George W Bush standing shoulder to shoulder, with all available weaponry at the ready. The British military is egging the Prime Minister on, telling him that the prospect of terrorist groups being able to make "dirty" nuclear bombs leaves the UK more reliant than ever on its own nuclear deterrent. With his eye on the future, Brown has been similarly persuaded. "It's a no-brainer," a senior general told me recently. "We have to go on." Brown isnt doomed. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, The Observer (England), p. 31, June 24, twm) It's both true and inevitable that there is none of the pop idol euphoria that greeted Labour's arrival in office when Tony Blair surged into power on that sunny May Day back in 1997. When he stands outside Number 10 this week, Gordon Brown is not going to be able to cry that a new dawn has broken. A consequence of the Blair experience is that it will be a long time in Britain before any political leader can generate the heady and naive optimism that accompanied Labour's arrival in power. But nor are his prospects as black as many Labour people had been fearing and many Tories had been hoping. Labour has publicly unified behind its new leader and just at the moment when David Cameron has hit the most turbulent stretch of his time in charge of the Tories. Most Labour MPs are behaving as if they want to win the next election. Many Tories are still giving the impression that they haven't yet grasped why they have lost three elections in a row. Labour leads now. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, The Observer (England), p. 31, June 24, twm) In the Mori poll we publish today, Labour has edged ahead of the Tories. Better still for Brown, he massively out-polls Cameron when voters are asked which of them would make the most capable Prime Minister. That reflects one of his advantages. He has a fuller and much more impressive curriculum vitae than most people who have become Prime Minister. Tony Blair had no experience of government at any level when he arrived in Number 10. Though his presentational skills largely masked it from the public and the media, this callowness mattered.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 80 of 290 Brown and Labour are ahead now. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, July 1, The Observer (England), p. 33, twm)
Enthroned in the Prime Minister's seat at the cabinet table for the first time, Gordon Brown cracked a faintly menacing joke to his colleagues. 'It's very interesting to look across at the Chancellor and to think I'm no longer the man who says, "No".' With a glance at Alistair Darling, he added: 'I'm looking forward to my first battles with him.' How they all laughed, carefully. Lurking just beneath the surface of that remark was a very serious question: who precisely will dare to do battle with the new Prime Minister? For the moment at least, Gordon Brown is lord of all he surveys. True, there are enormous challenges ahead of him if this long-awaited premiership is not to turn into a relatively short one. True, as I suggested to you last week, he will be surprised and defined by events beyond his control. He's had early warning of that with the car bomb plot to wreak carnage in the West End of London. True also, he did not look like the master of the universe when he arrived at the address which he has yearned for all those years. When he spoke to the country as Prime Minister for the first time, he looked becomingly hesitant, attractively clumsy. He was unsure where to stand for the cameras and then tapped at the microphone, apparently unconfident that anyone would have bothered to switch on the sound system for the nation's new leader. After 10 years of watching Tony Blair, this was like time-warping back several decades, an effect heightened by the new Prime Minister's invocation of his school motto to summarise himself. Does anyone still say 'try my utmost'? Well, Gordon Brown does. He begins his time at Number 10 in an exceptionally powerful position. The Labour party has cheered up, not least because a 'Brown bounce' has put them ahead in a few opinion polls. It is possible for Labour MPs to start believing that they might win the next election. It is now Conservatives who are misted in fear about their prospects. Brown is in a powerful position. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, July 1, The Observer (England), p. 33, twm) It suits Gordon Brown to increase the status of the cabinet because he will be so powerful within it. Apart from him, only two other people - Jack Straw and Alistair Darling - have sat at the top table continuously since 1997. Neither the new Chancellor nor the Justice Secretary has a power base independent of Mr Brown. There is no Deputy Prime Minister. There is no heir-apparent. The bookies might have made David Miliband the favourite, but he is too smart to waste time trying to rival the Prime Minister. This puts Gordon Brown in a peculiarly dominating position. John Major was never a commanding figure, even after he'd won the Tories an election they had all expected to lose. His majority was ever-shrinking and his authority was shot to pieces as his party went to war with itself and its leader. Margaret Thatcher was regarded as a domineering Prime Minister. A Spitting Image sketch had a waiter asking her what she wanted for dinner. 'Steak,' replied the Great She Elephant. 'And what about the vegetables?' Withering the cabinet, she delivered the punchline: 'They'll have the same.' Though that was the popular perception of her relationship with her cabinet, Thatcher was always surrounded by other big personalities such as Michael Heseltine, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Lawson, Geoffrey Howe and Ken Clarke. She did not always get her own way. It was her cabinet that gave her the bullet. Tony Blair was depicted as a presidential figure, but he would privately excuse his inability to do things on the opposition of the 'Big Beasts'. Gordon Brown will not have to deal with a John Reid, a David Blunkett, a John Prescott or a Charles Clarke. Most of all, he will not have to contend with a Gordon Brown, an alternative Prime Minister running a rival government from the Treasury. Every big beast starts life as a small beast. Some of the younger cabinet members will grow in reputation to become substantial figures in their own right. For the moment, though, there is no one Gordon Brown needs to be scared of in the way that he breathed down the neck of Tony Blair. Brown solidly in place now. Oborne 07 (Peter, Daily Mail [London], p. l/n, June 30, twm) THAT is where matters appear to stand this weekend: a rejuvenated Labour Party, a weakened Tory opposition, and allround political triumph for Gordon Brown. It is not just Labour MPs who see it this way. I spent a great deal of time at the end of last week analysing events with Tories. They are actively pressing Cameron to raise the issues they say the voters really care about: Europe, immigration and lower taxation. There is a great deal of talk that David Cameron's strategy is washed up and that it is time for him to start again.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 81 of 290 Under Brown labor has consistently been winning in the polls. Rawnsley 07 (Andrew, Aug. 5, The Observer (England), p. 27, twm)
One reason is the surge in the opinion polls. In the six months before Gordon Brown moved into Number 10, Labour was behind the Tories in all but one poll. Since he moved into Downing Street, Labour has been ahead in every single poll. Cameron would keep the independent nuclear arsenal. Tory Diary 06 (Dec. 4, http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/12/cameron_backs_t.html, twm) Earlier this afternoon I listed the ten peaks of David Cameron's first year as Conservative leader. Given David Cameron's statesmanlike response to Blair's decision on Trident I think we have an eleventh high. Pasted below is the text of David Cameron's words during this afternoon's Commons statement: I agree with the Prime Minister about both the substance of this decision, and about the timing. It is a vital matter for our national security. It requires a long-term approach. And I hope we can work together on this issue for the good of our country. On this side of the House, we have always believed that Britain should have an independent nuclear deterrent. And it is good to see that this is now so firmly part of a national political consensus. Britain needs an independent arsenal to deter attacks. Mendes 06 (Stephen, The Independent, Nov. 30, http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2026774.ece, twm) By possessing Trident Britain shows any aggressor that an attack (or the credible threat of an attack) on the UK will be punished by vicious retribution and total destruction. As long as potential aggressors believe that this is a reasonable possibility they will be deterred from attacking. Surely in this age when the world remains unstable, and states such as Iran and North Korea (and possibly others) are not only seeking to be nuclear-capable but are also seeking to acquire missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons, any British government would be reckless to abandon the UK's independent nuclear arsenal.
Britain needs to maintain a nuclear deterrent an expert in the field answers all your arguments. Gray, Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, England, and is a Senior Fellow at National Institute for Public Policy, 06 (March 16, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we09.htm, twm) 1. It is usual in a defence debate for there to be weighty arguments on both, or all, sides of an issue. The issue of Britain as a nuclear weapon state (NWS) is unusual in that all of the merit lies on one side of the argument, the case for Britain remaining a NWS. 2. This short paper argues that the case for Britain retaining a nuclear capability is an overwhelming one. It argues also that in cost-benefit terms, the cost is modest while the benefits are potentially priceless. 3. The case for a British, or, to be honest, a US-enabled, British nuclear deterrent, has eight components, the first of which is by far the most weighty. In summary form, Britain should remain nuclear armed because: (i) The future is deeply uncertain, it is not "foreseeable". (ii) Nuclear weapons offer the ultimate protection of core national values (survival, independence, way of life). (iii) Our denuclearisation would be completely irrelevant to the prospects for non proliferation. (iv) Conventional weapons cannot substitute fully for the political and military effects of nuclear weapons. (v) If British forces deploy to regions that contain nuclear weapon states, they need to be supported by a British nuclear arsenal. (vi) Denuclearisation would be interpreted correctly abroad as a gratuitous self-demotion in global diplomacy. (vii) A nuclear capability might offer Britain an alternative to accepting conventional defeat, should some expedition go very seriously wrong. (viii) It is necessary to retain Britain's nuclear infrastructure. That is a wasting asset and it would be hard to restore once it had been run down. A denuclearised Britain could well realise it had made a terrible mistake and would want to rebuild its nuclear capability, or option at least. 4. Assumptions drive arguments. Here are mine: Nuclear weapons are here to stay, like gunpowder they, and the knowledge of how to build them, will always be with us. The future cannot be foreseen. In 2006 we can no more predict the strategic history of the 21st Century, than our predecessors in 1906 could predict what the 20th Century would bring. What we do know about the 21st Century is not encouraging. We have a modernising China that is on a collision course with the USA. We have a dissatisfied Russia which has large irredentist claims on virtually all of its frontiers, and has a military doctrine emphasising nuclear escalation. Also, we know that climate change is underway, and that it has the potential to explode all civility in international relations. And we know that there will be further cases of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear non-proliferation is a lost cause, but it is one that we can try to lose slowly and survivably. There are no moral issues involved with British nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons exist. States acquire them for reasons that seem persuasive. Moral attitudes are simply irrelevant. Nuclear disarmament is a nonsense. Everyone is for it, in principle, but no one will do it. Furthermore, an agreement on complete nuclear disarmament is utterly non negotiable. It could never be verified. If verification did not matter, because we all trusted each other, we would not need a disarmament treaty. Unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain would be a self-inflicted diplomatic and strategic wound offering zero rewards. Each seriously potential nuclear weapon state will have its own reasons for wanting nuclear weapons. Whether Britain retains or abandons its semi-independent nuclear arsenal would be entirely irrelevant. Strategically viewed, a NWS is different from a non-NWS. NWS are treated with greater care and their enemies are obliged to exercise great caution in upsetting them. It is prudent for Britain to go into the unknown future as just such a state.
DA Politics Bush Good links flip flop

Flip flop link one of Bushs first acts as president was to reinstate GGR. Gathi, Law Professor Albany, 06 (James, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, twm) Unlike President Clinton who suspended the gag rule while in the White House, n34 one of President Bush's first acts in office was to reinstate the rule. n35 As restored, the global gag rule expressly prohibited funding for NGOs that engaged in lobbying a government to "legalize or make available abortion as a method of family planning or...to continue the legality of abortion as a method of family planning." n36 Furthermore, in 2002, the Bush administration revoked its financial backing of United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) n37 (the international body that addresses reproductive health and rights, as well as population issues) due to the assumed impression that UNFPA supported coercive abortion or forced sterilization in China. n38 Plan would be a huge flip flop by Bush. Beyerstein 07 (Lindsay, Majikthise, June 21, p. l/n, twm) House Democrats narrowly passed a measure yesterday to provide contraceptives to overseas organizations that had been banned from receiving foreign aid because they provided or promoted abortion. The amendment to an important antiabortion measure in the House foreign aid spending bill was a rebuke to President Bush, who has strictly opposed providing any assistance for groups that promote abortion. The Reagan-era measure, known as the Mexico City policy, was fiercely protected by Bush, who has issued two veto threats over the foreign aid bill, should Democrats attempt to alter any of the antiabortion measures it contains. [WaPo]But there's still a long way to The change to the measure may prove House Democrats' only significant challenge to the antiabortion riders that have been added to a range of annual spending bills by abortion opponents over three decades. Flip flop link Bush has already committed to vetoing a weakening of GGR. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) "The Mexico policy exists to draw a bright line between U.S. family planning policy and abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts, RPa. "However, it appears that there are some out there who wish to blur this line, (which) is what leads to coercive abortions and forced sterilizations." Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., proposed alternative legislation intended to reinforce the existing policy. That was rejected 218-205, with 25 Democrats and 180 Republicans voting to uphold Bush's policy. While Republicans had been doubtful they had enough votes to pass Smith's measure, they were confident they could sustain a presidential veto. "If we provide either cash or in-kind contributions or anything of value to pro-abortion organizations in other countries, we empower, enrich and enable them to expand abortion," Smith said. In a statement released Tuesday, the administration said the president would veto any legislation "that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion." Plan is a flip-flop Bush promised to veto it. PR Newswire 07 (June 22, p. l/n, twm) "I am grateful to President Bush for his pledge to veto legislation that weakens standing protections for innocent human life, including the Mexico City Policy," McQuade said, referring to the President's letters to House and Senate leaders on May 3, 2007. Plan would be a flip flop. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) In a statement released Tuesday, the administration said the president would veto any legislation "that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion." For many of the 164 Republicans who opposed final passage of the spending bill, it was an uncomfortable vote because it meant turning down hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance for Israel. But members said they were confident the bill would ultimately be sent to the president without the contraception provision because Democrats did not have the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
DA Politics Bush Good links GOP Base

GOP Base link - GGR is a key component of the New Right Agenda. Gathi, Law Professor Albany, 06 (James, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, twm) The foregoing reversals on funding for reproductive health care and for HIV/AIDS work largely results from the ideological commitments and goals of the New Right. n61 As a result of the Roe v. Wade decision, n62 as well as other influences, including the rise of feminism in the 1970's and the increase in women entering the labor force, the New Right came to regard the structure of the traditional family as being in crisis. n63 In addition, for a variety of other reasons, the New Right's pro-life/anti-abortion, pro-family/anti-welfare movement gained strength. n64 Limiting GGR will create right wing backlash. The Frontrunner 07 (June 8, p. l/n, twm) The Wall Street Journal (6/8, Harwood, 2.04M) reports in its "Washington Wire" column, "Democrats aim to undo conservative strictures on foreign aid. Sen. Feinstein of California proposes lifting requirement that one-third of AIDSprevention grants promote sexual abstinence in developing countries; Rep. Lowey of New York seeks to loosen 'global gag rule' barring U.S. aid to agencies counseling abortion. But American Jewish World Service advocacy director Jodi Jacobson predicts fierce opposition from the right." Making an exception from GGR to give contraceptives would cause GOP backlash. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) Lowey initially drafted the legislation to guarantee funds to any group so long as the assistance included funding for contraceptives. Facing stiff opposition, Lowey wrote an amendment that restricted the aid to U.S.-donated contraceptives. Voting in favor of her amendment to expand contraception aid were 207 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Voting against it were 24 Democrats and 177 Republicans. More than a dozen members did not vote. The legislation does not affect other aspects of the Mexico City policy and would uphold the ban on other types of assistance to noncompliant groups. Republicans still bristled at the proposal because they said the donation would free up resources for groups to provide abortions. They also said it would undermine the Mexico City policy, which is intended to pressure organizations to abandon abortion services. "The Mexico policy exists to draw a bright line between U.S. family planning policy and abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. "However, it appears that there are some out there who wish to blur this line, (which) is what leads to coercive abortions and forced sterilizations." Repeal of GGR would provoke massive GOP backlash. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Worldstream, June 21, p. l/n, twm) The proposal ignited a firestorm of angry protests from conservative Republican congresswomen, who said they would back an amendment to strip the measure from the funding bill. That amendment, offered by Republican Reps. Christopher Smith and Bart Stupak, would reinforce Bush's existing policy. "It makes sense that if we do not use U.S. taxpayer funds to fund abortions in the United States, we should not use taxpayer dollars to export this procedure to other countries," said Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican. "Congress should not ... be entering into the position as being seen exporting abortion all over the world."
DA Politics Bush Good links public

Even if pro choice has support consenus is against forcing taxpayers to support pro abortion organizations. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) AS DIVISIVE OF THIS ISSUE AMONG MANY AMERICANS, THIS ISSUE IS A CONSENSUS ISSUE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHATEVER YOUR VIEW OF ABORTION, WHETHER IT IS MORALLY RIGHT OR MORALLY ACCEPTABLE, MOST AMERICANS AGREE THAT IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO TAKE THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO CHERISH THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE AND USE IT TO FUND AND UNDERWRITE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE ABORTION OVERSEAS. Plan is unpopular with the public. PR Newswire 07 (June 22, p. l/n, twm) Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill authored by Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) to preserve the Mexico City Policy. This policy specifies that federal funds for family planning are not available to non-governmental organizations that perform and promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. Deirdre A. McQuade, Director of Planning and Information for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), reacted with disappointment to the 205-218 vote. "If this bill were signed into law, the United States would undermine international -- and even domestic -- consensus that abortion is not family planning," Ms. McQuade said. "Exporting abortion overseas will not lower abortion rates, is resented by developing nations, and is not supported by the American people," Ms. McQuade said. "Poor women in developing nations want food, clean water, housing, and affordable medicine for themselves and their families, not 'assistance' to abort their own children." Plan would create vigorous backlash from millions of Americans. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) I MEAN, THIS POLICY IS BASED ON THE SIMPLE IDEA THAT AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, -- SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO EXPORT ABORTIONS WITH THEIR MONEY. AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER AND USING IT TO SUBSIDIZE FOREIGN ABORTIONS. FOR MOST, THIS DEFIES COMMON SENSE AND FISCAL SENSE, AND IT IS REPREHENSIBLE TO THE MILLIONS OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE. Plan would be unpopular people know its wrong to subsidize abortion. States News Service 07 (June 21, p. l/n, twm) "As divisive as this issue is among many Americans, this issue is a consensus issue. The American people know whatever your view of abortion, whether it is morally right or morally acceptable, most Americans agree that it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who cherish the sanctity of human life and use it to fund and underwrite organizations that promote abortion's overseas.
DA Politics Bush Good AT Democrats FAVOR GGR/Concessions turns

During the elections Democrats said they would support the Mexico City Policy but they wont actually vote that way. CQ 07 (CQ Transcriptions, June 21, p. l/n, twm) You know, if it's a straight up-or-down vote on the Mexico City policy, I think the vote is close. It shouldn't be close, because many new House Democrats have made commitments during their election that they would, in fact, support the Mexico City policy. I think the big question today is how many of them will really vote that way. Democrats are careful about trying to remove the entire GGR they know it is a hot button issue. Beyerstein 07 (Lindsay, Majikthise, June 21, p. l/n, twm) House Democrats narrowly passed a measure yesterday to provide contraceptives to overseas organizations that had been banned from receiving foreign aid because they provided or promoted abortion. The amendment to an important antiabortion measure in the House foreign aid spending bill was a rebuke to President Bush, who has strictly opposed providing any assistance for groups that promote abortion. The Reagan-era measure, known as the Mexico City policy, was fiercely protected by Bush, who has issued two veto threats over the foreign aid bill, should Democrats attempt to alter any of the antiabortion measures it contains. [WaPo]But there's still a long way to The change to the measure may prove House Democrats' only significant challenge to the antiabortion riders that have been added to a range of annual spending bills by abortion opponents over three decades. The Mexico City measure is but one of more than a dozen provisions banning Medicaid recipients, D.C. public health patients, prison inmates, government workers and even Peace Corps volunteers from getting a federally funded abortion. And Democrats have appeared cautious about taking on the bigger fight. That was evident even in the debate before yesterday's vote. [WaPo]
GOP would oppose even GGR exceptions to allow condom distribution. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) The House voted narrowly Thursday to reverse a ban on contraception aid to groups overseas that offer abortions, challenging a pillar of President Bush's foreign aid policy. If the proposal passes the Senate, Bush is likely to swiftly veto it and be upheld by conservative lawmakers, who say no assistance of any kind should be given to organizations that promote or offer abortions. The measure, approved 223-201, is intended by the new Democratic majority to crack open debate on a policy it says is failing badly. Initiated by President Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City, the policy bars any assistance to organizations abroad that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Democrats say an unintended consequence is an alarming shortage of contraceptives, particularly in poor rural areas. The bill would help "reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies and abortions ... and save the lives of mothers," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who chairs the House appropriations panel that oversees the foreign aid budget. "It is simply not enough to say you support family planning, so long as the current restrictions remain in law," Lowey said. The House voted to attach the measure to a $34.2 billion bill that pays for State Department operations and foreign aid in 2008. Before the bill reaches the president, it will have to pass the Senate, which is under control by a much more narrow majority of Democrats. Voting in favor of expanding contraception aid were 207 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Voting against it were 24 Democrats and 177 Republicans. More than a dozen members did not vote. Lowey initially drafted legislation to guarantee funds to any group so long as the assistance included funding for contraceptives. Facing stiff opposition to the plan, Lowey drafted the amendment that passed to restrict the aid to U.S.donated contraceptives. The legislation does not affect other aspects of the Mexico City policy and would uphold the ban on other types of assistance to noncompliant groups. Republicans still bristled at the proposal because they said the donation would free up resources for groups to provide abortions. They also said it would undermine the Mexico City policy, which is intended to pressure organizations to abandon abortion services.
DA Politics Bush Bad Links

The plan would be a concession to democrats they want to repeal GGR. Rockwell 07 (Page and Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon.com, Jan. 6, p. l/n, twm) The New Republic: Cause for hope -- Bradford Plumer suggests that while the new Democrat-heavy Congress may not do much to protect abortion access domestically, there may be some flexibility on the global gag rule, which prevents U.S. funds from supporting non-governmental organizations accused of providing or advocating abortion.
DA Elections Giuliani Good 1NC Shell

A. Uniquness and link - Giuliani is ahead now but if the election comes down to abortion then he is in trouble because religious republicans dont trust him and they will be the swing voters. Newport and Carroll 07 (Frank and Joseph, July 26, Gallup Poll News Service, p. l/n, twm) Religion may play a varied role in the 2008 presidential primaries and elections. Rudy Giuliani's chances of receiving the Republican nomination may be hampered by his weaker performance among highly religious Republicans. Hillary Clinton's chances of receiving the Democratic nomination are not nearly as affected by religion. A Gallup analysis of the relationship between the religiosity of voters and support for nomination front-runners former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and current New York Senator Hillary Clinton finds that religion could play an important but varied role in the presidential primaries and elections. Giuliani's chances of receiving the Republican nomination may be hampered by his weaker performance among highly religious Republicans, who disproportionately say they don't have a candidate to support or swing toward candidates other than Giuliani. Clinton's chances of getting the
Democratic nomination, however, are much less affected by religion; there is little relationship between how religious Democrats are and whom they support for their party's nomination.
In a hypothetical general election match-up between Giuliani and Clinton, Giuliani does much better among those who attend church at least monthly than those who do not -- a common pattern for Republican candidates. Among white voters who seldom or never attend church, Clinton defeats Giuliani, primarily the result of variation among independent voters who don't have strong attachments to either candidate. Among black voters, Clinton wins overwhelmingly against Giuliani regardless of the voters' church attendance.
Religion and the 2008 Republican Primaries Republicans' choices for their party's nominee in the 2008 presidential election are related to how religious they are, operationalized here (and for the remainder of this article) by measuring the frequency of church attendance.
Although Giuliani is technically the leader among all groups of Republicans, he fares much better among those who attend church frequently than among those who attend less frequently.
Only 24% of weekly church attenders say they support Giuliani to win the party's nomination next year. This gives Giuliani a small, statistically insignificant lead over former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who has the support of 20% of weekly Republican churchgoers. Sixteen percent of weekly churchgoers support Arizona Senator John McCain, 8% pick former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and 7% support former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. No other Republican candidate garners more than 3% support among weekly Republican churchgoers. Giuliani is much more likely to be first choice for the Republican nomination among those who attend church less often, with 32% support among those who attend services almost weekly or monthly and 33% among those who seldom or never go to church. Among both groups, Giuliani owns double-digit leads. Who gains in lieu of Giuliani among weekly churchgoers? No one particular candidate. There is little difference by church-going in terms of support for the other leading candidates such as McCain, Thompson, and Romney. A slightly higher percentage of weekly Republican churchgoers say they have no preference at this point, and this group is slightly more likely to support various minor candidates. (Previous Gallup analysis has shown that -despite their first choice preferences -- a majority of Republican churchgoers say that Giuliani would be an acceptable nominee). Religion and the 2008 Democratic Primaries Church attendance does not appear to play nearly as significant a role in Democrats' preferences to win the Democratic nomination as is the case for Republicans. Clinton leads among all three groups of Democrats in the table above by margins of 15, 8, and 12 points. Former Vice President Al Gore does slightly better among those who seldom or never attend church, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama slightly less well -- resulting in Gore and Obama being rated evenly among the infrequent attenders, while Obama has a substantial lead over Gore among respondents who attend at least monthly. Clinton vs. Giuliani in the 2008 General Election In a hypothetical general election match-up between Clinton and Giuliani in which voters are asked which of these two they would prefer to vote for in November 2008, an aggregate of more than 3,000 Gallup poll interviews collected during June and July 2007 shows the two candidates tied, 48% to 48%.
Since highly religious Americans today are significantly more likely to be Republicans than Democrats, it is no surprise to find that Americans who attend church at least monthly are much more likely to vote for Giuliani than Clinton. Clinton
fares much better among those who seldom or never attend religious services. It is well-established that blacks in America are both highly religious and highly likely to be Democrats, thus going against the overall trend in the data. Separate analysis shows that within the subgroup of blacks in the aggregate sample, support for Clinton over Giuliani is overwhelming regardless of the frequency of church attendance. Overall, 85% of blacks prefer Clinton, compared with just 10% for Giuliani. This means that the main source of variation in the relationship between religion and general election candidate choice is among whites. Overall, 54% of whites say they would vote for Giuliani if the election was being held today, while 41% would vote for Clinton. This is testimony in and of itself to the dependence Democrats have on ethnic, non-white voters to win elections. But white voters are by no means monolithic in their support for Giuliani. White frequent churchgoers are particularly likely to support Giuliani over Clinton. Six in 10 whites who attend church at least monthly pick Giuliani, while only about one-third pick Clinton. But among that group of whites who seldom or never attend church, it's a different story. Clinton has a slight 3-point advantage over Giuliani among whites who seldom or never go to church, 49% to 46%. This relationship between religion and choice of candidate occurs for the most part among whites who classify themselves as independents -- who are by definition less likely to be firmly attached to one party or the other's candidate. Among voters who identify as Republicans or Democrats, however, there is substantial party loyalty; the strong majority of both white Republicans and white Democrats -- regardless of how frequently they attend church services -- say they would vote for their party's candidate. As can be seen in the following table, Clinton does much better among independents who seldom or never go to church than she does among those who attend services at least monthly.
These results suggest that to the extent that religion is a factor in a possible Clinton-Giuliani match-up on Election Day 2008, it would play itself out primarily among independents. Clinton's chances in a close race (and the aggregate being used in this article shows that she and Giuliani at this point would run a very close race) could at least partially be related to her ability to make inroads into the Giuliani-leaning propensities of religious white independents.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 90 of 290 B. Impact
1. Solves the case Giuliani would change the pro-life culture of the GOP which means its a bigger win for abortion rights than your plan. National Catholic Register 07 (3-6-07, http://ncregister.com/site/article/2017) We also see the downside of Rudys deal. If pro-lifers went along, wed soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his partys character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it. Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bushs GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in Its His Party in the March Atlantic Monthly. A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party. Parents know that, when we make significant exceptions to significant rules, those exceptions themselves become iron-clad rules to our children. Its the same in a political party. A Republican Party led by Rudy Giuliani would be a party of contempt for the pro-life position, which is to say, contempt for the fundamental right on which all others depend. 2. Giuliani key to check tax and spend democrats. Sewell 07 (Dan, Aug. 9, Associated Press, p. l/n, twm) Giuliani said he thinks the war on terror, more than his differences with many Republicans on abortion rights, is a key issue for him. "I believe the most important issue is being on offense against Islamic terrorism," he said. "I think there's no candidate in the race who has as much experience with that as I do." He also said he's a fiscal conservative in contrast to Democrat front-runners who want to raise taxes and have (filmmaker) "Michael Moore-style socialized medicine." 3. Democratic fiscal policy would crush U.S. economic growth the GOP plan has empirically worked. Demint, Senator, 07 (Jim, States News Service, May 17, p. l/n, twm) Tax and spend liberals are at it again and Americans should hold on to their wallets, said Senator DeMint. The Democrat budget will force taxpayers to send more of their hard-earned money to Washington. This budget calls for massive tax hikes and big spending increases, and it threatens our economic growth and job creation. It even raids billions of dollars from Social Security to pay for new spending. Instead of relying on tax increases, the federal budget should be balanced by controlling spending, reforming entitlement programs, and keeping the economy strong. Instead of raiding Social Security surpluses to mask the true size of the deficit, Congress should take this money off the table so it can be used to strengthen the program for our children and grandchildren. The U.S. economy has grown and prospered over the past several years with the creation of nearly 8 million new jobs and tax revenues that have outpaced projections by $300 billion. The Democrat budget will act as an anchor, dragging down the economy with massive tax increases, spending, and debt. 4. U.S. is key to world economic growth. Bryan 07 (Jay, The Gazette [Montreal], Feb. 1, p. B1, twm) For decades, the U.S. has been the world's economic locomotive, keeping global growth moving when times were tough in other big economies like Europe or Japan. Of course, when the locomotive ran out of steam, so did the rest of the world. 5. US economic decline risks World War III. Mead 98 (Walter Russell Mead, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, 98 THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, August 30, 1998, p. 1, twm) But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States- and on world history- wasnt money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Josef Stalins power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. Thats the thing about depressions. They arent just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing the Price is Right and start up a new round of Saving Private Ryan.
DA Elections Giuliani Good Uniqueness Giuliani will win

Giuliani can win in Ohio which is key to winning the whole election. Sewell 07 (Dan, Aug. 9, Associated Press, p. l/n, twm) Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said he has the national appeal the party will need to win in 2008 as he campaigned Thursday at a ballpark in southwest Ohio. "We've got to find a candidate who can be a nationwide candidate," Giuliani told reporters during a brief session at the Los Angeles Dodgers-Cincinnati Reds game, where the former New York City mayor watched a little baseball between fundraising appearances. He also planned to appear at a benefit concert featuring country music singers. "I have a chance of winning Ohio, I have a chance of winning New York, I have a chance of winning California," said Giuliani, who also mentioned New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan and Minnesota as states he could win. "We've got to put these states in play." Giuliani has usually led the Republican side in presidential polls in Ohio this year, but the state primaries aren't until March 4. Ohio has been a popular stop for contenders in both parties this year; Giuliani was just in the state last Friday. Both parties have strong bases in Ohio, and the state is also important now for candidates for fundraising and laying the groundwork for the general election campaign, said John Kessel, an Ohio State University professor emeritus of political science. Ohio's 20 electoral votes lifted President Bush to re-election in 2004, and the state is expected to be crucial again in 2008.
DA Elections Giuliani Good Links

Giuliani needs to keep the election off the abortion issue. Sewell 07 (Dan, Aug. 9, Associated Press, p. l/n, twm) Giuliani said he thinks the war on terror, more than his differences with many Republicans on abortion rights, is a key issue for him. "I believe the most important issue is being on offense against Islamic terrorism," he said. "I think there's no candidate in the race who has as much experience with that as I do."
DA Elections Giuliani Good AT Giuliani wont stop tax and spending increases
Giuliani will maintain his staunch fiscal discipline Craig Gordon 5-15-2007 Raves for Rudy's record; Giuliani earns high praise from conservative group for his role in restoring
fiscal discipline in NYC and slowing down municipal spending, NewsDay, ellipses in original, lexis, JP A conservative anti-tax group yesterday praised Rudolph Giuliani's fiscal record as New York mayor - saying that, except for a few notable flaws, he deserves credit for bringing some budgetary discipline to a tax-and-spend city. The influential Club for Growth found much to like in Giuliani's eight-year record, even echoing his campaign theme - that he deserves added credit for taking on an entrenched big-government culture to cut taxes, tighten budgets and slash welfare rolls. "He must have believed very strongly in these policies to have pushed so hard against a liberal establishment," said Pat Toomey, a former Pennsylvania congressman who heads the group. "If he was able to accomplish this in the political environment of New York, one would think he could accomplish it with the U.S. Congress [as president]." Outside budget analysts yesterday were more muted in the comments on Giuliani's record, saying some notable successes in cutting taxes and reining in spending in his first term were mixed with higher spending in the second term as city surpluses grew. "To some degree, they're giving him a lot of credit for what he had to do by law. The city has to balance its budget," said Doug Turetsky of the city's Independent Budget Office, who said Giuliani did cut some taxes but resisted cutting others. "His rhetoric was stronger than his results." But the Club for Growth says Giuliani's tax cuts are particularly praiseworthy because they came after the largest annual tax increase in city history, and said he showed a "deepseated aversion to tax increases." The group said he kept overall spending in check, and was at the forefront of the nation's welfare-reform battle. At the same time, the group criticized Giuliani's "occasional profligacy," citing second-term spending increases and an "alarming propensity for doling out corporate welfare," including to sports stadiums. It also criticized him for filing a lawsuit that eliminated the president's line-item veto, a favorite of conservatives. The group has not decided whether it will back a candidate in the GOP primaries, and the report is not an endorsement. Giuliani said yesterday that the report backed up his claims of being the most fiscally conservative candidate in the race - a claim he hopes to highlight in tonight's second Republican debate, in South Carolina.
Empirical evidence that Giuliani institutes strong fiscal discipline Joseph Lhota and Robert Harding 7/19/07 former deputy mayors of New York City, Fiscal Commitments, The New York
Sun, lexis, JP Like the fiscal situation Mr. Giuliani faced in the city, irresponsible spending in Washington is out of control. In the last decade, non-defense spending increased 72% because of anonymous earmarks, concealed budgeting, and the influence of powerful special interests. Mr. Giuliani wants to change the culture of Washington. Constant vigilance on spending is integral to Mr. Giuliani's philosophy of strong fiscal management. He wants to make the federal government more accountable and transparent by forcing Congress to stop irresponsible earmarks and require a cost estimate on any bill before Congress votes. The former mayor's commitment to restoring fiscal discipline and cutting wasteful Washington spending is one part of his 12 Commitments to the American People, Mr. Giuliani's roadmap for his presidency. He chopped the size of New York's bureaucracy by nearly 20,000 workers, while increasing the number of cops on the street and teachers in the classroom. Mr. Giuliani will follow the same principle by making the federal government smaller and smarter. He pledges to reduce the federal civilian workforce by more than 20% through attrition and retirement, saving taxpayers $21 billion each year. He would require federal agencies to identify between 5% and 20% of their savings in their annual budgets. Mr. Giuliani regarded this omnipresent budget-cutting exercise as essential during his time as mayor. By requiring city commissioners to propose 5% to 20% cuts from their budgets each and every year, even as the economic conditions improved, Mr. Giuliani kept his managers focused on constantly improving the efficiency of their organization while offering real value for taxpayers. His strong fiscal principles helped New York turn from "the ungovernable city" to one that remains in control of its economic destiny. This is the exact kind of commitment to fiscally responsible leadership and focused discipline that Mr. Giuliani will bring to Washington.
Giuliani has vowed to force fiscal restraint on government William Douglas, 8/7/07, Giuliani sets agenda with 12-point vow, Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, lexis, JP
They're 12 planks in a platform, a dozen vows to voters that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani hopes will lead him to the White House. Taking his cue from "The Contract with America," which Republicans credit with catapulting them into control of Congress in 1994, Giuliani is campaigning across the country on his "12 Commitments," a list he unveiled in June of what he intends to do if he's elected president. His commitments are, to put it charitably, somewhat vague. But by espousing market-driven approaches to health care, education and energy policy _ and reaffirming his stands to end illegal immigration and reduce abortions _ Giuliani hopes that the "commitments" will appeal to Republican voters who question his conservative bona fides. "It sets him apart by putting down markers; it reinforces his strengths," said Republican strategist Bill Dal Col, who managed magazine publisher Steve Forbes' 1996 presidential campaign. "It's different than what most candidates have done in the past. He's rolling out policy early. It reinforces what people believe: that he's got a set of beliefs." If elected, Giuliani promises to fight terrorism proactively, end illegal immigration, restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful federal spending, cut taxes and overhaul the tax code, hold the federal bureaucracy accountable, provide choice in health-care coverage, increase adoptions and reduce abortions, appoint strict constructionist judges, make sure that communities are prepared for terrorist attacks or natural disasters, provide school choice, lead America toward energy independence and increase America's role in the global economy.
Giulianis 12 Commitments mean he will institute fiscal discipline William Douglas, 7/27/07, For Giulianis campaign, a change in tactics, Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, lexis, JP
Giuliani is trying. Last month, he unveiled his "12 Commitments," 12 big promises of what he would do if elected president. His broad vows include keeping America on the offensive against terrorists, cutting federal spending, appointing strict constructionist federal judges, increasing the number of adoptions while decreasing the number or abortions and providing quality education through "real school choice to parents." His commitments are featured in one of three new 60-second radio ads that debuted on Iowa and New Hampshire airwaves Tuesday. "We will require agency heads to present five to up to as much as 20 percent reductions in their annual budget," Giuliani says in one ad, titled "Will Do." "It's the only way to reduce spending ... I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful spending in Washington." The ads increase Giuliani's presence in two states where Romney is ever present, spending money freely and leading the Republican pack in most polls. While maintaining that Giuliani intends to compete everywhere, his campaign has made no bones about the importance of the big primary states where his appeal is likely to be strongest _ Florida, New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois
DA Elections Giuliani Good - AT Giuliani wont repeal GGR.

Giuliani didnt even know what GGR was he is a closet pro-choice guy. National Review 07 (6-21-07, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQyZTVjMjJhYTk0YzY4OWUyZDgxY2JmOGE1OGI3NzY=) Rudy Giuliani clearly had no idea what he was talking about. When conservative radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham explained what the Mexico City Policy is, he eventually said hed be for it. He wasnt persuasive.
DA Elections Giuliani Good Turns the case terrorism

Giuliani key to war on terror. Sewell 07 (Dan, Aug. 9, Associated Press, p. l/n, twm) Giuliani said he thinks the war on terror, more than his differences with many Republicans on abortion rights, is a key issue for him. "I believe the most important issue is being on offense against Islamic terrorism," he said. "I think there's no candidate in the race who has as much experience with that as I do."
Rudy will be strong in War on Terror Steven Beale 6-17-07 Union Leader Correspondent, Giuliani vows war on terror, larger military will top list, lexis, JP
Rudy Giuliani yesterday promised to make the war on terror, a larger military, and illegal immigration among his top priorities if he is elected President. "We're going to lay out a mission of doing what other people think are impossible," Giuliani said. "I love that. I love doing what people think are impossible. Nothing energizes people more than doing the impossible." Speaking at the Old Town Hall, Giuliani unveiled a 12-point agenda for his Presidency, contrasting his optimism and focus on the future with what he called the defeatism and despair of Democratic Presidential candidates he said want to bring the country back to the higher taxes and lower military spending that characterized the Clinton Presidency. "There was possibly no greater mistake than the peace dividend of the 1990s that the Democrats want to return to," Giuliani said. "They cut our military services dramatically and drastically because we thought the world was peaceful while this terrorist threat was growing and while they were declaring war on us, we were reducing the size of our military." His top priority, the former New York City mayor said, would be fighting the war on terror through expanding the size of the military. He specifically called for the addition of 10 brigades, or about 35,000 soldiers, to the military, adding that more may be needed. "You face bullies, tyrants, and terrorists with strength, not weakness," Giuliani said. Foreign and domestic intelligence services need to be strengthened as well, Giuliani said. He also proposed a new corps of civilians and military personnel that would specialize in stabilizing and rebuilding war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. He spoke out forcefully on illegal immigration, saying he would end it, close the borders, and set up a national identification system to track every person in the country who is not a citizen.
Americans perceive Giuliani will be strong on terrorism Frank Newport 8-3-2007 Gallup News Service The Best and Worst Aspects of a Possible Giuliani Presidency,
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28291, JP Americans with an opinion about Giuliani clearly perceive that the strengths of his presidency would be similar to the type of leadership he showed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks: his ability to handle terrorism, his strong leadership, his decisiveness, and his ability to perform in a crisis. On the other hand, the perceived liabilities of a Giuliani presidency appear to group into three categories: his political inexperience at the national level; his ideological positions on issues -including complaints that he would be both too conservative and too liberal; and questions about his personal traits, including his morality and personal style. Members of the Republican Party -- Giuliani's own party -- in particular express concerns about his perceived liberal views and personal morality[Continues]Recent Gallup Poll research shows that Giuliani's name identification is high; 84% of Americans have a basic favorable or unfavorable opinion of him. This suggests that a substantial percentage of Americans who know enough about Giuliani to give an overall opinion about him still have not reached the point where they are able to talk about the implications of a Giuliani presidency. The predictions about the positive elements of a possible Giuliani presidency are focused more than anything else on dimensions related to his highly visible role as mayor of New York City during and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The top three specific categories of responses, mentioned by more than one-quarter of Americans, are that Giuliani would be good in terms of handling terrorism, that he would be a strong leader, and that he would be decisive and would be able to get things done. A small percentage of respondents say that the best thing about a Giuliani presidency would be that he is "good on crime," a presumed legacy of his days as a prosecutor and New York City mayor. There are more general references to the fact that he is "likable," that he would be good on the economy, that he is middle of the road, is a good communicator, and is a Republican. In general, however, the predominant views regarding the positive aspects of a possible Giuliani presidency at this point are a fairly specific direct legacy of the reputation he built in the weeks following 9/11.
DA Elections Giuliani Good Turns the case patriarchy

Clinton win would prop up patriarchy Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer, 6-19-2007 (Hillary Clinton Is Inevitable, ellipses in original, p. Lexis, hl)
At least women love Hillary, right? Well, in the Nation, Lakshmi Chaudhry scrutinizes "one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of 'the joy of female independence' now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing's favorite 'femi-nazi' now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to 'a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.' . . . "Let's be clear: Hillary has a 'feminist problem,' and more so with those who lean left. "At first glance, the fault line dividing feminists in their view of Hillary Clinton is merely a matter of ideology. On one side are the mainstream moderate women's organizations such as NOW and EMILY's List, facing off against more radical progressive feminists, especially those opposed to the Iraq War. Some of her supporters claim that much of the anger is inspired by her now-infamous 2002 congressional vote . . . "Antiwar sentiments run high indeed, but when it comes to feminism and feminists, the 'Hillary divide' also mirrors a deeper debate over the relationship between gender and political power. The ambivalence over Hillary's candidacy has just as much to do with increasing skepticism about the value of making it to the top."
DA Elections Uniqueness Clinton will win Dem nomination

Clinton is way ahead but her lead isnt insurmountable. Holland 07 (Steve, Aug. 9, Reuters, http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/not-the-front-runner-shethought/20070809092809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001, twm) Hillary Clinton has surged to a big lead in national polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination but her chief rivals say the polls are overblown and the race is far from over. According to a realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls, the New York senator and former first lady is enjoying a gap of 18 percentage points over her closest challenger, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 41 percent to 22 percent, while former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has 11.5 percent. Democratic strategist Jenny Backus, who is neutral in the 2008 nomination race, said the national polls are important but that Obama and Edwards are making the race a more difficult one for Clinton than her camp had anticipated. "I think Hillary is the front-runner but not the front-runner she thought she was going to be when this race started. She was supposed to be this colossus striding over a field of pygmies. But instead she's in a hand-to-hand battle with one very ferocious competitor and a couple others breathing on her heels," said Backus. Clinton is doing her best to stay above the fray, as she did on Tuesday night in a Democratic debate in Chicago, shrugging off attacks from her rivals and emphasizing the need for unity to defeat the Republicans.
Clinton will win the election Obama, the only competition, is falling farther behind Gavin Esler, writer for the Daily Mail, 8-9-2007 (Are We Really Ready for Another Clinton? p. Lexis, hl)
HERE is one intriguing question being asked repeatedly behind the scenes in Washington this summer: is America ready for another Clinton presidency? This week Hillary Clinton began to break away from the other contenders. There is, of course, a very long way to go but the latest opinion poll puts Hillary on 40 per cent and her nearest Democrat rival Barack Obama at 21 per cent - a widening two to one advantage. In what looks to American voters like an increasingly dangerous world, Obama said he would meet America's enemies, including Cuba's Fidel Castro and Iran's President Ahmedinejad, without preconditions. He also publicly suggested he would bomb an American ally - Pakistan - to kill Osama Bin Laden. Nave stuff, say the Clinton team.
Clinton will win the election top Republicans falling behind Gavin Esler, writer for the Daily Mail, 8-9-2007 (Are We Really Ready for Another Clinton? p. Lexis, hl)
On the Republican side there is further trouble. The big names - New York's former mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 27 per cent) and Senator John McCain (at 16 per cent) - are also seeing their support dip. All of this could change, but for now Hillary is regarded by friends and enemies alike as the Woman to Beat.
DA Elections Democrats Bad Links

Our interpretation of fiat is least necessary means. Under that standard your plan would have to override a veto. Bush has promised to veto it. Flaherty 07 (Anne, AP Online, June 22, p. l/n, twm) The House voted narrowly Thursday to reverse a ban on contraception aid to groups overseas that offer abortions, challenging a pillar of President Bush's foreign aid policy. If the proposal passes the Senate, Bush is likely to swiftly veto it and be upheld by conservative lawmakers, who say no assistance of any kind should be given to organizations that promote or offer abortions. The measure, approved 223-201, is intended by the new Democratic majority to crack open debate on a policy it says is failing badly. Initiated by President Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City, the policy bars any assistance to organizations abroad that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Bush veto of GGR increases Democratic activism. Ward 07 (Jon, Washington Times, May 5, p. A2, twm) Bush veto threat stirs activists; Opposition to more funding for abortion praised, slammed President Bush's threat to veto any effort by the Democrat-led Congress to expand federal funding for abortion or stemcell research drew strong responses yesterday from activists. "President Bush is more interested in satisfying a vocal, narrow minority of his political base than focusing on Americans' priorities," said Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League. "His letter simply underscores the need to put a pro-choice president in the White House. That's the best way to stop these attacks on women's freedom and privacy."
DA Elections Democrats Good Impacts repeal GGR

Turns the case - Clinton will repeal GGR. Harris 07 (Lynn, Salon.com, July 18, p. l/n, twm) Clinton, for her part, framed women's rights as "human rights," just as she did in her 1995 speech to the United Nations' fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. According to Goldstein, she got cheers and applause by vowing, "When I am president, I will dedicate my very first few days in office to reversing [Bush administration policies harmful to women]. Starting with the Global Gag Rule and going from there, I will not rest until we once again protect women's health." (Of course, our penultimate president rescinded the gag rule on his third day in office; another reversal would be a nice Clinton 2.0 coda.) Democrats wont stop trying to overturn Mexico City Policy. PR Newswire 07 (U.S. Newswire, p. l/n, June 20, twm) FRC Action Senior Vice President Connie Mackey said, "This is Ms. Lowey's not-too-subtle way of overturning the President's Mexico City policy and pouring U.S. tax dollars into the hands of abortion groups. The continuous attempts by the pro-abortion forces within the United States Congress to attach a pro-abortion agenda to every piece of legislation that comes across their desks does great damage to worthwhile programs that bring real aid and comfort to those most in need in this country and overseas.
DA Elections - Clinton Good AT Polls dont matter

The polls shape who the media gives attention to. Holland 07 (Steve, Aug. 9, Reuters, http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/not-the-front-runner-shethought/20070809092809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001, twm) But the Clinton camp says the poll lead is significant and means her supporters consider her capable of defeating the Republicans in November 2008, or as Clinton herself said in the debate, "If you want a winner who knows how to take them on -- I'm your girl." Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist who is a Clinton supporter, said the national polls matter because reporters, donors and activists take them into account. "Whether they're accurate or inaccurate, people look at them and they do shape some of the contours of the race," he said.
DA Elections Obama will win the Democratic Primary

Obama will win he can beat Hillary Adam Smith, St. Petersburg Times political editor, 5-13-2007 (The Easy Case for President Obama, p. Lexis, hl)
If you believe that the 2008 election is above all about change and that voters fed up with the tone of American politics are hungry for something new, Obama, 45, is the ideal candidate. Hillary Clinton sure doesn't look like a fresh face to bridge the partisan divide. It's long been clear that one Democrat would emerge as the anti-Hillary candidate in the primary, but less clear how vulnerable Clinton would prove. Given that she's universally known and still rarely cracks 40 percent in polls of Democrats, it's obvious a well-funded alternative can beat her.
Obama will win early momentum Adam Smith, St. Petersburg Times political editor, 5-13-2007 (The Easy Case for President Obama, p. Lexis, hl)
Given that so many states have scheduled early primaries or caucuses, its also crucial for campaigns to build strong ground organizations to ensure success and momentum in early states. Obama has been drawing enormous crowds in places like New Hampshire, Iowa, even Ybor City, and his campaign is working hard to harness that early energy. "We are being surgical and obsessive about making sure we capture this enthusiasm," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
Obama will win campaign money Adam Smith, St. Petersburg Times political editor, 5-13-2007 (The Easy Case for President Obama, p. Lexis, hl)
Clinton remains the favorite for the nomination, but her aura of inevitability collapsed last month when finance reports showed Obama's insurgent campaign had actually outraised the New York senator, nearly $25-million to $19-million. She has more money in the bank, but he had more than twice as many donors. In a crowded field where at least 20 states may vote on Feb. 5, 2008, campaign money can't be underestimated.
Obama will win not tainted by Iraq war Adam Smith, St. Petersburg Times political editor, 5-13-2007 (The Easy Case for President Obama, p. Lexis, hl)
As the field of aspiring Hillary alternatives winnows, that only helps Obama. "We're going to be competing everywhere on Feb. 5. The only other person that can say that is Hillary," said Miami lawyer Kirk Wager, Obama's Florida finance chairman. Given his lack of experience on the national stage, Obama, of course, must hope that the 2008 election is more about change than it is about the war on terror. But even there judgment may trump experience; unlike his leading rivals, Obama opposed invading Iraq from the start. "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. ... I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of alQaida," Obama said in 2002. "In some ways, Obama's redefining what experience is. His line - 'look what experience has gotten us' - I think that resonates," said Bernie Campbell of Tampa, a veteran Democratic consultant who sees Obama as a strong contender.
DA Presidential Powers Good links

Repealing the gag rule would undermine Presidential Power. Gathi, Law Professor Albany, 06 (James, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, twm) Third, this paper will conclude that the global gag rule is a reflection of the expansive and unlimited plenary authority of the President in the exercise of foreign affairs powers. n24 In addition, the extraterritorial projection of the global gag rule is inconsistent with international legal norms and standards.
K Taxpayer funding abortion support

GGR stops taxpayer money being used to support abortion. US Fed News 07 (Virginia, US Fed News, June 21, p. l/n, twm) In a move to keep the United States' taxpayer dollars out of the hands of groups that promote abortion, Rep. Virginia Foxx today voted in support of an amendment to restore the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy, first enacted by President Reagan in 1984, ensures that organizations doing international population assistance work that promote abortion as a family planning method do not receive U.S. funding. "This is a critical policy that underscores the sanctity of human life by telling groups that if they want to promote abortion, they had better find a source of funding other than the U.S. taxpayer," Foxx said during a debate in the House of Representatives. "It's quite simple. If a group demonstrates a disregard for human life, they don't get any funding." Its immoral to make U.S. taxpayers pay for practices that violate their moral beliefs. US Fed News 07 (June 20, p. l/n, twm) Fallin spoke out against the policy change, arguing that Americans should not be paying for foreign abortions. "When a bill forces the taxpayers of the United States to pay for or promote abortions across the world, then I cannot support it. This legislation compels U.S. citizens to fund practices that defy their religious and moral beliefs and deny the right to life to the world's unborn children." GGR means U.S. taxpayers dont have to fund abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) THE MEXICO CITY POLICY FIRST ENACTED IN 19484 AND REINSTATED IN 2001 ENSURE THAT ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO INTERNATIONAL POPULATION ASSISTANCE WORK AND PROMOTE ABORTION AS A METHOD OF FAMILY PLANNING DO NOT RECEIVE UNITED STATES FUNDING. THAT IS CRITICAL POLICY THAT UNDERSCORES THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE BY TELLING GROUPS IF THEY WANT TO PROMOTE ABORTION THEY BETTER FIND FUNDING OTHER THAN THE U.S. TAXPAYER. IT'S QUITE SIMPLE. Taxpayers shouldnt have to be forced to pay for abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) I MEAN, THIS POLICY IS BASED ON THE SIMPLE IDEA THAT AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, -- SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO EXPORT ABORTIONS WITH THEIR MONEY. AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER AND USING IT TO SUBSIDIZE FOREIGN ABORTIONS. FOR MOST, THIS DEFIES COMMON SENSE AND FISCAL SENSE, AND IT IS REPREHENSIBLE TO THE MILLIONS OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE. Its immoral to make people pay taxes that are then used to advocate for or pay for abortions. States News Service 07 (June 21, p. l/n, twm) "As divisive as this issue is among many Americans, this issue is a consensus issue. The American people know whatever your view of abortion, whether it is morally right or morally acceptable, most Americans agree that it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who cherish the sanctity of human life and use it to fund and underwrite organizations that promote abortion's overseas. Lifting GGR would force taxpayers to pay for abortions. GBD 07 (Global Broadcast Database, June 21, p. l/n, twm) A SUBTLE CHANGE MEANS UNDER THE CURRENT BILL LANGUAGE, THE MEXICO CITY POLICY, WHICH ENSURES THAT NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES THAT PROMOTE ABORTION WOULD NOT BE PROVIDED U.S. FUNDING COULD BE COMPLETELY DISREGARDED AND THESE ENTITIES WOULD RECEIVE U.S. TAXPAYER FUND. THE PROVISION WOULD MANDATE U.S. SUBS I DIDS THAT ACTIVELY PRO -- SUBSIDIES THAT ACTIVELY PROMOTE ABORTION IN FOREIGN NATIONS. IT WILL CARRY THE SAME HURT AND TRAUMA WHEN IT IS USED ABROAD. IF THIS LANGUAGE STAYS IN THE BILL, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER WOULD BE PAYING FOR AN ABORTION FOR SOMEONE HALF A WORLD AWAY.
K Population rhetoric
Your population arguments are just a cover for western imperialism. Montalvan, Cagayan de Oro Historical and Cultural Commission, 06 (Antonio, July 10, Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. l/n, twm) I AM REFERRING TO THE ANTI-LIFE AND ANTI-family advocates who seem not to run out of clever ways to insert their Western-based agenda into every conceivable legislation they can think of. Now they would have 21 bills of various concerns consolidated into an omnibus law covering reproductive health, population policy, two-child policy and sex education for the youth. Of the bills, at least three promote the use of artificial contraception in the guise of promoting womens health. These advocates have turned a valid societal concern into a euphemism for their real agenda population control. If they really want to address womens health, why is there no attempt to include Senate Bill 319? The bill seeks to ban abortive drugs and devices. The bills exclusion gives away outright the sinister intentions of the advocates. The basis of their argument, of course, is the erroneous belief that a decline in population means economic growth and development. Thomas Robert Malthus was an English demographer and political economist who lived from 1766 to 1834. It was he who introduced the rather pessimistic principle that foresaw the worlds population outrunning food supply, leading to a decrease in food per person. To check population growth, Malthus advocated, among other solutions, what he called moral restraint and vice. This population control strategy called for late marriage and sexual abstinence; but it also advocated infanticide, murder, contraception and homosexuality. But heres the catch in the Malthus proposal: these solutions would apply only to the poor and working classes. In the Malthusian argument, only the lower social classes would assume responsibility for societal ills. Since then, many have misinterpreted Malthus, even overlooking other aspects of his argument. For example, there are those who ignore the fact that Malthus himself, even as he pressed for population control, stated that we cannot denigrate mans capacity (he called it power) to increase food supply. Those who do cling to Malthus theory up to this day misinterpret not just his thoughts. In their vain desire to adapt the Western culture of licentious behavior in the name of freedom and self-determination, they have put up their own smokescreen to keep them from seeing a succession of various scholars and studies that have effectively debunked Malthus since the 1960s. At least one such study, published in 1966, was not only a pioneering initiative at that time; it gave its proponent a Nobel Prize honor. Since then, up until the 1990s and the present, a progression of other studies has only pointed to the emerging reality: there just is no population bomb. Not only that, countries that have been lured by the Malthusian myth into running a successful population program now have to address the grim reality of diminishing human resource. Japan, Germany and Italy are now in the throes of the so-called demographic winter. The governments of Russia, Singapore, South Korea and Bulgaria are now offering incentives to encourage childbearing in an attempt to curb population decline. Yet here in the Philippines, anti-life advocatesusually pikon when criticized despite the fact that they have access to the legislative powers-that-becling to an out-of-touch, outdated and archaic thinking that even their Western gods have failed to prove in their respective countries. The advocates seem not to hear the alarm bells ringing in countries where the demographic winter has set in, countries that are now repentant at having toyed with Malthus theory. Why the recalcitrance on the part of our anti-life advocates? There clearly is a colonial agenda here that is tied to Western purse strings. These agenda-makers may not be obtrusive with their presence. It is even possible that some advocates are aware of them or have yet to notice them. But I wont be surprised if there lurks in the shadows such antilife giant octopuses as Planned Parenthood, whose tentacles may have spread far and wide to influence Philippine legislative efforts. Population control is simply not the solution to poverty. The Philippine population control program, in place since the 1970s and funded by billions of pesos of public money, has brought down the population from 3.08 percent during the period 1960-1970 to 2.36 percent during the period 1995-2000. Despite the population decline, however, poverty incidence has not been reduced significantly. Clearly then, there are other factors that are not being addressed. Try curbing graft and corruption, as we expect legislators to do. The proposed bills are premised on the belief that we are poor because we are too many. Fewer births may (or may not) mean less expense for a family, depending on its priorities. What is certain, however, is that less births mean less people for the labor force in the next 20 years. Higher population densities do not necessarily translate into lower personal income. We have certainly seen this in thickly populated areas that exhibit higher incomes and greater economic activity (the National Capital Region, Southern Tagalog, Cebu, Davao, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea; as opposed to Bolivia, Kenya, Ethiopia, which have lower density but also lower personal incomes). Finally, when must we put a stop to the use of the term reproductive health which, in international forums, is simply a catch-all jargon that includes abortion; but which local advocates have repeatedly denied? The attempt to redefine a term that has become part of an all-encompassing political definition is a lame method of deceit and dishonesty.
1AC RECONSTRUCTIONS
1AC Michigan 7 Weeks HPS Lab

Plan options: The United States federal government should substantially increase financial and technical support for family planning to nongovernmental organizations in East, South, West, and Central Africa regardless of their compliance with the requirements established by the Mexico City Policy.
The United States federal government should substantially increase financial and technical support for family planning to nongovernmental organizations, regardless of their compliance with the requirements established by the Mexico City Policy, through the United States Agency for International Developments Bureau for Africa.
The United States federal government should substantially increase financial and technical support for family planning to nongovernmental organizations, regardless of their compliance with the requirements established by the Mexico City Policy, through the West African Regional Program, USAID/East Africa, and the Regional Center for Southern Africa.
Observation 1: Africa Population growth is expanding rapidly in Sub Saharan Africa because of cuts in U.S. family planning aid and the gag rule on abortion funding Curren 2007 professor of English at James Madison, communications consultant to the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and editor of Conserve Magazine (Erik Curren, May 16, 2007, The Real, Unspoken Cause of Global Warming: Overpopulation, http://www.conservemag.com/2007/05/16/global-warming/global-warming-population/) One of the reasons why the population bomb didnt go off is because some of the warnings were heeded and the U.S. and other donor nations started programs to help couples choose how and when to have kids in the developing world, says Tod Preston, senior advisor with advocacy group Population Action International. Birth rates are still very high in some areas, but theyve come down. Our efforts have been a success. Yet, today around the world you still have huge and growing problems in terms of resource scarcity, water, arable crop land, forests and other resources. And thats only going to get much, much worse if we dont do more. Like many experts on population issues, Preston is less concerned with the U.S. than with developing nations, who are the main contributors to a runaway world population of 6.5 billion. America reaching 300 million is indicative of a much bigger story in the developing world, Preston says. Here were talking about sustainable development, sprawl, habitat loss, and other problems. But if you look at the developing world, the situation is much more serious. In Uganda or Ethiopia for example populations are doubling every 30 years. They already have huge issues with hunger and famine and are already dependent on food aid from foreign donors including the U.S. Imagine if we were talking about the likelihood that our population would jump to 600 million in 30 to 40 years. There would be a strong sense that this was a very grave problem. People would term it a crisis or a catastrophe. But thats the reality in some countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, its not being talked about much here and some easy, popular programs to ease this crisis are being neglected by the U.S. and other rich countries. When you hear so much bad news from places where population growth is a problem, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, its all too easy to fall into fatalism and apathy. The place may seem beyond help, so what can we do? But this kind of compassion-fatigue is unnecessary. The most effective population control measure, family planning, is many times cheaper than any military option. It is even cheaper than famine relief. Family planning has been so effective that, because of efforts to educate women and couples about contraception so that they can choose to have the number of kids they want at the time they want them, birth rates have fallen in many developing nations. In Mexico and Egypt, for example, birth rates have been halved in the last 35 years, according to Preston. Yet, despite its proved effectiveness, family planning has dropped to a small percentage of the U.S. foreign aid budget. U.S. taxpayers spend $1 billion on food aid yearly. Last year in Ethiopia alone we spent more on food aid than we did on family planning across the planet, Preston says. Since it came into office, the Bush Administration has cut family-planning funding significantly. Population experts like Preston say that this is not because family planning doesnt work it does or that people in developing countries dont want contraceptives they do, even in strongly Catholic or Muslim nations but for domestic political reasons. Some opponents of abortion also oppose contraception, and since
the White House has been eager to obtain the support of its religious base, it has tried to distance itself from birth control. But since Americans overwhelmingly support access to contraception 81 percent in a Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive poll from last year the administration has hesitated to declare open war on birth control. Instead, it has quietly cut funding to support family-planning programs abroad. This administration is in thrall to a
domestic political base that is fundamentally opposed to the right of women to use contraceptives, said Brian Dixon, director of government relations at another advocacy group, Population Connection. One of the first things that this president did in 2001 was to implement a global gag-rule, to cut off U.S. aid to any family-planning providers around the world who had any connection to abortion. The gag-rule said that if health-care providers wanted to receive U.S. funds, then they couldnt even counsel patients on abortion or bring it up as an option. Because many doctors, nurses and medical aides were not willing to play by Washingtons new restrictions, they lost funding. The rule caused clinics to close in Zambia and Kenya and it caused the laying off of healthcare staff. It has also led to a shortage of contraceptives in Ethiopia. But the gag-rule has had no impact on abortion, except maybe to increase it, because weve cut off access to contraception. The U.S. no longer contributes to the UN Population Fund because the President refuses to release the funds that Congress has appropriated for it. The target in all of these cases is contraceptives. African governments are modeling U.S. restrictionsit is stamping out reproductive health care within Africa Sai, 04 Advisor to the President on Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS, in Ghana (Frederick, International Commitments and Guidance on Unsafe Abortion, African Journal of Reproductive Health, Vol. 8, No. 1, April, 2004 pp. 15-28, Database: Bioline International) Finally, we must take into consideration the US government's continued reversal on reproductive health policies. At the 1984 World Population Conference in Mexico City, the US government announced that it would withdraw funding from any organization that provided abortion services, even with funds from non-US sources. This policy became known as the Mexico City Policy or "Global Gag Rule." Nearly a decade later, in 1993, then President Clinton reversed the Mexico City Policy. However, in 2001, a mere two days after taking office, President Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy. Over the past two years, the current US administration has withdrawn from previously made commitments concerning sexual and reproductive rights. Most recently, the Bush administration has announced its intention to extend the "Global Gag Rule," which has applied only to family planning funding, to also include US government funds given for maternal and child health and for HIV/AIDS programmes. These Bush administration policies, which amount to the export of domestic debates and policies, also have the effect of undermining international consensus-building processes such as ICPD. By withdrawing from, and flip-flopping on, previously
agreed upon international agreements, they lessen the hard won effects of these processes and provide African and other governments with an excuse to also not respect them. These policies also endanger the health and lives of women across Africa, and a study examining its effects is forthcoming from Ipas and Population Action International. African population growth is destroying natural habitats, rapidly accelerating deforestation Sai-04 - physician, long-time public health activist in Africa, and advisor to the president of Ghana on HIV/AIDS (Frederick, World
Watch Population, Family Planning, and the Future of Africa, Vol 17, Issue 5; September/October, p g34)
Rapid population growth is also having a serious effect on the natural environment in Africa. Some 500 million hectares of land have been affected by soil degradation during the last half century, including as much as 65 percent of agricultural land. This has been a major factor in constraining food production in Africa to only a 2 percent annual increase, well below the rate of population increase. The number of undernourished people in Africa has more than doubled from 1OO million in the late 1960s to roughly 230 million today; perhaps another 150 million are subject to acute food deficits, and possibly as many as 50 million are actually starving. Projections indicate that the region will be able to feed only 40 per cent of its population by 2025. Although most Africans depend on the land for their livelihood, the land's capacity to produce is ebbing away under the pressure of growing numbers of people who do not have the wherewithal to put back into the land what they are forced to take from it. Trees are being cut down 30 times as fast as they are being replaced, and some 80 million Africans have serious difficulty finding fuelwood. Deforestation and overgrazing leads to declines in soil fertility. In countries like Ethiopia, topsoil losses of as much as 290 tons per hectare have been reported. As the land's vegetative cover shrinks, its already fragile soils lose the capacity to nourish crops and retain moisture. Agricultural yields fall and the land becomes steadily more vulnerable to variable rainfall, turning dry spells into drought and periods of food shortage into famines. In most parts of Africa you can hear farmers say that it is more difficult to make ends meet, that plots are much smaller and farther away, fallow periods shorter. All these trends impose extra strains on women, who are usually responsible for growing the family vegetables, fetching water, and gathering fuelwood. Another serious problem is water. About one-third of the world's population already lives in countries with moderate to high water stress, where water consumption is more than 10 per cent of the renewable freshwater supply. Fourteen of these countries are in Africa, and another 11 countries will join them in the next 25 years. Major rivers, like the Limpopo and the Save/Sabi, which flows through Zimbabwe and Mozambique to the Indian Ocean, have dried up and now only flow seasonally. There are signs that flows of other major rivers, including the Chari-Logona, Nile, and Zambezi, are decreasing. In Africa generally, agriculture supports 66 percent of the population and provides essential exports. Its healthy development is a key to slowing rural-urban migration. But it is totally dependent on a regular supply of fresh water. Water shortages will increasingly become a constraint on economic and social development, especially in countries with limited water supplies, rapid population growth, and/or fast-expanding industry and agriculture. Forests are global carbon sinks they prevent runaway global warming Gardner-Outlaw and Engelman, 1999 analysts at Population Action International (Tom and Robert, Forest Futures: Population, Consumption, and Wood http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Forest_Futures/Forest_Futures_text_only_version.pdf) Forests are among the worlds great reservoirs of carbon. Since the earths creation, an essentially fixed amount of carbon has flowed continuously between the earths atmosphere, oceans, and crust. This global carbon cycle is one of the planets major biogeochemical processes and helps reg-ulate the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most important greenhouse gas driving human-induced climate change. On the earths surface, plants, soils, and microorganisms are natural sinks, or storage reservoirs, for carbon. Approximately 830 billion metric tons of carbon are stored in the worlds forests, about the same amount of carbon as the atmosphere holds in the form of carbon dioxide. Roughly 40 percent of this carbon330 billion tonsis contained in trees, plants and other forest vegetation, with the remainder contained in forest soils and roots.20 Holding so much carbon, forests can either be a net source or a net sink for the carbon in atmospheric CO2. Today, they mostly act as a source. Tropical deforestation and forest degradation account for roughly one- fourth of all the CO2 emissions that result from human activity.21At the same time, forests and soils in the Northern Hemisphere appear, on bal-ance, to be absorbing carbon, but there is no way to know if or how long this will continue.22 Future accelera-tion in the loss of tropical forests could lead to significant additional emissions of CO2, further hampering international efforts to combat global warming. Programs that slow and eventually reverse the global loss of forests could make a major contribution towards balancing the global carbon budget. A 1996 report commissioned by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change concluded that the worlds forests could store up to 87 billion tons of carbon between 1995 and 2050, an amount representing more than 12 percent of cumulative fossil fuel emissions over the same period. This additional carbon storage, however, would need to come from a reversal of tropical deforestation,23 a feat that will depend very much on future population trends not only in the tropics but elsewhere. Runaway warming risks extinction Brown, 06 professor of physiology at West Virginia University (Paul, Notes from a Dying Planet, p. xvi)
This book is inevitably about sustainability: using resources only as fast as they can be replenished. The concept is as simple as balancing a checkbook. By living unsustainably, overusing our credit, weve caused global warming and habitat destruction for the living creatures that provide our life support in the form of drinkable water, edible food, breathable air, and even habitable land. Our planet is going through the worst mass extinction since the death of the dinosaurs, possibly the worst in the planets history. To make matters worse, weve crossed the threshold of a positive feedback loop in which global warming is accelerating. It may be too late to prevent a runaway process that only microbes will survive. A key component of our unsustainable lifestyle is overpopulation. If it werent for wars, famine, drought, and pestilence, we would have used up our planets resources long ago. There are now more than six billion people on this planet. In the worst case, that number could increase to twelve billion by the middle of this century. In some underdeveloped areas of the world populations are growing completely out of control and, as far as many are concerned, the last days of humanity are upon them right now. They are harbingers of the developed worlds fate if we dont do enough, soon enough. Im afraid our society is very sick. Its such a clich, but its true for reasons you may not suspect. Our entire worldviews have become so distorted its hard for us to see the desolation weve created. Instead, we measure our security in terms of large families, material wealth, and false purposes. We have a chance for survival, if we respond globally and immediately by reducing the size of our population, switching to clean energy sources, and protecting our remaining biodiversity. As I write this, the worlds leaders and the people of many nations are awakening to the peril and beginning to take action. But so far the response is far too little, far too late, especially in the United States. Overpopulation in sub-Saharan Africa will cause massive migrationthis opens up a Pandoras box of disease that will spread globally. Bryjak, 97 professor of sociology at the University of San Diego (George, USA Today, July, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2626_v125/ai_19622632) As Sub-Saharan African populations swell and their existing physical and social environments prove unable to meet basic human needs, people are moving in ever larger numbers. This massive relocation of individuals into hitherto unsettled territory may unleash biological forces in a nightmarish scenario the like of which humankind never before has witnessed. Whereas viruses such as HIV-1 and Ebola once were thought of as genetic mutations, some health experts are of the opinion that these organisms have existed for decades, if not centuries. Prior to 1960, they were dormant, hidden away in remote jungles and rainforests. However, with the movement of people into these regions, millions of acres of previously undisturbed vegetation were cleared and settled as humankind inadvertently opened up a biological Pandora's box. As Yale epidemiologist Robert Ryder pointed out, "These viruses basically say to man `You stick to your territory and I'll stick to mine.' But then man begins to encroach on the habitat of viruses." If emerging diseases are caused by impoverished people moving into the remotest areas of the planet, AIDS and Ebola may be just the first of a long and perhaps even deadlier (and more contagious) line of viruses to be unleashed on human populations. As one prominent virologist concluded regarding these new maladies, "The primary problem is no longer virological, but social." This risks extinction South China Morning Post, 96 (Kavita Daswani, Leading the way to a cure for AIDS, 1-4, L/N) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
Population growth is fueling youth bulges, risking civil instability, state collapse and terrorism Weiland, 05 public policy fellow at the Population Institute (Katherine, Breeding Insecurity: Global Security Implications Of Rapid Population Growth, http://www.populationinstitute.org/cms/modules/Publications/front/lib/pdf.php?id=19) The worlds population is currently growing at unprecedented rates, and is expected to reach 9.1 billion people by 2050. The vast majority of that growth will take place in the worlds poorest countries, where fertility rates can be as high as 8 children per woman. Rapid population growth in developing countries creates national security problems, including civil unrest and terrorism. In particular, population growth leads to large youth bulges, rapid urbanization, and resource scarcity, all of which can lead to insecurity and instability. Large groups of unemployed young people, combined with overcrowded cities and lack of access to farmland and water create a population that is angry and frustrated with the status quo, and thus more likely to resort to violence to bring about change. In todays interconnected world, conflict in less developed countries affects not only one country or region but has dangerous implications for global security. Globalization has created a world where stable countries are no longer isolated from their unstable neighbors and civil conflict can easily move across borders and erupt into war. Revolutions and other manifestations of political unrest are likely to originate within groups of youth looking to change the current political system. Nearly 40 percent of the worlds population is under the age of 20, and 85 percent of these young people live in the developing world. In developing countries, where jobs, resources, and educational opportunities are scarce, a high percentage of youth can create a potentially volatile situation, with implications for national, regional, and global security.
Urban areas are currently growing at unprecedented rates, with the majority of that growth occurring in the developing world. Today, 16 of the 20 cities with over 12 million residents are in the developing world, where overcrowded cities exacerbate the problems of poverty. Urban growth can be a positive demographic development, as cities promote economic growth and educational advancement. Yet, when urban growth occurs in developing countries, urban areas often do not have the resources to meet the needs of new migrants. The overcrowding of urban areas not only puts different groups into close contact with one another, potentially creating conflict, but also places a strain on public services, leading to possible armed conflict between residents and governments.
Resource scarcity, generally characterized by shortages of water, cropland, and energy, is another dangerous consequence of rapid population growth. Water conflict results from competition for small quantities of water, and can occur between countries over water sources, such as rivers, or within countries over water sources such as wells. Population growth also leads to cropland shortages and deforestation, which can create violent conflict between farmers, sometimes escalating into large-scale revolt, thereby jeopardizing the stability of an entire country or region. Comprehensive family planning programs, as part of an integrated development strategy, will reduce the security risks associated with rapid population growth. Family planning programs help to reduce poverty and to promote development because smaller families are generally healthier and more economically stable, leading to healthier, happier, more sustainable communities. Both developed and less developed countries must commit themselves to promoting family planning programs if they hope to achieve a secure and stable world. This will expand terrorism globally Carafano and Gardiner, 03 - Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Institute for International Studies at the Heritage Foundation, and fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics, at the Heritage Foundation (James and Nile, U.S. Military Assistance for Africa: A Better Solution, 10/13, Backgrounder #1697, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/bg1697.cfm)
with a GDP per capita income of just $575 in 2002.4 Average life expectancy is only 48 years. In addition, an estimated 30 million Africans are infected with HIV/AIDS.5 Among the disease's many victims are the continent's military forces, whose weakened ranks are rife not only with those who have contracted HIV/AIDS, but also with those who spread it.6 The spread of global infectious disease will become a more significant problem in the 21st century if Africa becomes the source of deadly pathogens that could plague American shores.7 Nor is disease the only African crisis that could draw in the United States. Of even more immediate concern are political, economic, and environmental stresses that could well lead to internal violence and resulting demands for U.S. intervention. The civil war in Liberia prompted widespread international calls for Washington to put U.S. troops on the ground. Eventually, 200 U.S. soldiers were sent into the Liberian capital, Monrovia, in August 2003 to help facilitate the arrival of a larger West African peacekeeping force.
Africa's troubles are many, and they have global implications. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the world's poorest region,
The United States must also be vigilant for its own security, remaining alert to the rise of African "enabler" or "slacker" states that might foster global terrorism. Enabler states are countries willing to facilitate transnational terrorism, share intelligence, or sell weapons or
weapons technologies to those who in turn might threaten the United States. Libya, for example, has a long history of support for terrorist groups in the Middle East and more than 30 terrorist groups worldwide.8
Slacker states are nations with lax laws or poor law enforcement, which unintentionally allow transnational terrorist groups to operate within their borders or permit state or non-state groups to obtain weapons or support illicitly from the private sector. Somalia offers a case in point. With a dysfunctional central government, chronic instability, and porous borders, it serves as a potential staging ground for international terrorists.9 While poverty and instability alone do not breed terrorists or weapons proliferators,10 African nations with weak civil societies and poor law enforcement and judicial systems are vulnerable to penetration and exploitation by transnational terrorist groups. Enabler and slacker states are potentially important components of the global terrorist threat because such countries can expand the resource base of lesser states and terrorist groups, making it possible for them to field more substantial threats than they might represent otherwise. Transnational terrorism already has a prominent foothold in Africa. It is no coincidence that Osama bin Laden found safe haven in Sudan in the 1990s.11 The al-Qaeda threat continues to grow in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. Al-Qaeda cells are also operating in neighbouring Somalia.
This risks extinction Alexander, 03 [Yonah, Professor and Director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies (Israel, USA), August 28, 2003 Terrorism myths and realities, Washington Times, http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030827-084256-8999r.htm]
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and
Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements (hudna). Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts,
contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism (e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber) with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed (e.g., strengthening international cooperation). The
first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts political, social and economic are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements (e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad) and secular entities (such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades)) wish not only to resolve national grievances (such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem) but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure (leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control) will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For
without victory, there is no survival."
U.S. leadership is vital to spurring a demographic transition within Africa Cincotta and Haddock, 06 - senior research associate at Population Action International and research assistant at PAI
Sarah, Family Planning in Sub-Saharan Africa: Reducing Risks in the Era of AIDS, 2/1, http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Research_Commentaries/Family_Planning_in_Sub_Saharan_Africa/Summary.shtml)
(Richard and
Ideological issues and shifting attention to HIV/AIDS have led to a diminution of U.S. leadership in [international family planning assistance]. Yet the demographic projections in Africa should give the United States serious concern. Famine-prone countries like Ethiopia and Niger
have doubled their population in the past two decades and the projections suggest further sharp increases in the future. In particular, the social and political impact of the growing youth bulge should garner more attention to population policy, as this bulge presages more conflict, unemployment, and potential recruitment for extremist activity. A recent report by an independent task force enlisted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach toward Africa, 2005) recommends that the U.S. government step up funding to international family planning programs in sub-Saharan Africa as part of a strategy to increase U.S. engagement and prioritize assistance to that region (see p. 16, pp. 119-120).1 The task forces recommendations may be the strongest call for action on these programs in nearly two decades since the rise of HIV/AIDS as a major source of morbidity and mortality and as an impediment to human capital formation. But is a re-emphasis on family planning actually appropriate in a region where AIDS, particularly in southern and eastern Africa, has driven adult mortality rates to unprecedented levels and halted an otherwise declining rate of infant mortality? Yes, unequivocally. Alongside comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment efforts
, African nations (with hefty support from the U.S. and other development donors) should expand the capacity and quality of family planning services in their countries. The objective should be to reduce the proportion of unwanted pregnancies, promoting much needed declines in fertility and in maternal and infant mortality. Better access to modern contraception and counseling served East Asian women in their transition to improved health status, increased educational attainment and greater participation in labor markets. It could also help strengthen the status of African women, as well as contribute to ameliorating Africas troubled economic and political conditions. A practically designed linkage of family planning services to efforts in HIV prevention and testing promises to increase the efficacy of both programs.
Reducing Risks to Families and Individuals The most immediate, measurable and direct positive effects of reductions in unwanted pregnancies are on the health status of women and children and it is on the improvement of these indicators that African countries need a great deal of assistance. For African women, the lifetime risk of dying during pregnancy is one in 16 while among North American women the risk is about one in 3,700.2 More than 37 percent of maternal mortality is estimated to occur in sub-Saharan Africa, yet African women of childbearing ages (ages 15 to 49 years) account for just 10 percent of that age group worldwide. While dependable maternal health data are difficult to obtain in many developing countries,3 qualitative research has shown (and logic suggests) that providing women and couples with access to reproductive health information and contraception increases their capacity to prevent high-risk pregnancies and to adjust their reproductive intentions to changes in economic conditions, shifting social situations and declines in their health status (including HIV infection or other debilitating illnesses). Quantitative research has shown that adolescent pregnancies can erode womens health status and adversely affect the health of their children4 and that extended birth spacing, for lengths up to three years, can significantly diminish the likelihood of childhood death.5 In African countries efforts to mobilize against the HIV/AIDS pandemic, programs to combat this disease have eclipsed womens other health needs. Recent estimates of the components of maternal mortality suggest that in parts of West Africa, where HIV prevalence has remained lower than in other African regions, fewer women may be dying from AIDS than from unsafe abortions6 a situation that exposes the gravity of the risk associated with womens lack of access to contraceptives and counseling. Collaboration between family planning programs and HIV/AIDS programs could improve the results of both interventions. Family planning organizations, because of their proven success in promoting behavioral changes, their experience in brokering public dialogues about sex, their proven capacity to conduct confidential testing, counseling and services, and their knowledge of contraceptive marketing, could play a greater role in the fight to roll back the rate of HIV Reducing Risks to States and Regions As a group, the 49 countries8 of sub-Saharan Africa trail most others in their progress through the demographic transition which is the transformation of a population with large families and short lives, to one with small families and longer lives. These countries also exhibit extremely youthful age structures, rapid growth in the working-age population and rapid urban population growth, yet lack appreciable foreign investment and job growth. These conditions put African states at an elevated risk of political instability and civil conflict9 and diminish their attractiveness to foreign investors. In fact, 19 of the sub-Saharan African states experienced civil conflict between 2000 and 2004.10 Rapid population growth and increasingly high rural population density in agricultural areas are outstripping the labor-absorbing capacity of sub-Saharan agricultural and natural resource production systems and promoting rural-to-urban migration. Currently, 11 sub-Saharan African countries are regarded as freshwater stressed or scarce countries, in terms of availability on a per capita basis, and 22 are regarded as cropland stressed or scarce.11 Three of sub-Saharan Africas four regions (according to the United Nations categorization: western, central, eastern and southern Africa) are those with the highest rates of fertility and infection.7 infant mortality (figure 1). The exceedingly high levels of childhood dependency (the ratio of dependent children to working-age adults)12 experienced by African states tend to dampen household savings, strain school systems, and depress growth in per capita income.13 Although UN demographers expect high rates of AIDS-related mortality to continue in the southern and eastern regions, they project sub-Saharan Africas total population will grow from approximately 750 million in 2005, to between 1.4 and 1.9 billion by 2050.14 Admittedly, surveys suggest that in many sub-Saharan countries women continue to desire a relatively large family size.15 Yet, three countries (South Africa, Mauritius, and Runion) have already reached total fertility rates16 under 3 children per woman (figure 2), while others including Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe have experienced substantial upturns in contraceptive use over the past decade.17 In several of these countries increased use of contraception may relate, in part, to national and community leaders, womens groups and celebrities who have used public media to promote the positive aspects of raising small families, spacing childbirth, delaying marriage and practicing safe sex, as well
as communicating concerns about some of the negative aspects of continued rapid population growth in their country. Conclusions There is no time like the present to step up global funding for family planning programs in sub-Saharan Africa. The severity of the ongoing HIV/AIDS pandemic only makes Africas needs more imperative. The U.S. could lead the way in helping encourage Africas demographic transition much as it did in East Asia four decades ago.18 A recent article by demographer John Cleland and Steven Sinding, executive director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation,19 recommends that African states, bilateral and multilateral donors, foundations and nongovernmental organizations collaborate to: make family planning information and services more widely available; fund communications efforts providing clear and credible public messages that legitimate smaller families and contraceptive use; and more closely link family planning and HIV-prevention programs.
more than 175 million women of childbearing age (ages 15 to 49 years) live in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the UN Population Division that number is projected to rise to about 220 million by 2015, despite the assumption of continued HIV infection and AIDS-related mortality.20 Rather than preparing to meet this challenge, U.S. assistance in family planning has actually declined. Since 1995, U.S. international funding for family planning services, contraceptives and related programs, which serve both women and men in more than 50 countries, has fallen by more than $100 million a 35 percent reduction when adjusted for inflation. During fiscal year 2005, the U.S. spent $437.3 million on its international family planning program, an amount equivalent to about 9 hours of U.S. defense spending.21 Certainly, our country could do better. The U.S. government would be strategically wise to prioritize its spending on a program that has already demonstrated its successfulness, at a time when sub-Saharan Africa countries, and African women and their children, are desperately in need of success. USAID is vital to promoting culturally sensitive strategies that engage local leaders within Africa and ensure a consistent family planning message Shepard et al, 03 Professor, Schneider lnstitute for Health Policy at Brandeis University (Donald, Studies in Family Planning, Cost-effectiveness of USAIDs Regional Program for Family Planning in West Africa June)
Today,
The regionalization strategy featured a forced collabora-tion model under which four US agencies contracted by US AID became jointly responsible for achieving speci-fied outcomes under the direction of a unified manage-ment team. The new strategy relied much more heavily on implementation through African organizations and managers. Furthermore, the number of personnel administering the program was considerably leaner than cor-responding mission-based programs. The new strategy also emphasized the mobilization of other partners wherein strong efforts were made to attract support of USAID objectives from other donors as the presence of USAID in these countries was being reduced. The four-country regional model fostered cross- border coordination of planning, sharing of resources, feedback on comparative progress, and economies of scale and communication, employing the unified management team. The greater use of African organizations and technical leadership likely engaged local leaders and encouraged adaptation to each country's culture and context (termed " Africanization"). Determinants of Success in Family Planning Our regression analysis showed that the fitted logistic of the contraceptiveprevalence rate, adjusted for the gender development index, was a positive function of (1) year; (2) total USAID family planning dollars per woman aged 15-44; (3) proportion of total family planning dollars per woman aged 15-44 from all sources provided by USAID (percent USAID contibution); and (4)the regionalization strategy itself (FHA). Although our pipeline analysis adjusted for lags between authorization and spending, our data did not allow for examining possible lags between spending and use of contraceptives. Be- cause the population programs in both mission-based- program and FHA-program countries emphasized services and products, we do not believe that such lags were large. As our dependent variable is fitted, it may contain some error. Because our fitting process was not influenced by the independent variables, this process should have introduced no bias and, like any random errors, the process made it more difficult for our findings to reach statistical significance. The significant positive coefficient for the year variable confirms that family planning programs in West Af- rica have made rapid progress in recent years, although contraceptive-use levels remain low compared with those in other parts of the world. "Year" (passage of time) likely is a proxy for other variables that may have had a positive influence on the acceptance of family planning, including interpersonal communication networks and diffusion of information and behavioral change. The educational, economic, and health status of women has slowly advanced over the decade in these countries. The gender development index proved to be an ex-traordinarily powerful adjuster for explaining differences among countries in terms of contraceptive-use prevalence. Important policy changes favoring family plan-ning have transpired in some of these countries; indeed, some have moved from pronatalist policies to the adop-tion of national family planning policies (for example, Togo). Privatization, including commercial retail sales related to social marketing, has spread over most of West Africa, meaning, among other things, that more contraceptive methods are available in the private sector to meet the demand created by marketing. Other impor-tant variables influencing reproductive behavior during the decade include civil conflict and economic changes, such as the monetary devaluation that occurred in West Africa in 1994. More than any other donor, USAID has made a ma-jor effort to influence population growth and reproduc-tive health in West Africa by boosting demand for con-traception, strengthening family planning services and logistics, and funding policy development, institution-alization, and evaluation. This study shows that greater funding significantly increases the use of modern con-traceptive methods. Contraceptive prevalence was also positively influ-enced by the share of total family planning dollars per woman aged 1544 from all sources provided by USAID. This variable (percent USAID contribution) suggests that the greater the extent that USAID is the dominant do-nor in family planning, the larger the improvement in the prevalence of modern methods. We speculate that USAID's predominant role in family planning may have focused management and ensured consistent messages.
Access to family planning independently protects against environmental destruction even without lowered birth rates Nierenberg 2 (Danielle, staff watcher at the Worldwatch Institute, Correcting Gender Myopia, September, http://www.unfpairan.org/images/photo/Worldwatch%20Gender%20Myopia.pdf, AG) The number of people on Earth combines with levels of consumption, dominant technologies, and distribution of income to determine humanitys use of resources. Gender inequity can be a potent force within the human factor of this equation. For the most part, men are responsible for deciding how the worlds natural resources are used through mining, grazing of livestock, and logging. Development agencies still tend to offer technical and agricultural assistance exclusively to men even in areas where women are the ones toting the fuelwood and water and tilling the soil. In the past decade, the international development community has intensified its focus on womens stewardship of natural resources. Since rights to natural resources are so heavily biased against women, reasons Agnes Quisumbing of the International Food Policy Research Institute, equalizing these rights will lead to more efficient and equitable resourcue use. When government officials or community leaders fail to recognize the different ways women use natural resourcesgrowing vegetables for family consumption in the spaces between male-managed cash crops, for examplethe resources are easily destroyed. For example, to protect fragile mangroves in El Salvador,
community officials placed restrictions on fishing and collecting fuel wood. The communitys women, who depended on both the wood and the fish from the estuaries to feed their families, were not consultedbut they were most affected by the ban because performing their role as caretakers became a criminal act. Such inefficiencies are no longer tolerable in view of the increasing stresses on croplands and other resources imposed by rising populations .69 But women are not
only victims of environmental degradation; they are activists as well, and many have acted to protect natural resources by mobilizing their communities against environmental and health hazards. Women in India, for instance, are resisting large-scale agricultural
methods that require heavy inputs of chemicals by promoting sustainable agriculture in rural communities. In the Ogoni region of Nigeria, women have come together to fight the toll that oil pollution fires, oil waste dumping, and pipe explosionshas taken on the health of their families and the environment. Their demands have included protection of women environmental activists and compensation for health damages from the oil industry. In the region of Louisiana known as Cancer Alley, African-American women are educating one another and their communities about the connections linking industry, environment, and human health.70 When women gain rights to land or other resources and the ability to protect and conserve them, they also gain power that reaches well beyond forests or watersheds. By commanding a concrete resource, notes Indian economist Bina Agarwal, women can improve their self-sufficiency, reduce their dependence on men, and strengthen their bargaining position within their marriages, including their ability to negotiate contraceptive use with their husbands. These redefined relationships produce benefitshealthier families, better education of girls and boys, and a cleaner environmentthat ripple out into the broader community.71 The strong role women are often able to play in environmental stewardship and activism points to the value of integrating reproductive health and family planning components into conservation programs. In the 1970s, northern NGOs concerned with improving rural environments and reducing poverty in the Philippines and Nepal began to offer improved access to family planning services. As interest in family planning expanded, other organizations partnered with national and regional family planning organizations to respond to womens requests for help with avoiding pregnancy. More recently, in Madagascars Spiny Forest Ecoregionhome to the greatest concentration of baobab trees in the worldthe World Wildlife Fund (WWF) produced
maps showing that where female literacy levels were the lowest, both population growth rates and deforestation were the highest. Based on this, WWF fieldworkers and local stakeholders formed a partnership with a Malagasy regional public health organization to deliver literacy programs, reproductive health information, and family planning services to communities with both the highest population growth and the greatest levels of biodiversity.72 Similarly, Conservation International (CI) is helping to improve access to reproductive
health care near biologically rich areas in the Philippines and Guatemala. And in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, in communities around one of the countrys last primary forests, a CI project links agricultural training, improved access to reproductive health care, and micro-credit loans for women.73 The Jane Goodall Institute is working to improve womens status and the environment in the villages surrounding Gombe National Park in Tanzania. There, they are combining conservation education, training in sustainable agriculture, and the establishment of woodlots that reduce the time women spend gathering wood with preventive health care, family planning, and information about sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. The result is that women are becoming more
effective household and resource managers as well as entrepeneurs because they have the access and means to start their own small, environmentally sustainable businesses.74 These initiatives demonstrate that incorporating improved access to contraception and other reproductive health services can increase womens participation in natural resource conservation or functional literacy programs and vice versa. As the connections between conservation and population projects become clearer, the environmental community and environment ministers can become an important new constituency for reproductive health and womens rights. Investments to slow the rate of population growth will significantly reinforce efforts to address many environmental challenges, and considerably lower the price of such efforts.75 Observation 2: The World The U.S. made specific commitments at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development to substantially increase family planning funding free of abortion restrictions. U.S. funding has since declined, undermining U.S. leadership and wasting the unique expertise of USAID Lasher, 99 Acting Director of Government Relations at Population Action International (Craig, U.S. Population Policy Since the Cairo Conference, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF1495.pdf) A crucial feature of the ICPD document, with di-rect relevance to U.S. population policy, was the call for a dramatic increase in spending on population programs and the social sector. An agreement was reached in Cairo that roughly $17 billion will be needed in the year 2000 and $22 billion in 2015 for both family plan-ning and broader reproductive health programs. In the early 1990s, worldwide spending on population is be-lieved to have totaled $4 to $5
billion from all sources, including both donor assistance and spending by de-veloping country governments and consumers. The Programme of Action calls for total expenditures to more than triple the funding level at the time of the confer-ence and for the United States and other donor coun-tries to increase their share of the expenditures from one-quarter to one-third of the total. Although the United States made no new explicit commitments on financing at the conference, the U.S. government had increased its population assistance funding by about 25 percent in the two years prior to ICPD. While sev-eral donor countries announced plans to increase population assistance, most other donor countries and de-veloping countries made no new pledges at Cairo, undermining the prospects for implementing the new vi-sion of population programs. U.S. POPULATION ASSISTANCE AND ITS POLITICAL CONTEXT The U.S. government initiated an international population assistance program in 1965. Despite recent funding cutbacks,
the United States remains the single largest contributor of population and family planning funds among industrialized countries and the recog-nized

U.S. population assistance has traditionally focused on expanding and improving family
world leader in the population field in terms of knowledge, expertise, and experience.
Development
The U.S. Agency for International (USAID), which implements the U.S. foreign aid pro-gram, has supported contraceptive services provided by both governments and nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs), supplied contraceptive commodities, trained health workers and managers, and introduced creative new approaches to educating people about family planning and in reaching them with services. The international population and family planning pro-gram is widely acknowledged as one of the most suc-cessful U.S. foreign aid programs.3 Virtually every major innovation in the population and family planning field can be directly or indirectly linked to U.S. support. For example, USAID has pio-neered a variety of successful approaches to extending family planning through the
planning services. But the United States is now being looked to for the design and imple-mentation of the broader agenda of new reproductive health care and womens empowerment initiatives agreed to at the ICPD. private sector such as so-cial marketing, and the sale and distribution of contra-ceptives through existing commercial outlets at subsi-dized prices. Modern technology has also been effec-tively applied to the population field in the areas of mass communication and demographic data collection and analysis. In addition, USAID has supported bio- medical research, which has been instrumental in the development of a number of new contraceptives, in-cluding several now in use by American couples. USAID has built a strong public-private partnership with U.S.-based cooperating agenciesNGOs, universities, businesseswhich have been indispens-able to USAID. These partners can provide high qual-ity technical advice and support to overseas field pro-grams.
USAIDs dedicated staff of career experts on population and related areas and its substantial in- country presence are unique among donor agencies and have also contributed to the effective implementation of projects, as well as the success of country programs. Tens of millions of
couples use family planning services as a direct result of U.S. population assistance. Millions more have adopted family planning due to USAID support for a broad range of technical assis-tance, training, information, communication, policy, and research activities in developing countries. In the twenty-eight largest recipient countries of USAID 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.4 The United States provides its population assis-tance through three channels: bilateral, centrally- funded, and multilateral. About half of the funds have been provided directly to the governments of devel-oping countries for bilateral projects managed by USAID field missions. The other half of the funds support a wide range of population activities through worldwide or regional projects implemented by NGOs and centrally-funded through the USAID Office of Population.5 USAID currently supports population activities in about sixty nations. In addition, the United States has also been a major contributor to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the largest multi-lateral organization involved in population and the lead United Nations agency on Cairo implementation. During the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. population program enjoyed a significant level of bipartisan support in Congress and in the executive branch.6 A strong consensus existed that rapid population growth was one of the worlds most serious problems, undermin-ing 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 related to the contentious is-sue of abortion led the Reagan and Bush administrations to directly challenge this consensus. Neverthe-less, Congress allocated comparable levels of program funding until recently, even in the absence of execu-tive branch commitment in previous administrations. Substantial funds have been earmarked for population assistance every year since 1967. In the 1980s, domestic political debates on abor-tion spilled over into international population assistance policy. The use of foreign aid funds for abortion has been prohibited in statute since the passage of the Helms amendment in 1973, and support for biomedi- cal research on abortion was banned in 1981. But the Reagan administration imposed additional restrictions in 1984 with the initiation of the Mexico City Policy, named for the international population conference where it was announced. The U.S. policy reversal de-nied U.S. assistance to a foreign NGO if it had any involvement in legal abortion, even if paid for with non- U.S. funds. In addition, the Reagan and Bush administrations interpreted a Kemp-Kasten anticoercion amendment enacted by Congress very broadly, result-ing in the defunding of UNFPA in 1986 because of its projects in China. In 1993, President Clinton overturned the Mexico City Policy as one of his first official acts. The Mexico position had been implemented by executive branch regulations and reversal did not require legislative ac-tion. The U.S. contribution to UNFPA was restored later that year. The Kemp-Kasten amendment was in-terpreted more narrowly and Congress approved lan-guage in the appropriations bill disassociating the United States from any coercive practices and ensur-ing that no U.S. funds given to UNFPA would by used in China. It is with this programmatic and political background that the U.S. government is attempting to implement the ICPD Programme of Action. U.S. EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE CAIRO AGENDA The U.S. response to the challenge of implement-ing the Cairo conference agenda has three dimensions: 1) policy changes reflected in official statements; 2) incorporation of conference recommendations into U.S. foreign aid programs; and, 3) commitment of financial resources to achieve the Cairo goals. New Policy Directions The United States took a lead role in the process leading up to the ICPD and at the conference itself. Moreover, private U.S. womens organizations were key actors in promoting the new thinking on interna-tional population issues. They successfully argued for recognizing the crucial roles womens empowerment and education play in reducing fertility. So it is no sur-prise that recent official statements of U.S. policy re-flect the consensus reached by the Cairo conference. But they also incorporate other long-standing demo-graphic rationales for U.S. population assistance. The U.S Department of State Strategic Plan, issued in September 1997, illustrates both the continuity and the changes in U.S. population policy since Cairo. Accord- ing to the plan, stabilizing population growth is considered one of three global issues judged important to U.S. national interests, along with securing a sustainable global environment, protecting human health and reducing the spread of infectious diseases. The plan declares: Stabilizing population growth is vital to U.S. interests. Economic and social progress in other countries can be undermined by rapid population growth, which overburdens the quality and availability of public services, limits employment opportunities, and contributes to environmental degradation. Not only will early stabilization of the worlds population promote environmentally sustainable economic development in other countries, but it will also benefit the U.S. by improving trade opportunities and mitigating future global crises. There is now broad international consensus on the need for a comprehensive approach to population stabilization which, along with family planning services, incorporates reproductive rights and other components of reproductive health, womens socioeconomic and educational status, and the special needs of adolescents.7 Specific strategies are then articulated as necessary for achieving the U.S. governments goal of stabilizing world population. These policy prescriptions reflect recommendations made in Cairo and include: promoting the rights of couples and individuals to determine freely and responsibly the number and spac-ing of their children; providing leadership on international population is-sues and encouraging international cooperation; supporting programs to achieve universal access to family planning, maternal health, and other reproduc-tive health services by the year 2015; improving the environment in which population programs operate, including efforts to enhance womens status and educate girls and expand opportunities for young people; and involving civil society in population and development activities.8 Achieving U.S. population policy goals, the plan observes, requires maintaining existing broad international support for population stabilization, lifting congressional restrictions on U.S. population assistance funding, increasing worldwide commitments to basic education and economic opportunities for women and girls, and expanding investments in population-related activities by other donors (bilateral, multilateral, and private). The coexistence of multiple rationales for U.S. government involvement in international population policy is nothing new. Such rationales have existed since the inception of the U.S. population assistance program in the mid-1960s. Statements by senior Clinton administration officials have reflected these multiple rationales before and after Cairo. For example, high-level officials have advanced the more demographic and national interest-related argument on the relationship of population growth to future conflicts over natural resources popularized by Robert Kaplan in his Atlantic Monthly article, The Coming Anarchy. These officials include President Clinton himself, former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Timo- thy Wirth, and USAID Administrator J. Brian Atwood.9 The renewed interest in using these arguments publicly has resurrected some of the economic and national security rationales for U.S. population aid that had been largely abandoned during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Madeleine Albrights statements promoting equal rights for women as an integral part of U.S. foreign policy appear more obviously influenced by the ICPD and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Her public statements have also been strongly supportive of U.S. assistance for international family planning and reproductive health programs. But Secretary Albright clearly recognizes the importance of population programs not just to maternal and child health and womens status, but also their importance for a broad range of international concerns and U.S. interests. According to Albright: Clearly, family planning saves lives, enhances the well-being of women and their children, and prevents recourse to abortion. International family planning also serves important U.S. foreign policy interests: elevating the status of women, reducing the flow of refugees, protecting the global environment, and promoting sustainable development which leads to greater economic growth and trade opportunities for our businesses.10 Changes in Programs At the beginning of the Clinton administration and prior to the Cairo conference, USAID formulated a new strategy to stabilize world population and to protect human health. Announced in March 1994, this strategy gives special emphasis to the reproductive health needs of women and adolescents, while building on the agencys strengths in the field of family planning.11 This new and expanded focus complements the principal objectives of the USAID population program: 1) to promote the rights of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children; 2) to improve individual health (particularly the reproductive health of women and ado- U.S. Population Policy Since the Cairo Conferencelescents and the health of infants and children); 3) to reduce population growth rates to levels consistent with sustainable development; and, 4) to make programs responsive and accountable to the people they aim to serve. The new population strategy was adopted as USAID reconsidered its mission in the post-Cold War era. USAID has termed population and health programs as one of the pillars of sustainable development, along with protecting the environment, building democracy, encouraging broad-based economic growth, and providing humanitarian assistance. At the same time, the agency, under the Clinton administration, has placed more emphasis on sustainability, participatory development, partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, and the greater integration of development programs across sectors. The period since the Cairo conference has been a particularly difficult one for USAIDs population program. The agency has faced uncertainty over a possible merger with the Department of State, budget and staffing reductions, mission closings, and management changes. In the population sector specifically, the agency has had to cope with budget cuts, metering, the allocation of funds on a monthly basis, and a congressional effort to dismantle completely the population programs.12 Even as USAID has faced these problems, it has taken steps to reshape its population assistance program to support the broad reproductive health approach advocated at ICPD. USAID has made particular progress in the area of strengthening links between family planning and other reproductive health activities.13 The agency has wisely and responsibly chosen to focus selectively on those activities that are believed to be the most cost-effective in improving the quality of health care, in increasing access to services, and in achieving maximum impact on public health. Before and immediately after the Cairo conference, USAID launched a new adolescent reproductive health project, supported a consortium of organizations working on post-abortion care, and designed new strategies to increase attention to preventing sexually transmitted diseases within family planning programs. In addition to work in those areas, USAID has increased attention to and support for other reproductive health activities including: improving maternal health and safety, expanding nutrition programs for women, promoting breastfeeding, preventing harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation, encouraging male involvement in the promotion of reproductive and sexual health, increasing the role of women in the design and management of programs, and addressing the reproductive health needs of refugees. In the area of womens empowerment, USAID adopted a Gender Action Plan in 1996 which created several new initiatives designed to expand girls and womens education, womens legal and political rights, and womens access to credit. The creation of the Population, Health, and Nutri- tion (PHN) Center within USAIDs Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research is another especially noteworthy development. The PHN Center, established in 1994, brings together the Office of Popu- lation, the Office of Health and Nutrition, and the Of- fice of Field and Program Support under unified management, a move that has contributed to improved collaboration and cooperation between family planning and other health programs. A reflection of that increased coordination are sev-eral joint, centrally-funded projects that have been ini-tiated, such as the new PVO Networks project which integrates reproductive health and child survival ac-tivities, the FRONTIERS project in the area of opera-tions research, the new MEASURE project dealing with evaluation and survey research, and the FOCUS project dealing with the reproductive and sexual health needs of young adults.14 Reflecting the new integration of health and population objectives, all USAID staff work-ing in population and health are now called PHN Of-ficers. There are no longer any Population Officers. The U.S. population assistance program, however, faces a number of vulnerabilities which could nega-tively affect its ability to promote expanded family plan-ning services and better reproductive health in line with the goals of the ICPD. Notwithstanding recent congressional attacks directed at population funding, both program funds and operating expense funds necessary to manage projects had been dwindling agency-wide. Over the past decade, USAID has experienced a substantial decline in the number of technical staff. Mean- while, management burdens on staff are increasing, and PHN officers manage roughly double the volume of funds compared to 10 years ago. As part of its efforts to streamline operations, USAID is also moving ahead with its plans to close 21 overseas missions and to phase out population assistance in a number of countries of strategic importance to the United States. Mission clos-ings have already occurred in a number of African na-tions and in important countries such as Pakistan. In addition, USAID plans to phase out assistance to Bra-zil and Mexico by the year 2000 and to Indonesia, Mo-rocco, and Turkey soon thereafter, both as a cost-sav-ing measure and in recognition of these countries con-siderable success in meeting their demographic and development objectives. Financial Commitments
. Both developed and developing countries need to significantly increase funding for family planning and reproductive health, and for the so-cial sector generally. As Dr. Nafis Sadik, UNFPA Ex- ecutive Director and Secretary-General of the conference, stated, .15 Grant aid for population programs from donor countries may have increased by as much as 25 percent in 1995, the latest year for which data is available.16 Bilateral population assistance for 1995 is estimated at $1.6 billion, up from $1.2 billion in 1994. Total population assistance in 1995, including World Bank lending and other multilateral sources, reached $2 billion. How- ever, a significant amount of the apparent increase in 1995 may reflect changes in the definition of population assistance rather than a real expansion in donor commitments. Starting in 1995, UNFPA has broadened its traditional definition of population assistance to incorporate the broader reproductive health initiatives for which cost estimates were developed in the ICPD action plan. Several donor countries have significantly boosted funding for population programs in the lead up to or since the Cairo conference, most notably Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark. Nev- ertheless, overall donor assistance for population remains far below the trajectory required to achieve ICPD
funding goals. Total donor assistance stands at about a third of the $5.7 billion donor target for year 2000 adopted in Cairo.
Commitment of a whole new magnitude of finan-cial resources remains the key to achieving the ICPDs ambitious objectives Without resources. . . the Programme of Action will remain a paper promise
Allocations to population programs in a number of other countries, most significantly the United States, are moving in the wrong direction. Population assistance has suffered under downward pressure on foreign aid budgets in many industrialized countries. In other countries, a lack of priority for popu-
lation programs remains a constraint on increasing contributions. The prospects for major increases in donor population assistance, therefore, do not appear promising. U.S. population assistance, which in recent years has accounted for roughly half of all donor assistance, has declined by about a third over the last three fiscal years. Funding cuts and restrictions imposed by family planning opponents in Congress account for this decline. The recent cuts mean that the United States is even farther behind in meeting its appropriate share of the ICPD spending target for the year 2000, based on the size of the U.S. economy relative to other donor nations. Since the U.S. financial contribution has traditionally represented such a large share of total resources, the funding cut does not bode well for fulfill- ing the Cairo spending goals. THE 1994 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION AND THE U.S. RESPONSE TO CAIRO The U.S. response to the new challenges posed by Cairo has been profoundly affected by a drastic shift in the political climate in Congress surrounding reproductive rights issues and in particular international population assistance programs. The euphoria among U.S. population organizations, resulting from the favorable changes in international population assistance policy introduced during the early Clinton years, as well as in Cairo, was short-lived and abruptly interrupted by the November 1994 congressional elections. In the November election, the Republican party won a majority of seats in the House of Representa- tives, for the first time in forty years, leaving the Re- publicans in control of both the House and Senate chambers. The new conservative leadership in the House moved quickly to implement its vision of downsizing the federal government. While its legislative blueprint, the Contract with America, focused prin- cipally on domestic concerns, its emphasis on tax and spending cuts resulted in large reductions in foreign aid, including population assistance. Foreign aid was viewed as an easy target because of the widespread perception that international spending has no domestic political constituency. As a result of the election, international population assistance opponents outnumbered supporters in the House, a stunning reversal of the situation prior to the Cairo conference. Although population assistance supporters continue to retain a majority in the Senate, they do so only by a slim margin. More importantly, the shift to Republican control left some of the principal critics of population assistance, such as Represen- tative Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Senator Jesse Helms (R- NC), as chairmen of key committees and subcommit- tees with jurisdiction over population assistance. This revolutionary change in Congress has meant a profound historical shift for U.S. population assistance policy. During the 104th and 105th Congresses, anti-choice opponents of family planning elected since the Cairo conference have sought repeatedly to reimpose the Mexico City Policy and to cut-off U.S. funding of UNFPA legislatively. These efforts have had devastating results for U.S. population assistance. The Clinton administration and pro-assistance members on both sides of the aisle have successfully beat back House Republican attempts to place additional abortion-related restrictions on USAID programs. But that success has come at a high price in terms of funding for international population assistance. Since achieving a majority in the 1994 election, conservative members of the House have insisted that additional abortion-related restrictions be imposed on international family planning funding despite firm opposition from the Senate and the Clinton White House. Their goal has been the enactment into law of the so-called global gag rule amendment, aggressively championed by its principal sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). The amendment would bar both multilateral and foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning funds if, with other non-U.S. funds, they provide legal abortion services or engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.17 While the global gag rule amendment has not become law, severe restrictions have been placed on the release of population assistance funds in the three fiscal years since Cairo (FY96, FY97, and FY98). These restrictions are the price paid for blocking the efforts of family planning opponents to enact new population policy restrictions. For example, the FY96 foreign aid appropriations bill allocated just $356 million for international population assistance. This level represented a 35 percent funding reduction from the all-time high
for population assistance of $547 million the previous year and was disproportionate to cuts in other foreign aid programs. But the drastic funding cut was also coupled for the first time with restrictions on the release of the funds. As a result, the population program has had severe disruptions that continue in some form to this day. The release of the appropriated funds was delayed for nine months, and the funds were then available only on a month-to-month basis at a rate of 6.7 percent of the total, ensuring that just a small fraction of the funds was actually spent in the remaining three months of that fiscal year. The following year, population assistance funds for FY97 were delayed five months as a result of a complicated legislative deal negotiated to break another dead- lock over international family planning issues. Once again, family planning disputes threatened to shutdown the federal government. Under the deal, the release of funds for international family planning was blocked for nine months again unless a presidential finding determined that the delay was having a negative impact on the program. Congress then would have to approve this conclusion. If the presidential determination was approved by Congress, $385 million in bilateral population assistance would begin flowing on March 1, 1997, although still available only in small monthly increments. As required by the legislation, President Clinton formally transmitted a finding to Congress which stated that it was his determination that a delay will cause serious, irreversible, and avoidable harm to the population program. He dramatized in stark terms what was at stake if family planning funds were not released quickly: the lives and well-being of many thousands of women and children and Americas credibility as the leader in family planning programs around the world.18 The finding also noted that the delayed release of funds and metering (the allocation of funds on a monthly basis) was an administrative nightmare, which had cost the American taxpayers over $1 million to implement. Population assistance supporters celebrated when the House approved the presidential finding on a vote of 220 to 209, and the Senate did likewise by a margin of 53 to 45. In 1997, family planning supporters were again successful in resisting the imposition of new population policy restrictions. As in the last three years, ideological battles over population assistance made the foreign aid appropriation one of the last bills to be resolved before Congress adjourned for the year. Congressional and White House negotiators traded conditions on the timing of the release of population funding for a rejec- tion of new policy restrictions. The 1997 deal followed a similar formula, except that the crippling, months- long delays in the availability of funds imposed in previous years were eliminated completely, allowing $385 million in FY98 to begin flowing immediately. Funds continue, however, to be metered. But House family planning opponents raised the stakes even further, successfully tying their demands for enactment of the global gag rule to larger foreign policy concerns. After an effort to link the issue to votes for fast track trade legislation failed, the House leadership blocked the repayment of U.S. debts to the United Nations, funding for a new International Monetary Fund line of credit, and reorganization of U.S. foreign affairs agencies until family planning opponents get satisfaction on population policy. In light of the United Nations pivotal role in monitoring Iraqs weapons development program and continuing turbulence in Asian financial markets, debates over population policy will undoubtedly resume in 1998 and are likely to bring continuing political difficulties for U.S. population assistance. CONCLUSION In an interconnected world, Americans stand to benefit from efforts to slow population growth with its negative impacts on the global economy and environment. The prospects for peace and economic development in the twenty-first century will depend in part on slowing population growth and on meeting human needs. But without continued commitment, there is no assurances that current trends toward slower population growth will continue. It is clear that U.S. leadership and funding remain vital to global population stabilization efforts and the implementation of the Cairo agenda. As the industrialized nation with the
largest population and economy, the United States remains the biggest donor in the field. The United States must not falter now in its efforts to expand worldwide access to family planning and related reproductive health services as called for in the ICPD Programme of Action. The policy implications of this evaluation for the work of the U.S. government in its efforts to implement the Cairo agenda are three-fold: The executive branch from the President on down must continue to work to rebuild the case for U.S. in-volvement in global population stabilization efforts. By combining the health, rights, and womens empowerment agenda of Cairo with the more traditional eco-nomic, environmental, and national security rationale for a U.S. government role, policymakers may be able to marshal the support of the Congress and the Ameri-can public in renewing the commitment to international population assistance as an essential part of this countrys foreign aid program. Program managers, both inside and outside the U.S. government, must build on ongoing initiatives to im-prove the availability and quality of family planning services while at the same time increasing investments in the
The incremental ap-proach adopted by USAID, relying on a careful assessment of reproductive health and development needs and the capacity of developing country governments to address those needs in a costeffective manner, has proven to be the right way to operationalize the new vision of population programs adopted at the Cairo conference. But more clearly needs to be done in the future. The Administration and Congress must work together to find additional financial resources for international population assistance in order for the United States to get on the upward trajectory necessary for us to meet our appropriate share of the Cairo funding goals. The creation of clearly articulated policies and innovative programs is meaningless unless adequate financial sup-port is available for those policies and programs to be properly carried out and implemented. And that support has been severely lacking since 1994. For the last thirty years, the United States has paved the way for other governments to become involved in global population stabilization efforts. U.S. leadership, however, has been undermined since Cairo by the ac-tions of opponents of population assistance who have demanded funding cuts and restrictions on family plan-ning. Congress must restore funds in order for the United States to get back on the path of carrying its fair share of Cairo funding commitments and to meet the responsibility that comes with its wealth and role as a world leader.
other reproductive health and development interventions highlighted at ICPD.
UN population estimates by 2050 are too conservative the global population is likely to overshoot the carrying capacity and multiple stressors are showing signs of impending collapse Cassils Director of the Population Institute of Canada 2004 (J. Anthony, Overpopulation, Sustainable Development, and Security: Developing an Integrated Strategy, Population and Environment, January) the prediction of 8.9 billion people in 2050 is based on just one medium-variant scenario supported by assumptions taking into This recent UN projection may be too optimistic, reflecting political hopes rather than demographic reality. If the annual rate of increase in global population stays at the current level of about 1.3%, then population would be about 12 billion by 2050. However, the annual growth rate has been trending downwards since the early 1970s when it was over 2%. Some analysts suggest that the UN
It is important to recognize that account a number of factors, such as the young age structure of global population, fertility rates, and life expectancy.
Report pays insufficient attention to the young age structure of the global population, calculating that if the global fertility rate of two children per female had been reached in the year 2000 (the estimated rate was 2.8 in that year), and stabilized, the world population would peak at 12 billion in about 70 years. China, with a policy of one child per couple, will add about 10 million to their population this coming year. Clearly, there is a broad range of projections of future population levels and much careful conjecture, but most population groups, such as the UN Population Division, the Population Reference Bureau, and The International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, have medium-variant projections that have the global population growing to about 9 billion by mid-century. What is notable about these calculations is the omission by demographers of any consideration of carrying capacity (the number of people the global environment can carry sustainably over the medium and long term). The main reason for this serious gap is the difficulty in attaining agreement on the limiting factors, on the evolution of such factors over time, and, if such factors could be reliably predicted, the effects of economic, cultural, and political systems (ONeill & Balk, 2001). However, environmental limits form a very real constraint on future population growth, whether or not humans can agree on them, and the growing list of environmental crises provides ample warning. The resolution of this issue is urgent but it is beyond the scope of demographers. It will take the marshaling of a broad base of political, economic, and social forces to come to agreement on carrying capacity, and the pace of international progress regarding this issue must accelerate significantly. There are already many signs of impending limits at the current level of 6.3 billion people. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2002) has reported that there are more than three billion people who are malnourished and lack calories, several vitamins, iron, iodine and other nutrients, making them making them more susceptible to numerous diseases. This is the largest
number of malnourished people ever in human history. The WHO reports a significant increase in various diseases; for example, more than 2.4 billion are infected with malaria and 2 billion each with TB and helminths.
Masses of impoverished and malnourished people might serve as ideal incubators of new viruses. The outlook is rendered more grim with the conjunction of key trends, such as the looming shortages of fresh water in most of the world, the imminent peaking of the global production of conventional oil and gas, the collapse of major fisheries, and the loss of prime agricultural land to erosion and urbanization. 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. The international community needs to come to an unequivocal agreement that a significant reduction of human population is a desirable goal. All steps should be taken by individual nations to make it happen quickly and humanely. The Cairo conference on population in 1994 was a tentative but totally inadequate step in that direction. In this time of crisis, governments will need to show real leadership by designing institutions that help humanity shrink its way to sustainable prosperity. Countries that are in the lead in reducing their populations should not give in to the advocates of growth by allowing massive immigration. This rewards those who multiply irresponsibly. The various peoples of the Earth will need to assume responsibility to restore their respective regions of origin into lands of hope. In an overcrowded world, mass migration is no longer a reasonable option to address overpopulation. The problems must be resolved in situ. Although overpopulation is a global problem, solutions will be implemented by individual nation states. To realize a coherent global approach, the population issue should be placed at the core of policy in every country of the world and appropriate remedies adopted to stabilize and reduce human population. The immediate issue is: How can this be achieved? This paper begins a process to develop a strategy to address that question. At this stage, it is expected that the strategy will grow and evolve as it benefits from the contributions of individuals and organizations. CAUSES AND IMPLICATIONS OF HUMAN OVERPOPULATION High intelligence has increased the capacity of the human species to acquire resources and to diminish the impact of many population-limiting factors, such as disease and famine. These capabilities have allowed humans to expand their numbers enormously, from about five million in 6000 BCE (Ehrlich, 1968) to over six billion today. In the words of E. O. Wilson (2002): The pattern of human population growth in the 20th century was more bacterial than primate. When Homo sapiens passed the six-billion mark we had already exceeded by perhaps as much as 100 times the biomass of any large animal species that ever existed on the land. We and the rest of life cannot afford another 100 years like that. The impact on both the physical world and other life forms has been devastating and will continue far into the future. It is obvious that the success of the human species in expanding its numbers and accessing resources has not been matched by a change in outlook. We have failed to shift our focus from the short to the long term. It is rare that we even acknowledge the influence of our basic instincts on ethics, decision-making, and public policy. In the past fifty years, there have been major advances in our knowledge of biology and ecology. The best of science and reason suggests that human demands upon the web of life on Earth have exceeded sustainable levels. Meanwhile,
human population and expectations continue to rise, making chaos and collapse very likely
unless corrective action is taken promptly. Unfortunately, most people, including policy makers, overlook the important message of ecology. The health of the environment is viewed as just one of many political issues rather than the essential underpinning of all life. The ecological reality is that human life and the economy form part of and depend upon a web of many interdependent species. The web is based on countless microorganisms in the soil and water and on plants that, through photosynthesis, directly or indirectly feed all other levels of
the food chain. We tend to overlook the importance of microorganisms because we cannot see them. As for the energy produced by terrestrial photosynthesis, the human species consumes, at an estimated 50% of the total (Pimentel et al., 1999), a hugely disproportionate share. It is estimated that the amount of energy consumed annually in the form of fossil fuels in the United States exceeds by fifty percent the total solar energy captured by all the plants in that country (Heinberg, 2003). The expansion of human activities appropriates an ever-larger fraction of the Earths surface, and this is having a negative impact on biodiversity. Not only do we directly displace other species by occupying or destroying their habitat, we extinguish them, including many of the microorganisms at the foundation of all life, with our wastes and chemical poisons. Current human practices and beliefs are on a collision course with the life support system on Earth. With the short-term focus of daily human activities, the profound implications of this predicament are not given sufficient attention. Old beliefs impede the acceptance of new information and delay
the implementation of changes that are essential to render human activities sustainable. Modern communications and transportation have created an unprecedented global awareness, but the emphasis has been on global exploitation rather than on taking better care of the planet. Individuals, both corporate and human, have been quick to take advantage of opportunities. Transnational corporations comb the world looking for cheaper labour, natural resources, and larger markets, while individual people look for advantages in other countries and migrate in unprecedented numbers. Therefore, transnational corporations and economic refugees share a common interest in relatively open national borders to provide more opportunities for increased profits and consumption. Despite the popular admonition to think globally and act locally, any nation that acts with foresight to curtail population and protect its environment, thereby creating an area of order in an increasingly chaotic world, will likely attract more international corporate activity and face enormous pressure to allow the entry of people from less ordered regions. Pressure tactics will include demands for free trade and accusations of racism for restrictions on immigration. The net result of such tactics, if successful, is to accelerate the unraveling of the web of life worldwide. Like locusts and rabbits
, we have entered a plague cycle that will end with the collapse of the food supply when environmental constraints can no longer be attenuated by technological interventions.
Local human population crashes resulting from the depletion of natural resources have occurred previously (e.g., Easter Island), but human activities have never before caused so much damage to virtually every part of the planet at the same time. The coming population crash will be more global in scale, but it will be far
Moreover, our technological capacity for intervention will weaken rapidly as oil and gas become more scarce over the next half-century. from equally shared across the planet.
This will cause extinction action now is required before resource consumption overwhelms the planets ability to adapt Brown, 06 professor of physiology at West Virginia University (Paul, Notes from a Dying Planet, p. 3-4) The threats we face stem from overpopulation and environmental degradation. The resulting climate change and mass extinctions are leading to ecological collapse, in which the once-robust tapestry of interrelationships among living creatures, climate, and our physical environment has been weakened and is starting to unravel. Clinical indicators of our planets serious illness are illustrated in the graph. Ive adjusted the vertical scales for population, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, temperature, and extinction of species per year so they all have a common minimum and maximum. All the minima occurred tens of thousands of years BC, and all the maxima are now. The state of the Earth today is unique. Were consuming the worlds resources faster than they can be restored. The worlds population is now doubling in less than fifty years. Around mid-century the worlds population is expected to level off at eight to twelve billion people. The lower number is far too high: population must start to decline before 2050 if we are to survive. The upper limit, to put it simply, will never be reached because we would all die first. Because of population growth and increasing consumption, concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere are the highest in human history, as are global temperatures. This is not normal climatic fluctuation, as fossil-fuel industry shills would have you believe. The rate of species extinctions is comparable to mass extinctions that have occurred only five times before, and is likely to exceed those. The total decline of species since the Industrial Revolution will soon be worse than the mass extinction caused by the asteroid impact sixty-five million years ago off the Yucatan peninsula, which wiped out 83% of species including the dinosaurs. Before we came along, species evolved and went extinct for billions of years, creating and filling a diversity of ecological niches. Organisms used energy from the sun to grow and reproduce, recycling the materials needed for life through an interdependent worldwide ecosystem. Mechanisms existed to maintain ecological stability, ensuring that the environment didnt change too fast for evolution to keep up. Our biosphere recovered from calamitous events like asteroid collisions, even though only a minority of species made it through some of those catastrophes. Todays ongoing catastrophe may eliminate all but the smallest and simplest of life forms. Our species has flourished, but without realizing it weve changed our environment too fast for other species to adapt. A systems stability can only be eroded so far, after which it becomes unstable. Were approaching a point where the worlds ecosystem will change too fast even for us to adapt. We will become extinct. Its already too late for us to return to the world as we found it or even as it was ten years ago. Weve wiped out too many species. But we can protect the remaining fragile stability. In a word, we must seek sustainability, which means consuming resources only as fast as theyre replenished. All the trends on our graph have to be reversed, until theyre all back to pre-industrial levels or lower. This doesnt mean returning to a pre-industrial quality of life in fact, we should all be able to live much better once there are fewer of us. But we have to take effective action very soon, before its too late. Our argument are proven historically and by existing conditions in places of population stress Diamond, 03 - professor of geography and of environmental health sciences at UCLA (Jared, The Last Americans: Environmental Collapse and the End of Civilization http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2003/Civilization-Collapse-EndJun03.htm) One of the disturbing facts of history is that so many civilizations collapse. Few people, however, least of all our politicians, realize that a primary cause of the collapse of those societies has been the destruction of the environmental resources on which they depended. Fewer still appreciate that many of those civilizations share a sharp curve of decline. Indeed, a society's demise may begin only a decade or two after it reaches its peak population, wealth, and power.
Recent archaeological discoveries have revealed similar courses of collapse in such otherwise dissimilar ancient societies as the Maya in the Yucatn, the Anasazi in the American Southwest, the Cahokia mound builders outside St. Louis, the Greenland Norse, the statue builders of Easter Island, ancient Mesopotamia in the Fertile Crescent, Great Zimbabwe in Africa, and Angkor Wat in Cambodia. These civilizations, and many others, succumbed to various combinations of environmental degradation and climate change, aggression from enemies taking advantage of their resulting weakness, and declining trade with neighbors who faced their own
environmental problems. Because peak population, wealth, resource consumption, and waste production are accompanied by peak environmental impactapproaching the limit at which impact outstrips resourceswe can now understand why declines of societies tend to follow swiftly on their peaks. These combinations of undermining factors were compounded by cultural attitudes preventing those in power from perceiving or resolving the crisis. That's a familiar problem today. Some of us are inclined to dismiss the importance of a healthy environment, or at least to suggest that it's just one of many problems facing usan "issue." That dismissal is based on three dangerous misconceptions. Foremost among these misconceptions is that we must balance the environment against human needs. That reasoning is exactly upside-down. Human needs and a healthy environment are not opposing claims that must be balanced; instead, they are inexorably linked by chains of cause and effect. We need a healthy environment because we need clean water, clean Air, wood, and food from the ocean, plus soil and sunlight to grow crops. We need functioning natural ecosystems, with their native species of earthworms, bees, plants, and microbes, to generate and aerate our soils, pollinate our crops, decompose our wastes, and produce our oxygen. We need to prevent toxic substances from accumulating in our water and air and soil. We need to prevent weeds, germs, and other pest species from becoming established in places where they aren't native and where they cause economic damage. Our strongest arguments for a healthy environment are selfish: we want it for ourselves, not for threatened species like snail darters, spotted owls, and Furbish louseworts. Another popular misconception is that we can trust in technology to solve our problems. Whatever environmental problem you name, you can also name some hoped-for technological solution under discussion. Some of us have faith that we shall solve our dependence on fossil fuels by developing new technologies for hydrogen engines, wind energy, or solar energy. Some of us have faith that we shall solve our food problems with new or soon-to-be-developed genetically modified crops. Some of us have faith that new technologies will succeed in cleaning up the toxic materials in our air, water, soil, and foods without the horrendous cleanup expenses that we now incur.
some of them may succeed and others may not. They assume that the new technologies will succeed quickly enough to make a big difference soon, but all of these major technological changes will actually take five to thirty years to develop and implementif they catch on at all. Most of all, those with faith assume that new technology won't cause any new problems. In fact, technology merely constitutes increased power, which produces changes that can be either for the better or for the worse. All of our current environmental problems are unanticipated harmful consequences of our existing technology. There is no basis for believing that technology will miraculously stop causing new and unanticipated problems while it is solving the problems that it previously produced. The final misconception holds that environmentalists are fear-mongering, overreacting extremists whose predictions of impending disaster have been proved wrong before and will be proved wrong again. Behold, say the optimists: water still flows from our faucets, the grass is still green, and the supermarkets are full of food. We are more prosperous than ever before, and that's the final proof that our system works. Well, for a few billion of the world's people who are causing us increasing trouble, there isn't any clean water, there is less and less green grass, and there are no supermarkets full of food. To appreciate what the environmental problems of those billions of people mean for us
Those with such faith assume that the new technologies will ultimately succeed, but in fact
Americans, compare the following two lists of countries. First ask some ivory-tower academic ecologist who knows a lot about the environment but never reads a newspaper and has no interest in politics to list the overseas countries facing some of the worst problems of environmental stress, overpopulation, or both. The ecologist would answer, "That's a no-brainer, it's obvious. Your list of environmentally stressed or overpopulated countries should surely include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burundi, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, and Somalia, plus others." Then ask a First World politician who knows nothing, and cares less, about the environment and population problems to list the world's worst trouble spots: countries where state government has already been overwhelmed and has collapsed, or is now at risk of collapsing, or has been wracked by recent civil wars; and countries that, as a result of their problems, are also creating problems for us rich First World countries, which may be deluged by illegal immigrants, or have to provide foreign aid to those countries, or may decide to provide them with military assistance to deal with rebellions and terrorists, or may even (God forbid) have to send in our own troops. The politician would answer, "That's a no-brainer, it's obvious. Your list of political trouble spots should surely include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burundi, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, and Somalia, plus others."
The connection between the two lists is transparent. Today, just as in the past, countries that are environmentally stressed, overpopulated, or both are at risk of becoming politically stressed, and of seeing their governments collapse. When people are desperate and undernourished, they blame their government, which they see as responsible for failing to solve their problems. They try to emigrate at any cost. They start civil wars. They kill one another. They figure that they have nothing to lose, so they become terrorists, or they support or tolerate terrorism. The results are genocides such as the ones that already have exploded in Burundi, Indonesia, and Rwanda; civil wars, as in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philip pines, and the Solomon Islands; calls for the dispatch of First World troops, as to Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, the Philippines, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, and Somalia; the collapse of central government, as has already happened in Somalia; and overwhelming poverty, as in all of the countries on these lists. Substantially increasing funding is vital to expanding U.S. leadership on reproductive rights Center for Reproductive Rights, 03 (International Family Planning and Reproductive Health, June, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ifp.html)
International family planning and reproductive health and programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population program and UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) provide health care choices that assist women in realizing their universal human rights. The right to health, including reproductive health care, and the right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of ones children, are well established under international law. However, U.S. support for desperately-needed programs in low and middle income countries to ensure these rights has been inconsistent, insufficient and mired with burdensome restrictions. Since 1995, Congress has significantly reduced funds for international family planning, and increased restrictions on these crucial reproductive health programs. Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights International human rights treaties affirm that reproductive rights, including the right to health, the right to family planning, the right to reproductive self-determination, and the principle of non-discrimination, are human rights. Lack of access to reproductive health services and information constitutes a violation of these basic human rights principles. The rights to family planning and health were first articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and were refined in subsequent human rights treaties adopted by the international community: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the U.S. in 1992, states that men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family. The first human rights treaty to require nations to recognize a right to health and to take steps to achieve the realization of that right for the benefit of families was the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Womens rights to health and family planning services and information, in particular, are addressed in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Convention on the Rights of the Child reiterates the right to maternal health and identifies it as a right intrinsically related to the right to health for children. During the 1990s, a series of international conferences recognized reproductive rights, including the right to family planning information and services, as critical both for advancing womens human rights and for promoting development. Building on principles articulated at earlier conferences dating back to 1968 the international community, including the U.S., made commitments of political will and resources to realizing

and securing these rights.
At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, and their five-year reviews, the international community and the U.S. unequivocally endorsed reproductive rights as human rights.
Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy The promotion of human rights is an important aspect of U.S. foreign policy, including foreign assistance. Although Congress and the President have broad discretion to determine whether to provide foreign assistance and to whom, this discretion must be consistent with the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), which provides that the United States: shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world. . . . Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries.1
The United States continued insufficient funding levels and restrictions on family planning contravene a "principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States." In addition, these policies severely curtail the ability of low-income nations to ensure their citizens rights to health, family
planning, and reproductive self-determination. By inhibiting the ability of these nations to protect human rights, the U.S. directly contradicts the spirit of the FAA, which seeks to promote development, as well as increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by other nations. U.S. Financial Commitments to Reproductive Rights Recognizing "the interrelationship between . . . population growth, and . . . development and overall improvement in living standards in developing countries," the U.S. began its family planning assistance program over 30 years ago. In a bipartisan effort, Congress expanded the FAA to authorize the President to provide assistance for voluntary family planning and health programs. The U.S. family planning program has contributed significantly to increasing the use of modern contraceptive methods from under 10 percent in the 1960s to 50 percent today, helping to reduce high-risk pregnancies and abortions and saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of women. During international conferences such as 1994s ICPD, the U.S recognized the critical role that international assistance plays in achieving important goals regarding population and development. The ICPD estimated that approximately $17 billion would be required in the year 2000 to meet the need for international family planning and reproductive health services, including $5.7 billion from donor countries. However, donor contributions have stagnated at around $2 billion per year, significantly below the amount needed to provide sufficient resources to low-income countries. Donor countries, including the U.S., also committed to official development assistance at a level of 0.7 percent of gross national product, with part of that going toward family planning. Unfulfilled Commitments Because of its size and wealth, the U.S. remains one of the largest bilateral donors to international family planning programs; however, the U.S. ranks last out of 22 major donors in its contribution relative to gross national product (GNP). In fiscal year 1999, the U.S. provided a mere 0.1 percent of its GNP for official development assistance, a figure that has actually declined in recent years despite the international pledges to meet higher goals, falling far short of the 0.7 percent of GNP endorsed by the international community.
Appropriations for USAID family planning assistance plummeted from $541.6 million in fiscal year (FY) 1995 to $356 million in FY 1996. Research organizations conservatively estimated that this 35% reduction in funding resulted in 4 million
unplanned pregnancies, 1.6 million abortions, 8,000 maternal deaths, and 134,000 infant deaths due to increased high-risk births. Although the funding level rose to $446.5 million in FY 2003, the Bush Administrations reduced request of $425 for FY 2004 show a lack of commitment to family planning programs. The U.S. has also been a leader in funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which works in over 140 countries to provide crucially needed funding for reproductive health services. Tragically, in 2002, President Bush eliminated funding for UNFPA due to pressure from extreme anti-choice legislators who claimed that the program was involved with coercive abortion in China. The president cut UNFPA funding despite the fact that a team appointed by the White House to investigate the allegations found no evidence to support them and recommended that the United States continue to fund UNFPA. The president's decision also flew in the face of a bi-partisan agreement to raise the U.S. funding level for UNFPA to $34 million just weeks before. The $34 million from the United States would have allowed the agency to prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths, according to UNFPA estimates 2. Many Members of Congress from both parties have protested the president's decision and are currently working on an agreement to fully fund UNFPA. Conclusion
Cuts and restrictions on funding will continue to cause a significant increase in unplanned pregnancies, abortions, maternal and infant deaths, and transmissions of HIV and other sexually transmissible infections. The United States inadequate provision of foreign aid for family planning, and the existing restrictions on such aid, undermine the leadership role of the U.S. We urge Congress to revitalize U.S. leadership in international reproductive rights through an increase in funding without undemocratic restrictions for family planning and reproductive health assistance. The U.S. has decades of experience unmatched by any other donor and is more effective at family planning globally Cohen 97 analyst at the Guttmacher Institute (Susan, ISSUES IN BRIEF: A Response to Concerns about Population Assistance, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib15.html)
Historically, the United States has been the largest donor country; in 1994, it contributed almost 40% of the approximately $1.2 billion in population aid given collectively to developing countries. But the total U.S. per capita contribution, even at its peak, amounted to only $1.78placing the United States fifth behind Norway ($9.47), Denmark ($6.27), Sweden ($5.08) and the Netherlands ($2.85), and on a level with Finland, Germany, Australia and the United Kingdom. Put another way, the federal government spent $554 million in FY 1994 in response to the needs of some 15 million American women for subsidized family planning services. That same year, the United States allocated only $463 million toward family planning programs overseas in an effort to respond to the 230 million women in the developing world who need services.
For this small price, the U.S. population aid program over three decades has acquired a unique role and vast capacity that cannot be easily transferred or replicated by any of the existing donors without losing valuable time and expertise. The United States has established an extensive field presence, and it is the only donor that works widely both with the public and private sectors and with nonprofit as well as for-profit entitiesall of which are integral to the success and ultimate self-sustainability of local programs. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which administers the population program, is widely recognized for its high level of technical expertise upon which other countries rely.
Similarly, the United States is the only donor country that conducts research on new contraceptives and program operations, which not only are essential in guiding an effective family planning services program but also sometimes directly benefit American women. It was USAID-funded research, for example, that led to the two most recently approved major methods of birth control in the United States: Norplant and Depo-Provera. Finally, to the extent that U.S. policymakers wish to have any real policy influence on the worldwide effort to stabilize population
growth rates, the United States must remain a major financial player. Issues of special concern to the United States include the quality of family planning services, the availability of a wide range of method choices (including natural family planning) accompanied by full and accurate information, an emphasis on preventing unintended pregnancy and an insistence that programs are truly voluntary and free of coercion. Concerns About Coercion Coercion and cultural imperialism are real and serious concerns that arise in connection with family planning programs; to protect against them requires ongoing vigilance. Not only are both anathema from an individual rights perspective, but experience has
demonstrated that the most successful programs are purely voluntary, promote maximum choice of family planning methods and are provided in a culturally sensitive manner in response to what women say they want. Coercive family planning practices are expressly prohibited by U.S. law under both the domestic and the international programs. This is not to say that coercion has not occurred or will not occur in the future, either here or elsewhere, but it is condemne d as a matter of policy. As with any law, constant attention is required to assure compliance. This is especially true since coercion can manifest
itself directly as well as indirectly. China's one-child-per-family policy, for example, has been associated with instances of forced sterilization and abortion that have warranted worldwide opprobrium. Limiting the range of available contraceptives, which occurs in some family planning progra ms, is a more subtle form of coercion. Ensuring full and informed consent and true choice in the decision on whether to use family planning services is neither easy nor simple, but is necessary and of the highest priority from both the U.S. and the international perspectives.
As for the specter of cultural imperialism, preventive voluntary family planning programs are specifically designed with the full input and participation of indigenous groups, women in particular. The charge that these women are availing themselves of contraceptive services as a result of the imposition of Western values is belied by worldwide survey data. Indeed, women in developing countries are seeking out family planning services and having fewer children because they want smaller families.
Over the past 30 years, what people consider ideal family size has declined steadily, according to extensive surveys of married women of reproductive age. Kenyan women in the 1980s, for example, said they wanted about seven children, but today they say they want no more than four. The same downward trend is evident in every region of the world, regardless of religion and culture, and in such diverse places as Senegal, Egypt, Morocco, Bangladesh, Colombia and Peru. While overall fertility rates have also fallen over the same period, large gaps remain between the number of children women say they want and the number they actually have.
Large proportions of women throughout the world report that their most recent birth was unplannedeither unwanted or mistimed: 25-40% in much of Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, and 50-65% in some Latin American countries. The same phenomenon is also evident in several areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, even though women there generally want larger families than in other parts of the world. Increasing family planning access could stabilize the world population in a decade Brown. 2003. President of the Earth Policy Institute (Lester, Chapter 10 Responding to the social challenge. Plan B: Rescuing a planet under stress and a civilization in trouble. 2003. http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB/PBch10_ss2.htm) Slowing world population growth means that all women who want to plan their families should have access to the family planning services needed to do so. Unfortunately, at present more than 100 million couples cannot obtain the services they need to limit the size of their families. Since most of them are in countries where water scarcity is already a major issue, filling the family planning gap may be the most urgent item on the global agenda. The benefits are enormous and the costs are minimal.4 The good news is that countries that want to reduce the size of families quickly and stabilize their population can do so. For example, my colleague Janet Larsen describes how, in just one decade, Iran dropped its population growth rate from one of the world's fastest to one similar to that in the United States. When Ayatollah Khomeini assumed leadership in Iran in 1979, he immediately dismantled the family planning programs that the Shah had put in place in 1967 and advocated large families. At war with Iraq between 1980 and 1988, Khomeini wanted large families to increase soldiers for Islam. His goal was an army of 20 million. In response to his pleas, fertility levels climbed, pushing Iran's population growth up to 4.4 percent per year, a level approaching the biological maximum. As this enormous growth began to burden the economy and overburden the environment, Iran's leaders began to see that overcrowding, environmental degradation, and unemployment were becoming serious problems.5 In 1989 the government did an about-face and Iran restored its family planning program. In May 1993, a national family planning law was passed. The resources of several government ministries, including education, culture, and health, were mobilized to encourage smaller families. Iran Broadcasting was given the responsibility for raising awareness of population issues and of the availability of family planning services. Some 15,000 "health houses" were established to provide rural populations with health services and family planning.6 Religious leaders were directly involved in what amounted to a crusade for smaller families. Iran introduced a full panoply of contraceptive measures, including male sterilizationa first among Muslim countries. All forms of birth control, including contraceptives such as the pill and sterilization, were free of charge. In fact, Iran became a pioneerthe only country to require couples to take a class on modern contraception before receiving a marriage license.7 In addition to the direct health care interventions, a broad-based effort was made to increase female literacy, boosting it from 25 percent in 1970 to more than 70 percent in 2000. Female school enrollment increased from 60 to 90 percent. Television was used to disseminate information on family planning throughout the country, taking advantage of the 70 percent of rural households that had television. As a result of the impressive effort launched in 1989, the average family size in Iran has dropped from seven children to less than three. During the seven years from 1987 to 1994, Iran cut its population growth rate by half, setting an example for other countries whose populations are still growing rapidly. The overall population growth rate of 1.2 percent in 2001 is only slightly higher than that of the United States.8 If a country like Iran, with a strong tradition of Islamic fundamentalism, can move quickly toward population stability, other countries should be able to do the same. Countries everywhere have little choice but to strive for an average of two children per couple. There is no feasible alternative. Any population that increases or decreases continually over the long term is not sustainable. The time has come for world leadersincluding the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the World Bank, and the President of the United Statesto publicly recognize that the earth cannot easily support more than two children per family.
Observation 3: Soft power Restrictions on family planning funding undermine the entirety of U.S. health diplomacy by destroying African health infrastructure Motluk, 04 (Alison, New Scientist, A healthy strategy for whom exactly?, 10/9, academic search premier) The impact of the Mexico City policy has had consequences more far-reaching and more perverse than perhaps anyone had anticipated. For while the US gives more money in foreign aid than any other country, much of which goes towards improving human health, its blanket refusal to fund any agency that so much as breathes the word "abortion" is undermining its entire global strategy for health. For many women and children in Africa, family planning clinics are the sole contact with healthcare professionals. In some cases, the same clinic that offers abortion counselling also provides prenatal care, childhood immunisations and protection against malaria. When clinics close or are scaled down, it's not just abortions that fall by the wayside. Public health suffers too. "It undermines the whole health infrastructure," says Wendy Turnbull of Population Action International (PAI), an NGO based in Washington DC. Every one of the global health goals articulated by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been hampered by fallout from the Mexico City policy. Top of USAID's list is the desire to reduce unintended and mistimed pregnancies of which there are an estimated 60 million every
year, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which promotes education and research in sexual and reproductive health. For NGOs that rejected the US ultimatum there have been cuts and shortages across the board, according to an audit this year by PAI. In Kenya, for instance, cuts in USAID funds have forced two of the leading family planning organisations to lay off 30 per cent of their staff and shut down five clinics. One of those shut was the Mathare Valley clinic, which served 300,000 people in a Nairobi slum. The Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, headquartered in Addis Ababa, has lost 60 per cent of its annual budget as a result of USAID cuts, which has affected not only staffing but also supplies. One rural clinic has nearly run out of the contraceptive Depo-Provera, used by 70 per cent of the women who attend it. The US was the single most important donor of contraceptives, providing more than one-third of those supplied to developing countries, says Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition in New York.
This means 700 women die a day from reproductive complications Sai-04 - physician, long-time public health activist in Africa, and advisor to the president of Ghana on HIV/AIDS (Frederick, World
Watch Population, Family Planning, and the Future of Africa, Vol 17, Issue 5; September/October, p g34)
Pregnancy and unsafe abortion are the leading causes of death among women of reproductive age in most African countries. A maternal death may result from direct pregnancy complications, from problems arising at delivery, from abortion or its consequences, from post-delivery complications, or indirectly from preexisting conditions aggravated by pregnancy. The maternal mortality rate, which measures the death rate of women due to pregnancy and childbirth, is higher in Africa than on any other continent: 830 deaths per 100,000 live births for the continent as a whole in 2000, and an average of 920 for sub-Saharan Africa. This amounts to almost 700 deaths every day in SubSaharan Africa. The high mortality rate masks an even higher morbidity rate: the same afflictions that kill hundreds of thousands of women maim and render sterile many millions more of their sisters. For every woman who dies, 50 to 100 others suffer short-, medium-, or long-term debilities from their pregnancies and deliveries. At the root of
this high maternal mortality and morbidity is a multitude of health and socio-economic problems. Many girls are born prematurely or at low birth weight because their own mothers were malnourished, ill, or overworked. If she survives infancy, an African girl will most likely grow up on a diet that does not meet her minimum nutritional requirements. As a child, she will have a heavy burden of household chores and may receive little or no schooling; almost all African girls receive less education than their brothers, although the literacy gap is beginning to narrow, at least in Botswana, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. She is likely to be married off young, especially if a good bride price is available, and taught that her main role in life is to bear and rear as many children "as God brings." During pregnancy, her needs for adequate rest, good nutrition, and health care are too often ignored. For these reasons, as well as to reduce the vast number of
unsafe abortions, better reproductive health services are badly needed throughout Africa. Such services are also needed to combat sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV. According to the World Health Organization, STIs have become the most common group of notifiable diseases
in most countries worldwide, but prevalence rates are particularly high in developing countries. WHO estimates that in 1999 there were 340 million new cases globally in women and men aged 15-49, including 12 million new cases of syphilis, 62 million of gonorrhea, 92 million of chlamydia, and 174 million of trichomoniasis. Among the world's regions, sub-Saharan Africa showed the highest rate of new cases. In pregnancy and childbirth, these diseases can cause blinding eye infections or pneumonia in babies, chronic abdominal pain, ectopic pregnancies, and infertility. Women are more likely to catch STIs than men. As one medical writer puts it, "Both the transmission and the serious consequences of STIs show a biological sexism. The risk of acquiring gonorrhea from a single coital event in which one partner is infectious is approximately 25 per cent for men and 50 per cent for women.... Moreover, women suffer more serious longterm consequences from all STIs except AIDS, including pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, chronic pelvic pain, infertility and even cervical cancer." Some STIs, as well as causing pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility-a major tragedy for a young woman in Africa-make more likely transmission of the worst (and incurable) STI, HIV/AIDS. Here again, Africa is more seriously affected than any other region. Deaths due to HIV/AIDS in Africa will soon surpass the 20 million Europeans killed by the plague epidemic of 1347-1351. Three million people in sub-Saharan Africa were newly infected with the virus in 2003. For the continent as a whole, the prevalence rate has reached 8 percent among adults aged 15-49.
Maternal health is the most important measure of health diplomacyits much more important than focusing on diseases in general Garrett, 07 Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations (Laurie, The Challenge of Global Health, Foreign Affairs,
Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86103/laurie-garrett/the-challenge-of-global-health.html)
Instead of setting a hodgepodge of targets aimed at fighting single diseases, the world health community should focus on achieving two basic goals: increased maternal survival and increased overall life expectancy. Why? Because if these two markers rise, it means a population's other health problems are also improving. And if these two markers do not rise, improvements in diseasespecific areas will ultimately mean little for a population's general health and well-being. Dr. Francis Omaswa, leader of the Global Health Workforce Alliance -- a WHO-affiliated coalition -- argues that in his home country of Zambia, which has lost half of its physicians to emigration over recent years, "maternal mortality is just unspeakable." When doctors and nurses leave a health system, he notes, the first death marker to skyrocket is the number of women who die in childbirth. "Maternal death is the biggest challenge in strengthening health systems," Omaswa says. "If we can get maternal health services to perform, then we are very nearly
perfecting the entire health system." Maternal mortality data is a very sensitive surrogate for the overall status of health-care systems since pregnant women survive where safe, clean, round-the-clock surgical facilities are staffed with well-trained personnel and supplied with ample sterile equipment and antibiotics. If new mothers thrive, it means that the health-care system is working, and the opposite is also true. Life expectancy, meanwhile, is a good surrogate for child survival and essential public health services. Where the water is safe to drink, mosquito populations are under control, immunization is routinely available and delivered with sterile syringes, and food is nutritional and affordable, children thrive. If any one of those factors is absent, large percentages of children perish before their fifth birthdays. Although adult deaths from AIDS and TB are pushing life expectancies down in some African countries, the major driver of life expectancy is child survival. And global gaps in life expectancy have widened over the last ten years. In the longest-lived society, Japan, a girl who was born in 2004 has a life expectancy of 86 years, a boy 79 years. But in Zimbabwe, that girl would have a life expectancy of 34 years, the boy 37. The OECD and the G-8 should thus shift their targets, recognizing that vanquishing AIDS, TB, and malaria are best understood not simply as tasks in themselves but also as essential components of these two larger goals. No health program should be funded without considering whether it could, as managed, end up worsening the targeted life expectancy and maternal health goals, no matter what its impacts on the incidence or mortality rate of particular diseases. Focusing on maternal health and life expectancy would also broaden the potential impact of foreign aid on public diplomacy. For example, seven Islamic nations (Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) lose a combined 1.4 million children under the age of five every year to entirely preventable diseases. These countries also have some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world. The global focus on HIV/AIDS offers little to these nations, where the disease is not prevalent. By setting more encompassing goals, government agencies such as USAID and its British counterpart could both save lives in these nations and give them a legitimate reason to believe that they are welcome members of the global health movement. A commitment to health diplomacy by promoting family planning is vital to enhancing U.S. leadership globally this is vital to solving all global problems Kennedy, 06 Lieutenant General of the US Army, retired, and Intelligence and Military Affairs Expert at Praeger Security International (Claudia, Redefining National Security for the New Global Reality, 3/16, http://www.greenwood.com/psi/online_news.aspx)
In the era of globalization, and all the cultural, technological, and economic changes that are taking place, a number of security challenges have been identified.
Terrorism, preventing it, not just declaring war on it, is one of the biggest challenges. Non-State Actors (such as international groups like alQaida, international crime cartels, regional and religious extremists) are not just a part of the terrorist threat, but represent a challenge to the power of all nation states. Regional Challenger States such as North Korean and Iran are an increasing threat. As has been seen in the past with Afghanistan under the Taliban, such states can not only provides sanctuary for terrorists, they can threaten US interests and the interests of US allies in a geographic region. WMD was a significant component of national security policy during the Cold War. Today the issue is that not enough is being done to prevent the spread of the
technology and the materials which enable the production of weapons of mass destruction. Cyber-criminals, (including cyber thieves, cyber terrorists, hackers, identity thieves) are under-appreciated for being the threat to national economic and cultural power. Pandemic disease such as HIV/AIDS and other demographic factors which are indicators of the likelihood of civil conflict threaten more than one third of all countries.1
Identifying factors that indicate a high risk for political instability. Despite optimistic predictions at the end of the Cold War, civil conflicts (conflicts within states) rose during the 1990s.2 While analysts found many factors that contributed to a countrys vulnerability to civil conflict, it was the demographic connection that drew the attention of alert researchers. "Demographic Transition is the transformation of a population from conditions of short life expectancy and large families to long life expectancy and small families."3 For a state to be in
this early stage of Demographic Transition means its fertility rate is higher leading to increasing population pressures on the institutions of its society, which can create political instability and increase the likelihood of civil conflict. Other demographic risk factors
that place a state at high risk are: rapid urbanization, competition for fresh water and cropland, and rapid changes in a populations ethnic makeup. Policies that help reduce risk
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 households 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, cyber-criminals, AIDS pandemic. These are best resolved by promoting policies in at-risk 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 todays world and it is in our best interest as a global leader. The collapse of U.S. leadership will unleash conflicts resulting in great power wars Thayer, 6 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, In Defense of Primacy, lexis)
A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that . Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies.
countries want to align themselves with the United States
U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade
Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation.
You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do
not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States.
Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may
China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.
Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a
source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition,
once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general,
democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy.
With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The
United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally,
the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption,
typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces.
Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States.
American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure.
As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force
once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.
1AC DDW (Dartmouth)
1AC GDI (Gonazaga)

Contention One Inherency ( ) The Bush administration has cemented the global gag rule, preventing any foreign nongovernmental organization involved in abortion from receiving funding from the U.S. Yvette Aguilar, J.D., St. Mary's University School of Law, Fall 2002, The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on
Minority Issues, 5 SCHOLAR 37, p. 44-45 In the controversial 2000 Presidential election, former Republican President George Bush's son, George W. Bush, was elected. 47 The first item on his agenda was to reinstate the Global Gag Rule on January 22, 2001. 48 In his memorandum to the USAID Administrator, President George W. Bush stated, "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." 49 On March 28, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Memorandum specifically prohibiting foreign NGOs 50 from utilizing their private funds [*45] for: 1) providing abortions, yet listing a few exceptions; 51 2) imparting advice and information on legal abortions or referring clients to clinics which conduct abortions; 3) lobbying to legalize, liberalize, maintain, or decriminalize abortion laws; and 4) conducting public information operations concerning abortion in countries which receive USAID funds. 52 In contrast, United States based NGOs are not bound by the strict requirements of the Global Gag Rule unless they assist foreign NGOs with USAID funds. 53 Further, foreign governmental organizations are allowed to receive USAID funds even though their governments may include abortion as a family planning option, with the provision the USAID funds are kept in a separate account and not used for abortion-related activities.
The plan: the United States federal government should provide public health assistance to organizations in sub-Saharan Africa that support abortion. ( ) The gag rule has devastated overall family planning services in Sub-Saharan Africa Allegra A. Jones, Practicing Attorney, Member of the California Bar Association, Winter 2004, Boston College
Third World Law Journal, 24 B.C. Third World L.J. 187, p. 199-200 Another practical effect of the Mexico City Policy has been the closure of family planning clinics due to USAID's withdrawal of funding, notably in sub-Saharan Africa. 73 Seventeen centers in Uganda, five centers in Kenya, one outreach program serving poor communities in Ethiopia, and several clinics in Tanzania have closed for this reason. 74 In Kenya alone, the five clinics that closed served tens of [*200] thousands of women. 75 They provided basic services that many poor women could not otherwise afford or access, including well-baby care, pre- and post-natal obstetric care, HIV testing and counseling, and contraception. 76 In order to avoid closing seven more health posts and one maternal nursing home when President Bush imposed the global gag rule, health care provider Marie Stopes International of Kenya laid off one-fifth of its staff, cut the remaining employees' salaries, reorganized its clinic structure, and increased client fees. 77 The country's other leading reproductive health provider, the Family Planning Association of Kenya, laid off nearly one-third of its staff, raised patient fees, and cut salaries in order to keep its remaining clinics open and running without U.S. funding. 78 Similarly, the global gag rule has cost the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia--which runs 671 community-based reproductive health care sites, 24 youth centers, and 18 clinics--more than a half-million dollars. 79 The Association does not provide abortion services because abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. 80 Nevertheless, by communicating the fact that unsafe abortion was claiming the lives of Ethiopian mothers to local policymakers, the group forfeited its U.S. funding, which resulted in a loss of services to 301,054 women and 229,947 men living in urban areas. 81 Clearly, the women and families who lost access to these resources and clinics were the true victims of the Mexico City Policy.
Well isolate two scenarios: a) Harm to women: ( ) The impact of this loss of family planning is systemic the gag rules limitations on family planning services result in over 1,000 deaths a day. Yvette Aguilar, J.D., St. Mary's University School of Law, Fall 2002, The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on
Minority Issues, 5 SCHOLAR 37, p. 38-40 Women make up seventy percent of the world's one billion poorest people. 2 On a daily basis, an average of 1,440 women around the world die due to pregnancy complications, defective abortions, miscarriage, or while giving birth. 3 A woman living in the United States has a one in [*39] 3,500 chance of dying as a result of her pregnancy. 4 In contrast, a woman living in a developing country, such as Ethiopia, has a one in seven chance of dying from pregnancy complications. 5 One factor contributing to the difference between mortality rates of women in developing countries versus women in developed countries is access to family planning services. 6 As we continue into the millennium, women in developing countries are about to face more hardships when trying to access family planning services. 7 On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy, 8 also known as the Global Gag Rule. 9 Consider the story of Min Min Lama, a thirteen-year-old girl from Nepal. 10 Min Min was raped by a relative and became pregnant. 11 At the time of her rape, abortion was illegal under any circumstance in Nepal. 12 Min Min tried to conceal the rape and resulting pregnancy from her family; however, she was unsuccessful. 13 A family member realized that Min [*40] Min was pregnant and consulted with other relatives to arrange for an abortion. 14 Despite the risk of death, Min Min had the illegal abortion which was arranged by her family members. 15 When one of Min Min's relatives informed the authorities about the abortion, 16 Min Min was charged with the crime of "having an abortion" and sentenced to twenty years in prison. 17 In cases such as Min Min's, it is vital to a woman's mental and physical safety to have abortion available as an option. Further, should a woman choose to include abortion as a family planning option she should have access to neutral information regarding abortion in order to make an educated choice.
( ) And, the gag rule is responsible for greatly higher rates of unsafe abortion Hwang 02 (Ann Hwang, Exportable righteousness, Expendable Women (Global gag rule on abortion)(statistical
data included), World Watch, January 1, 2002, http://www.highbeam.com/1G1-82014419.html, 1 July 07) The "global gag rule" is stifling debate about reproductive health. It's going to force a lot of poor women in developing countries to bear children they don't want. It's likely to increase (not decrease) the number of "coat hanger" abortions. And it's probably going to get a lot of women killed, which will in turn boost death rates among the children they leave behind. So why exactly is it U.S. policy? The desire to control fertility may be nearly as ancient and universal as sexual desire itself. Every culture, it seems, has had its contraceptives, although their efficacy has varied greatly. To prevent pregnancy, the Petrie Papyrus, an Egyptian medical text from 1850 BC, recommended vaginal suppositories made of crocodile dung. In the 4th century BC, Aristotle described women coating their cervixes with olive oil before intercourse. Women on Easter Island made suppositories from seaweed. And from the 1930s to the 1960s, Lysol, now a popular household cleaner, was marketed coyly to American women as a "certain...yet safe" disinfectant douche. In the developing world today, neatly two-thirds of all women in their reproductive years--about 525 million of them--rely on some form of birth control, according to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). But there is still a great deal of unmet demand for contraceptives. More than 100 million women in these countries say they want to delay the birth of their next child or stop having children altogether, but are not currently using contraception.
And, you should prioritize systemic impacts to womens health, particularly in family planning the refusal to forefront systemic impacts to women is responsible for untold violence Lucinda Marshall, Founder of the Feminist Peace Network, March 8, 2007, online:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/48933/, accessed July 6, 2007 For the past 5000 years, give or take a century or two, there has been a persistent tendency to leave unexamined the impact that social, economic, environmental, and military policies have on the lives of women throughout the world. As a result, women make up the majority of those living in poverty, millions of women have died needlessly due to lack of healthcare and safe living conditions and there is a worldwide pandemic of violence against women. For those reasons, International Women's Day (IWD), which is observed today, is a time not only to celebrate women's lives and achievements, but also a chance to join hands in solidarity with women around the globe and to focus much needed attention on the many problems women face today. It has been said that the health of a society is measured by how it treats its women. With one in three women throughout the world likely to experience sexual assault during her lifetime, it is not a stretch to say that this society is in crisis. In recognition of the systemic and pervasive violence that impacts the lives of women every day, the United Nations' theme for its 2007 observance of IWD is "Ending Impunity for Violence against Women." As Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues has pointed out, "When you rape, beat, maim, mutilate, burn, bury, and terrorize women, you destroy the essential life energy on the planet. You force what is meant to be open, trusting, nurturing, creative, and alive to be bent, infertile, and broken." Here in the U.S. for the sixth year in a row, President Bush's annual budget request for funding the Violence Against Women Act once again falls short of the amount of its Congressional authorization. And while the President will no doubt serve up the usual annual platitudes about honoring women today, his administration has, as it has every year since 2001, also requested cuts in funding for maternal and child health as well as family planning. Meanwhile, more than half a million women worldwide will die this year from the complications of pregnancy and childbirth, including 68,000 from illegal and unsafe abortions. According to The Lancet, "an estimated 90 percent of deaths from unsafe abortions and 20 percent of obstetric mortality could be avoided with improved access to contraception. Yet the latest figures show that donor funding for family planning has decreased by 36 percent."
b) Harm to children: ( ) Lack of family planning produces extremely high rates of infant mortality Hwang 02 (Ann Hwang, Exportable righteousness, Expendable Women (Global gag rule on abortion)(statistical
data included), World Watch, January 1, 2002, http://www.highbeam.com/1G1-82014419.html, 1 July 07) 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.
( ) High infant mortality rates cause state failure in Sub-Saharan Africa Jeffrey Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia, Summer 2001, The Washington Quarterly
The most comprehensive study of state failure, carried out by the State Failure Task Force established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1994, confirms the importance of economic underpinnings to state failure. n3 The task force gave formal definition to state failure (as a case of revolutionary war, ethnic war, genocides or politicides, and adverse or disruptive regime changes) and counted all cases during 1957 -- 1994 in countries of 500,000 people or more. The Task Force identified 113 cases of state failure. Of all the explanatory variables examined, three were most significant: infant mortality rates, suggesting that overall low levels of material well-being are a significant contributor to state failure; openness of the economy, in that more economic linkages with the rest of the world diminish the chances of state failure; and democracy, with democratic countries showing less propensity to state failure than authoritarian regimes. The linkage to democracy has another strong economic aspect, however, because other research has shown strongly that the probability of a country being democratic rises significantly with its per capita income level. n4 In refinements of the basic study, the task force found that in sub-Saharan Africa, where many societies live on the edge of subsistence, temporary economic setbacks (measured as a decline in gross domestic product per capita) were significant predictors of state failure. They also found that "partial" democracies, usually in transition from authoritarian to fully democratic institutions, were particularly vulnerable to collapse. Similar conclusions have been reached in studies on African conflict, which find that poverty and slow economic growth raise the probability of conflict. n5
( ) State failure causes massive disease spread and makes public health impossible Jeffrey Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia, Summer 2001, The Washington Quarterly
Many of the poorest countries in the world, and especially societies with state failure, are subject to horrific conditions of disease. Like international crime, the disease burden is both a cause and consequence of economic and political failures. A heavy infectious-disease burden, such as year-round transmission of malaria, causes a sustained reduction in economic growth for many reasons: individual workers are less productive, children are much less likely to finish school and to reach their cognitive potential, sectors such as tourism and agriculture are directly affected, and foreign investors are deterred. State collapse feeds these problems because failed states lack the financial and institutional means to deliver vital public health services. The AIDS pandemic has ravaged sub-Saharan Africa in part because no African government has the means to fight this scourge with its own resources, and donors have generally not provided sufficient resources. As a recent National Intelligence Estimate on the global infectious-disease threat clearly indicates, the United States stands at risk as a result of the uncontrolled spread of infectious disease in the poorest countries and failed states. n12 Risks to the United States include direct financial costs as it responds to the epidemic crises abroad; destabilization of foreign societies as a result of the crippling disease burden; and the spread of deadly pathogens, including multi -- drug-resistant strains, across international borders. Notably, Europe has already spent billions of dollars combating "mad cow" disease and will now spend vast sums fighting foot-and-mouth disease in European cattle and sheep. AIDS, of course, illustrates a newly emergent pathogen that arrived from Africa and has caused immense suffering and economic loss in the United States (although only a small fraction of the human devastation that has occurred in Africa itself). One can only wonder whether better public health surveillance and medical treatment, along with a healthier general population in Africa, might have controlled the epidemic much earlier, and either slowed or stopped its introduction to other parts of the world.
The impact is extinction. South China Morning Post, 1-4-1996 (Dr. Ben Abraham is called one of the 100 greatest minds in history"
by super-IQ society Mensa and owner of Toronto-based biotechnology company, Structured Biologicals Inc from the article) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
Contention Three Democracy ( ) The Gag Rule undermines NGOs ability to speak freely, create civil society and promote democracy this cripples all U.S. democracy promotion efforts in Africa Rachael E. Seevers, J.D., Brooklyn Law School, 2006, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 31 Brooklyn J.
Int'l L. 899, p. 921-922 Through this analysis, it is clear that there is a consensus from within USAID, as well as among NGOs and government agencies, that NGOs are imperative to the development of civil society and major players in the political activity of emerging democracies. 141 NGOs draw on their ability to reach a diverse group of citizens, and their inclusion of marginalized segments of society represents an essential voice in any national policy debate. 142 It is also clear that one of the essential goals of any NGO, and a measurement of success used by USAID itself, is the ability of NGOs to disseminate information to an informed populace. 143 However, because of the Global Gag Rule, these agencies are denied democratic political participation, and it is this free flow of information that is [*922] specifically prevented by the Rule's restriction on advocacy. Moreover, the agency providing the gagged U.S. funding and enforcing the Rule's prohibitions is also promoting the democratic involvement and political advocacy of these gagged NGOs. 144 This contradiction between USAID's democracy goals and the Gag Rule limitations on speech is not missed by NGOs working in reproductive rights. "It is hard to see how the stifling of free debate ... is helpful for the ideals of democracy and freedom that the U.S. government purports to support through its development work." 145 This conflict of goals is clear and presents a difficult situation for foreign NGOs who receive gagged USAID family planning funding but are also charged with the promotion of democracy by USAID funded projects.
( ) The ability of NGOs to speak freely is critical to democracy promotion even USAID acknowledges Rachael E. Seevers, J.D., Brooklyn Law School, 2006, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 31 Brooklyn J.
Int'l L. 899, p. 919-920 NGOs were recognized by USAID as essential actors in democracy promotion, however much of an NGO's ability to foster democratic participation hinges on its ability to speak openly and advocate to local and national government actors. 126 The importance of this freedom to disseminate information was also noted by Natsios, who insists that the most significant way that NGOs affect foreign policy is by facilitating the free flow of information and by speaking out on behalf of the population they represent. 127 This sentiment is echoed by reproductive rights advocates. 128 "Development of human rights throughout the world is dependent on the efforts of NGOs to gather, process, and disseminate information with their domestic constituencies as well as with world organizations like the UN and nation state governments." 129 A routine part of USAID's analysis of the success of local NGOs in the political process is an examination of the percentage of the populace that is aware of the NGO's chosen issue or advocacy goal. 130 USAID has determined that [*920] this is a relevant measure of NGO success because "knowledge is a pre-requisite to support and informed support is more useful than uninformed support . . . getting an issue on the public screen is an important contribution."
( ) African democracy is key to economic development and preventing ethnic and civil wars throughout Africa Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1998, Hoover Digest, online:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532546.html, accessed July 6, 2007 The common root cause of economic decay, state collapse, ethnic violence, civil war, and humanitarian disaster in Africa is bad, abusive governance. Because most states lack any semblance of a rule of law and norms of accountability that bind the conduct of those in government, their societies have fallen prey to massive corruption, nepotism, and the personal whims of a tiny ruling elite. In such circumstances, every political clique and ethnic group struggles for control of a stagnant or diminishing stock of wealth. There are no institutions to facilitate trust, cooperation, or confidence in the future. Every competing faction tries to grab what it can for the moment while excluding other groups. THE SOLUTION The only real antidote to this decay is a constitutional framework that facilitates the limitation, separation, devolution, and sharing of power so that each group can have a stake in the system while checking the ruling elite and one another. In essence, this means a democratic political system, to one degree or another. Given Africas authoritarian history, many changes in beliefs and institutions will be necessary for democracy to emerge. A growing segment of African elites and the public realize that every type of dictatorship on the continent has been a disaster. Thus, there is increasing hunger for economic and political freedom and the predictability of a democratic constitution.
( ) African instability escalates and goes nuclear Dr. Jeffrey Deutsch, founder of the Rabid Tiger Project, a political risk consulting and related research firm, 1118-2002, http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishywashy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.
Contention Four Solvency ( ) The Gag Rule should be repealed with regards to the countries most harmed by restrictive family planning assistance rolling back the Gag Rule is key to womens rights and the strength of NGOs throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. Yvette Aguilar, J.D., St. Mary's University School of Law, Fall 2002, The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on
Minority Issues, 5 SCHOLAR 37, p. 76-78 Legislative efforts to repeal the Mexico City Policy by limiting the President's authority to place such restrictions on foreign NGOs should be supported. The initial reform of foreign assistance programs under President John F. Kennedy's administration supported legislation which was less restrictive on USAID recipients. 287 USAID was created as a foreign assistance program free from the political functions of its predecessors, in an attempt to better assist the developing nations of the world. 288 The Mexico City Policy restricts USAID resources and allows politics to hinder the developmental purpose of the organization. The Executive has too much power to dramatically affect the family planning options of women in developing countries from one day to the next. This problem is evident in the history of the Mexico City Policy, [*77] created and maintained by Republican Presidents, repealed by a Democrat President, then reinstated by a Republican President. 289 The rights of women in developing countries should not hang in the balance of the religious beliefs of one man which are in conflict with the legal rights enjoyed by American women. Further, a repeal of the Mexico City Policy would effectively make the United States foreign policy similar to our domestic policy and case law regarding the use of government funds for family planning services. 290 Due to the nature of our legislative process and the struggle between the Democrat and the Republican parties to get legislation passed which meets favorably with both parties, it is unrealistic the complete repeal of the Mexico City Policy will pass. Therefore, this comment proposes a compromise - the partial repeal of the Mexico City Policy with the harshest effect. The Mexico City Policy most harms those countries which have anti-abortion laws that either completely forbid abortion under any circumstances or allow it in very limited circumstances. According to the PAI [*78] study, these countries tend to have the highest maternal mortality rates, highest incidence of HIV/AIDS in both men and women, and the highest occurrence of anemia in pregnant women worldwide. 291 Further, the women living in these countries have the lowest percentage of contraceptive use, lowest rate of prenatal care, and the lowest amounts of births attended by skilled personnel worldwide. 292 These are the women of the world who are most in need of family planning services; however, the Mexico City Policy endangers their access to these services, because these countries are also the most in need of abortion reform which the Global Gag Rule prohibits. The NGOs in these countries are the voice for these women by utilizing research to lobby the United Nations and their own governments in an effort to decriminalize abortion. The NGOs are the voice for the women like those found in Nepal, who are imprisoned, in some cases with their children, for the crime of abortion. If it were not for the assistance of NGOs lobbying the government of Nepal to release these women from prison, most of them would be serving their full sentence. The voice of the poorest women in the world should not be silenced.
( ) Sub-Saharan African nations are particularly harmed by the Gag Rule its a key place to strike at the policy Allegra A. Jones, Practicing Attorney, Member of the California Bar Association, Winter 2004, Boston College
Third World Law Journal, 24 B.C. Third World L.J. 187, p. 199-200 Another practical effect of the Mexico City Policy has been the closure of family planning clinics due to USAID's withdrawal of funding, notably in sub-Saharan Africa. 73 Seventeen centers in Uganda, five centers in Kenya, one outreach program serving poor communities in Ethiopia, and several clinics in Tanzania have closed for this reason. 74 In Kenya alone, the five clinics that closed served tens of [*200] thousands of women. 75 They provided basic services that many poor women could not otherwise afford or access, including well-baby care, pre- and post-natal obstetric care, HIV testing and counseling, and contraception. 76 In order to avoid closing seven more health posts and one maternal nursing home when President Bush imposed the global gag rule, health care provider Marie Stopes International of Kenya laid off one-fifth of its staff, cut the remaining employees' salaries, reorganized its clinic structure, and increased client fees. 77 The country's other leading reproductive health provider, the Family Planning Association of Kenya, laid off nearly one-third of its staff, raised patient fees, and cut salaries in order to keep its remaining clinics open and running without U.S. funding. 78 Similarly, the global gag rule has cost the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia--which runs 671 community-based reproductive health care sites, 24 youth centers, and 18 clinics--more than a half-million dollars. 79 The Association does not provide abortion services because abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. 80 Nevertheless, by communicating the fact that unsafe abortion was claiming the lives of Ethiopian mothers to local policymakers, the group forfeited its U.S. funding, which resulted in a loss of services to 301,054 women and 229,947 men living in urban areas. 81 Clearly, the women and families who lost access to these resources and clinics were the true victims of the Mexico City Policy.
( ) And, defenses of the gag rule are untrue in practice - unclear regulations cause NGOs and USAID to over-interpret gag rule restrictions, chilling any potentially controversial medical practice by affected organizations. Barbara B Crane, Executive Vice President, Ipas (Womens Rights NGO), Chapel Hill NC, and Jennifer Dusenberry, Research Assistant, Population Action International, November 2004, Reproductive Health
Matters, Vol. 12, No. 24, p. 132 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.19,20
1AC JEDI (Kansas)

Contention One: Family Planning Centers: The Global Gag rule forces family planning centers in sub-Saharan Africa to close their doors this leaves people with no access to public health services Jones, Note Editor for the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 2004 (Allegra, Boston Third World Law Journal Winter page lexis gjm) Another practical effect of the Mexico City Policy has been the closure of family planning clinics due to USAID's withdrawal of funding, notably in sub-Saharan Africa. 73 Seventeen centers in Uganda, five centers in Kenya, one outreach program serving poor communities in Ethiopia, and several clinics in Tanzania have closed for this reason. 74 In Kenya alone, the five clinics that closed served tens of [*200] thousands of women. 75 They provided basic services that many poor women could not otherwise afford or access, including well-baby care, pre- and post-natal obstetric care, HIV testing and counseling, and contraception. 76 In order to avoid closing seven more health posts and one maternal nursing home when President Bush imposed the global gag rule, health care provider Marie Stopes International of Kenya laid off one-fifth of its staff, cut the remaining employees' salaries, reorganized its clinic structure, and increased client fees. 77 The country's other leading reproductive health provider, the Family Planning Association of Kenya, laid off nearly one-third of its staff, raised patient fees, and cut salaries in order to keep its remaining clinics open and running without U.S. funding. 78 Similarly, the global gag rule has cost the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia--which runs 671 community-based reproductive health care sites, 24 youth centers, and 18 clinics--more than a half-million dollars. 79 The Association does not provide abortion services because abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. 80 Nevertheless, by communicating the fact that unsafe abortion was claiming the lives of Ethiopian mothers to local policymakers, the group forfeited its U.S. funding, which resulted in a loss of services to 301,054 women and 229,947 men living in urban areas. 81 Clearly, the women and families who lost access to these resources and clinics were the true victims of the Mexico City Policy. 82 Therefore we present the following plan:
The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its public health assistance to SubSaharan Africa by repealing the Mexico City Policy, collectively known as the Global Gag Rule, for all public health services provided in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Advantage One is HIV / AIDS: Family planning centers are key to the prevention of AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa Jones, Note Editor for the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 2004 (Allegra, Boston Third World Law Journal Winter page lexis gjm) In developing countries with poor health conditions and insufficient resources, family planning clinics are often the best, if not the only, places where individuals can obtain medical advice and resources for protecting themselves against STIs such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). 10 In 2002, more than 90% of the 42 million people living with [*190] HIV/AIDS globally lived in developing nations. 11 This proportion is expected to increase because the AIDS virus spreads rapidly in developing countries that have inadequate resources for prevention and treatment, as well as poor health-care systems. 12 Worldwide, the region most affected by AIDS is sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS is the leading cause of death and has killed more than 19.4 million people. 13 A news editor of The Namibian, a leading newspaper in Namibia, writes, "when it comes to implementation of [AIDS prevention] in the Third World, family planning centers literally offer a lifeline . . . . The challenge is nowhere greater than in subSaharan Africa--the epicenter of the AIDS pandemic." 14 In the fight against HIV/AIDS, family planning centers are particularly vital for women, who are at greater risk for contracting HIV or AIDS than men. 15 In sub-Saharan Africa, 58% of those living with HIV/AIDS are women. 16 Women and girls are particularly susceptible because HIV transmission to women is biologically more "efficient" than transmission to men and, in many circumstances, women lack power to negotiate safer sexual practices due to gender inequality. 17 Through education, counseling, and condom distribution, family [*191] planning centers can help women respond to high-risk situations and avoid contracting HIV. 18 As it stands, the Mexico City Policy forces the recipients of U.S. family planning funding to make value judgments about the services they provide. 19 Family planning organizations must decide whether to accept U.S. funding and cease their abortion-related services, or to reject U.S. funding and thus limit their potential services due to constrained budgets. 20 Moreover, regardless of whether these groups decide to assist individuals with abortion-related services, the global gag rule forces organizations to prioritize which communities they want to serve: women seeking abortions or all other women, children, and families. 21 Further, the rule does not allow pregnant women living with HIV/AIDS, for whom abortion may be a legal option domestically, full access to information regarding their medical options. 22 Women in Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Rwanda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe are permitted to have abortions under certain limited circumstances, such as to protect their mental or physical health, or on socioeconomic grounds. 23 A report by Ipas, a non-profit agency focusing on women's reproductive health, states that "2.5 million of the 200 million [*192] women who become pregnant each year are HIV-positive." 24 In sub-Saharan Africa, a growing number of women are testing positive for HIV at prenatal clinics, which indicates that their babies may become infected. 25 Yet, because of the Mexico City Policy, women who visit many U.S.-funded clinics will not be made aware of their legal rights. 26 Thus, the Mexico City Policy is not only an abortion issue, but is also an HIV/AIDS issue. 27 The gag rules attempt to separate HIV/AIDS prevention and family planning assures both services fail Hoobdhoy, Fellow with the Crowley Program in International Human Rights, Flaherty, Professor of law at Fordham Law School & Higgins, Professor of Law at Fordham Law School, 2005 (Mehlika, Martin & Tracy, Fordham International Law Journal, December page lexis gjm) The AMKENI experience is just one example of the inefficiencies in the provision of health care caused by the Mexico City Policy. Another problem results from the artificial separation of family planning funds from a larger health policy agenda. Although from a medical perspective the advantages of combining information about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment with family planning seems obvious, the fact of separate funding streams for family planning (restricted) and HIV/AIDS (unrestricted) programs forces organizations to maintain distinct programs and information campaigns. Margaret W. Gatei, Project Manager of Pathfinder PMCT Program expressed frustration with having to maintain this division. She said: It is critical to tell women that even if they are on the pill they must still use condoms to avoid the transmission of HIV... . You cannot separate family planning from HIV. You must encourage women to take the test before having more children. [*83] Counseling will be a big part of this service. Once the decision is made they will choose a method of family planning and that method must be maintained... . We give information and counseling and emphasize the importance of knowing one's HIV status. 502 Although the overall impact of the Mexico City Policy may defy precise quantification, these examples confirm its direct impact on some of Kenya's most vulnerable people. More broadly, the policy has created significant inefficiencies in the delivery of care in a country that has not a single health care dollar to waste.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 149 of 290 AIDS leads to extinction Africa News, July 15, 2000 page lexis gjm
Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim. The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. Last year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy. From the 35,000 Aids orphans of Homa Bay to the abandoned infants of Nyumbani Children's Home, the Aids calamity is a cloud whose silver lining, if it exists, is well concealed. Advantage Two is Democracy: The gag rule destroys democratic principles that are developing in Africa it restrains dissent and hampers free speech Boonstra, Senior Policy Associate Guttmacher Institute, & Cohen, Director of Government Affairs Guttmacher Institute, 2006 (Heather & Susan, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall, page lexis gjm) Fundamentally, the gag rule is also antidemocratic. Even as the Bush Administration is promoting the role of civil society organizations overseas and the importance of free speech and democratic participation, 22 it is conditioning U.S. family planning assistance on the sacrifice of these very values and activities - at least where improving access to safe abortion is the issue. The policy implicates not only the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship but also freedom of speech, respect for national sovereignty and democratic participation. "Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, women's health and rights organizations have blossomed, gaining a powerful voice both at home and in the United Nations," noted Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition, in recent correspondence. 23 [*5] She added, "they are outraged about the Bush Administration's impingement on the basic right to free speech in their countries, as a matter of principle and also because they see the horrifying consequences of restricting access to safe abortion." 24
Furthermore the Gag rule undermines the crucial emerging right to democratic government that is blossoming in Africa
Gathii, Professor of International Commercial Law, Albany Law School, 2006 (James, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall page lexis gjm) The gag rule undermines the emerging right to democratic governance. 149 This right recognizes the rights of individuals and groups such as NGOs to participate in the affairs of their governments without inhibitions. International treaties, as well as principles of customary law, provide for freedoms of expression and association as aspects of democratic governance. 150 The global gag rule's threat of withdrawal of funding to NGOs if they lobby governments for policy changes relating to abortion or if they counsel women as to their reproductive choices violates these principles. Further, by interfering with the exercise of the right to democratic governance, the global gag rule is a non-forcible intervention into matters [*91] that are exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of foreign countries, inconsistent with the provisions of article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations. 151 The International Court of Justice affirmed this right of nonintervention in the Nicaragua case, holding that there existed "established and substantial" practice in support of the principle of nonintervention. 152 The global gag rule is also inconsistent with accepted international health care rights and standards. In particular, the gag rule conflicts with the World Health Organization's standard goal of providing "holistic' health care. 153 Holistic health care addresses the obstacles women confront in gaining access to health care generally, and reproductive health specifically, as a result of cultural and economic forces, such as poverty and cultural taboos. 154 In fact, the many problems of poverty require "a focus upon the human person as well as upon the economic and physical environment." 155 By disabling NGOs from helping women to address or overcome those obstacles, the global gag rule leaves them to fend for themselves without the kind of support necessary to change their circumstances. The gag rule is also an extraterritorial projection of U.S. legislation to foreign jurisdictions. By requiring foreign NGOs to refrain from engaging in advocacy directed at changing abortion laws in their own countries and with their own money, and not simply with USAID funds, the gag rule is inconsistent with international comity. International comity is the respect sovereigns give each other by limiting the reach of their laws into foreign jurisdictions. 156 The U.S. Supreme Court has described the doctrine as such: "Comity is not just a vague political concern favoring international cooperation when it is in our interest to do so. Rather it is a principle... [*92] which... reflects the systemic value of reciprocal tolerance and good will." 157 Therefore, not only will "policies and programs conceived without consideration for local context and place... have limited impact," 158 but they will also interfere with and sometimes reverse efforts to reform conditions where they are most needed. Unfortunately, most, if not all, recipients of USAID funding live in poor countries that often have little or no choice other than to accept the harsh conditions of USAID funding. The moral impact of 179 countries acceding to the Programme of Action produced by the International Conference on Population and Development should not be underestimated. The commitments of the international community to pursue population goals and the commitment of reliance on the contributions of NGOs to achieve such ends will remain unfulfilled if "the comity of nations in varying degrees of shamefacedness looks the other way or impotently down at its collective shoes."
159
Continuing the rise of democracy in Africa is key to regional stability

Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, 1998, Hoover Digest, http://www.hooverdigest.org /983/diamond.html The common root cause of economic decay, state collapse, ethnic violence, civil war, and humanitarian disaster in Africa is bad, abusive governance. Because most states lack any semblance of a rule of law and norms of accountability that bind the conduct of those in government, their societies have fallen prey to massive corruption, nepotism, and the personal whims of a tiny ruling elite. In such circumstances, every political clique and ethnic group struggles for control of a stagnant or diminishing stock of wealth. There are no institutions to facilitate trust, cooperation, or confidence in the future. Every competing faction tries to grab what it can for the moment while excluding other groups. THE SOLUTION The only real antidote to this decay is a constitutional framework that facilitates the limitation, separation, devolution, and sharing of power so that each group can have a stake in the system while checking the ruling elite and one another. In essence, this means a democratic political system, to one degree or another. Given Africas authoritarian history, many changes in beliefs and institutions will be necessary for democracy to emerge. A growing segment of African elites and the public realize that every type of dictatorship on the continent has been a disaster. Thus, there is increasing hunger for economic and political freedom and the predictability of a democratic constitution. As Hoover Institution senior fellow Barry Weingast pointed out in the American Political Science Review, ethnic groups will not trust and tolerate one another and cooperate for a larger national good unless there are credible limits on the state. Democracy cannot be stable unless rulers see that it is in their interest to abide by the rules. What makes it in their interest is the overriding commitment of all major ethnic groups, parties, and interest organizations to a constitution. The War on Terror, Oil importation and competition with China guarantee that the US will intervene into African conflicts Letitia Lawson, Senior Lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, where she has been teaching African studies since 1996. U.S. Africa Policy Since the Cold War, Strategic Insights, Volume VI, Issue 1 (January 2007) http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si /2007/Jan/lawsonJan07.asp Longer-term U.S. engagement with Africa is likely to be defined in terms of the perceived increase in U.S. interests in the region as a result of international terrorism, increased dependence on African oil, and the dramatic engagement of China with the continent in recent years. Although the September 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) asserts that " America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones," the implications of this for Africa appear relatively modest.[43] With respect to the threat of international terrorism, the NSS pledges to work with European allies to "help strengthen Africa's fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists."[44]
This escalates to nuclear war

Dr. Jeffrey Deutsch, founder of the Rabid Tiger Project, a political risk consulting and related research firm, 11-18-02, http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn /newsletterv2n9.html The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing. African democracy is key to checking the spread of new pandemics Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for International Development and Galen L. Stone, prof of International Trade at Harvard, Summer 2001, The Washington Quarterly Many of the poorest countries in the world, and especially societies with state failure, are subject to horrific conditions of disease. Like international crime, the disease burden is both a cause and consequence of economic and political failures. A heavy infectious-disease burden, such as year-round transmission of malaria, causes a sustained reduction in economic growth for many reasons: individual workers are less productive, children are much less likely to finish school and to reach their cognitive potential, sectors such as tourism and agriculture are directly affected, and foreign investors are deterred. State collapse feeds these problems because failed states lack the financial and institutional means to deliver vital public health services. The AIDS pandemic has ravaged sub-Saharan Africa in part because no African government has the means to fight this scourge with its own resources, and donors have generally not provided sufficient resources. As a recent National Intelligence Estimate on the global infectious-disease threat clearly indicates, the United States stands at risk as a result of the uncontrolled spread of infectious disease in the poorest countries and failed states. n12 Risks to the United States include direct financial costs as it responds to the epidemic crises abroad; destabilization of foreign societies as a result of the crippling disease burden; and the spread of deadly pathogens, including multi -- drugresistant strains, across international borders. Notably, Europe has already spent billions of dollars combating "mad cow" disease and will now spend vast sums fighting foot-and-mouth disease in European cattle and sheep. AIDS, of course, illustrates a newly emergent pathogen that arrived from Africa and has caused immense suffering and economic loss in the United States (although only a small fraction of the human devastation that has occurred in Africa itself). One can only wonder whether better public health surveillance and medical treatment, along with a healthier general population in Africa, might have controlled the epidemic much earlier, and either slowed or stopped its introduction to other parts of the world.
Unchecked disease causes human extinction South China Morning Post, 1-4-1996 (Dr. Ben Abraham, called one of the 100 greatest minds in history by super-IQ society Mensa and owner of Torontobased biotechnology company, Structured Biologicals Inc according to same article) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
1AC KNDI (Kentucky)
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 168 of 290 Solvency
1AC Miami, Ohio

WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING PLAN:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its reproductive health assistance to resolutionallydesignated countries by lifting barriers imposed by the Mexico City Policy. We'll clarify. OR The United States federal government should substantially increase its reproductive health assistance to resolutionallydesignated countries by eliminating restrictions on United States' reproductive assistance that requires nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of United States' assistance that such organizations would neither perform nor promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. We'll clarify. OR The United States federal government should substantially increase its reproductive health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by eliminating restrictions on United States' reproductive assistance that requires nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of United States' assistance that such organizations would neither perform nor promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. We'll clarify.
ADVANTAGE ___: REPRODUCTIVE IMPERIALISM INITIALLY, WE NOTE: INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN THE LIFESOURCE FOR WOMEN GLOBALLY. THESE CLINICS HAVE PROVIDED NEEDED HEALTH SERVICES AND HAVE ALLOWED WOMEN TO UNDERSTAND AND CLAIM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS TO HEALTH. THE GLOBAL GAG RULE HAS ALLOWED THE US TO SHIRK OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND TAKE A HYPOCRITICAL STANCE ON WOMENS HEALTH UPRETI, legal adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights, 2003 [Melissa, The Impact on the Global Gag Rule on Womens Reproductive Health Worldwide, WOMENS RIGHTS LAW REPORTER, Summer/Fall, page lexis] Before I get into that, let me quickly say a few words about U.S. foreign policy in the context of this discussion. The International Family Planning and Reproductive Health Programs funded by the United States over the course of thirty years have provided healthcare choices and contributed to the health of women. These programs have assisted women in realizing their human right to health, particularly reproductive health, and their right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children.
For example, the United States Agency for International Development,
USAID, provides assistance for voluntary family planning and reproductive healthcare, which includes support for essential services that pertain to youth, pregnant mothers, children, and also involves programs for the prevention of HIV, AIDS, and sexually transmitted infections. However, it is unfortunate that the United States' support for these desperately needed programs has been inconsistent, insufficient, and mired with burdensome and offensive restrictions.
[*192] Since 1995, Congress has significantly reduced funds for international family planning and reproductive health programs. Even the high-water mark of funding for family planning and reproductive health in fiscal year 1995 was appallingly deficient in relation to both the tremendous need for such services and the size of the U.S. budget as a whole. In the content of this discussion, it is pertinent to note that the Foreign Assistance Act is the central tenet of the promotion of human rights. It provides: That the United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries. The United States began its family planning program thirty years ago, and it has contributed significantly to increasing the use of contraceptive methods from under ten percent in the 1960s to fifty percent today. The jump from ten percent to fifty percent probably does not mean much on its own. It does not really sound like much, but it certainly does mean a lot when you think about the fact that this increase has helped to reduce the number of high risk pregnancies and abortions and has saved the lives of hundreds and thousands of women world-wide. During the 1990's, there were a series of conferences in Cairo and Beijing; and at both of these conferences, human rights and reproductive rights were recognized and reaffirmed. It was also recognized and agreed that
United States was among the participating nations linking reproductive rights to a broader notion of human rights; and
family planning information and services are critical for both advancing women's human rights and for promoting development. The the United States made commitments of political will and resources toward realizing and securing reproductive rights.
At Cairo, the international community promised to strive for the fulfillment of an agreed target of 0.7 percent of the gross national product for overall official development assistance and promised to endeavor to increase the share of funding for population and development programs, commensurate with the scope and scale of activities required to achieve the objective and goals of the present program of action. The Cairo program estimated that approximately seventeen billion dollars would be required in the year 2000 to meet the need for international family planning and reproductive health services. This included 5.7 billion dollars from donor countries. Recipient countries also constituted an amount of these programs. The necessary funding levels for the next couple of decades are expected to increase; however, aggregate donor country contributions have stagnated around two billion per year, which is significantly below the donor target level of 5.7 billion dollars needed to provide sufficient resources to low and middle income countries in the year 2000. It is very clear that promises were made. Projections were made. Commitments were made. But those promises, projections and commitments have not been reflected in actions. In the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo and in 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, and in the five-year review conferences as well, the international community and the United States unequivocally endorsed reproductive rights as human rights, expressing their commitment to assist low income nations. They also urged governments to pledge their financial and technical resources to low income countries. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, reiterated the need to cooperate and the need for commitment at the 1995 Beijing conference when she said:
We think women and men should be able to make informed judgments as they plan their families. We have come to Beijing to make further progress toward this goal; but real progress [*193] will depend not on what we say here but on what we do after we leave. The Fourth World Conference is not about conversations. It is about commitments.
It is very clear, therefore, that the United States did play a leadership role at the Beijing conference and subsequently has articulated its commitment to incorporate the Beijing principles into U.S. foreign policy. But where is that commitment now?
The goals of the Foreign Assistance Act and all of the promises made by official U.S. delegates at these international conferences do find clear and considerable support in international law, beginning with the United Nations Charter, which establishes the conceptual foundation for the development of international human rights law, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Civil and Political Rights Covenant and the CEDAW convention, as well as Children's Rights Convention. It is clear that while the U.S. commitment to the protection and advancement of women's reproductive rights has an important place in foreign policy, and the United States definitely has contributed in a significant way to empowering women across the world; but its contribution could have been much better. The U.S. needs to do much more. Although the United States has been a leader in family planning assistance since the 1960s, it is currently failing to provide its share of promised funding and the level of funding never has been as bad as it is now.
Because of its size and wealth,
the United States remains one of the largest bilateral donors to international family planning programs. The United States, however, ranks last out of twenty-two major donors in its contribution relative to gross national product. The amount of the
overseas development assistance falls far short of the agreed 0.7 percent endorsed by the international community. In fiscal year 1999, when the United States economy was doing
extraordinarily well, the United States provided a mere 0.1 percent of its gross national product for official development assistance; and this figure has actually declined since then despite the pledges made at key international conferences and meetings.
the funding going to family planning programs and reproductive health programs is just a fraction of the total amount of foreign aid, which in turn is far below the agreed 0.7 percent. It is clear, despite commitments made by the U.S. at international fora, that the U.S. Congress has imposed harsh limits and decreased the availability of funds for the United States International Family Planning Assistance Program. Not only has the United States failed to meet international standards regarding the amount it contributes, but it has clearly violated its pledge to increase funding for family planning and development.
I would like to emphasize that
This wavering in its commitments to voluntary family planning and reproductive health has occurred since 1994. Appropriations for USAID family planning assistance plummeted from a high of 541.6 million dollars in 1995 to 356 million in fiscal year 1996. The five leading United States based research organizations have conservatively estimated that this 35 percent reduction in funding, alone, has resulted in 4 million unplanned pregnancies, 1.6 million abortions, 8,000 maternal deaths, and a 134,000 infant deaths due to high risk births across the world, mostly in low income countries. So it is clear that U.S. foreign assistance expenditures as a whole encompass less than one-half of one percent of the total U.S. budget; and family planning and reproductive health programs comprise only a small fraction of that amount. Keeping that in mind, the fact that there are additional restrictions imposed upon this funding has resulted in a devastating impact. The thinking behind the restrictions in force today is by no means new. In 1973, the Foreign Assistance Act was amended by a provision known as the "Helms Amendment," which prohibits the use of federal money for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions. This provisions has been interpreted to prohibit U.S. funding for all abortions overseas except those to save the life of a woman or in cases of rape or incest; however, according to USAID and from my own experiences of having seen how the rule operates in real the world, the U.S. has not provided any funding for abortions even under these exceptions. In 1984, the Reagan administration imposed a so-called "Mexico City Policy," also known as a "Global Gag Rule," which prohibited [*194] overseas non-governmental organizations from receiving U.S. funds if, with their own funds and in accordance with the laws of their own countries, they performed or actively promoted abortion as a method of family planning. The Reagan administration also issued extremely restrictive regulations that interpreted the phrase "abortion as a method of family planning" to mean all abortions except when performed in cases of rape, incest, or when the life, but not the health, of the woman would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. The Clinton administration ended the Global Gag Rule in 1993; however, ultraconservative members of Congress refused to allow the payment of the U.S. government's arrears to the United Nations unless the gag rule was reinstated. Hence, in
1999, the Global Gag rule was reimposed. In 2000, Congress and the Clinton administration eliminated the Global Gag Rule from the fiscal year 2001 appropriations legislation, but withheld the release of international family planning money until the 15th of February, 2001, allowing the new President, which turned out to be President Bush, to decide whether to reimpose the policy or not. On the 22nd of January, 2001, President George W. Bush reimposed the Global Gag Rule.
Like the Mexico City policy, this Global Gag Rule restricts non-governmental organizations that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own funds, that is, non-U.S. funds, to provide legal abortion services, to lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even to provide accurate medical counseling or referrals for safe abortions. As a result, organizations across the world in these low income countries who are already constrained must expend resources on overseeing that the requirements of the Global Gag Rule are met, and this has resulted in the further diverting of resources from the actual purposes of the funds, which is family planning and reproductive health services. There is also a practice of blacklisting organizations that fail to comply with these provisions as well. Consequently, the rule is being implemented in such a manner that it has created an environment of fear; and the Global Gag Rule thrives on fear. To understand the impact of the Global Gag Rule, it is necessary to understand certain things about the local content in which it operates. In low income countries, governments are low budget, and they have very limited resources. Also, while prioritizing expenditures, health, particularly women's reproductive health, is not really on the top of their list. As a result, NGOs fulfill a very important role in providing basic services to people that the government is otherwise responsible to provide; and this very fact alone significantly enhances the potential for damage by policies like the Global Gag Rule. It enhances the potential for damage affecting a great number people's lives, because NGOs are connected to the general population in a very special and critical way.
Due to limited resources, NGOs do not have the luxury of huge office space and lots of staff; and as a result, they have to use the little money that they have in the most effective and frugal way possible. As a result, they usually try to perform and provide a number of services with funds they receive from one source; and the fact that projects are usually for a certain period of time leaves them constantly worrying about where they are going to find their next funding. This is why securing consistent funding from one reliable source is so critical. Apart from that, the nature of reproductive health is such that it has several components; and you cannot really provide one particular service, which is family planning, in complete isolation from the range of other services; such as, prenatal care, postnatal care, counseling about HIV, AIDS, or counseling about family planning, or even sex education. The third point which I think is very important to understand is that the nature of the abortion debate in most countries across the world is very different from what it is like here in the U.S. In many countries, unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death among pregnant women. In countries like Nepal, Uganda, and Peru, where unsafe abortion is a leading cause of death, the debate on abortion is completely different. It is less political. It is more a matter of life and death; and something like the Global Gag Rule totally ignores that particular fact. The first type of harm that has become visible to some extent is the harm to women's reproductive health. We live in a world where eighty thousand women die annually due to unsafe abortions. NGOs, in countries where abortion [*195] is legal, cannot provide abortions or refer or counsel on abortion. In Nepal, it is estimated that 539 women die from pregnancy-related complications for every 100,000 live births. In the United States, the maternal mortality rate is 7 per 100,000 live births; half of these deaths are due to unsafe abortions. Abortion was decriminalized in Nepal in 2002; however, NGOs receiving USAID funding for family planning programs will not be able to provide abortion counseling or services or make referrals. This will have a devastating effect on women because the government in its policy has clearly stated that the NGO will be the main providers of abortion services because the government does not have enough resources. In Bolivia, the Ministry of Health, which technically is not even covered by the Global Gag Rule, has indicated that it will no longer endorse lifesaving care for women suffering complications from illegal and unsafe abortions because of the Global Gag Rule. The government also has gone to the extent of suspending efforts to permit distribution of emergency contraception because of the Global Gag Rule. This point demonstrates that the Global Gag Rule casts its net very widely; and it does not just implicate abortion, but also has a chilling effect and, as a result, affects a whole host of services.
The Global Gag Rule also limits women's access to information. The Global Gag Rule prohibits the distribution of neutral, factual information about abortion, even if the goal is making legal abortions available or preventing women from putting their lives at risk by undergoing unsafe abortions. As expressed in the words of one activist from Senegal, "I think that the Global Gag Rule is shortsighted, created by people sitting in Washington D.C. who cannot see the implications for women and the rest of the world. If it becomes taboo to talk about abortion, abortion will slip even further underground with disastrous implications for women."
In Bolivia, where abortion is legal, doctors and healthcare organizations cannot even provide information about abortion to protect a woman's physical health or even provide information that abortion is an option. In South Africa, healthcare organizations cannot engage in public education programs about HIV and AIDS that include the availability of safe and legal abortion as an option for HIV-infected pregnant women. The Global Gag Rule is inherently anti-democratic because it violates the right to free speech. We live in a world where 80,000 women die from unsafe abortions per year. This occurs mostly in countries where abortion is highly restricted or illegal. The Global Gag Rule prevents overseas NGOs from lobbying their own governments to bring about law reform and, as a consequence, to save women's lives. In Peru, the executive director of a U.S.-funded women's rights organization who was invited to Washington, D.C. to speak with the media and U.S. policymakers on the negative effects of the Global Gag Rule, declined to discuss the issue of abortion and its impact on women in Peru. She later revealed that she feared that publicly discussing abortion would jeopardize her U.S. funding, which provides low-income women access to family planning. NGOs experience firsthand the effects of illegal, unsafe abortion; and they are often called upon to participate in debates about abortion law reform. However, the Global Gag Rule forces these NGOs to limit their participation in a democratic process in order to continue to receive funding. Interestingly, the Global Gag Rule does not impose any restrictions on anti-choice speech. Only one viewpoint is restricted and suppressed, that of the NGOs. NGOs that receive funding from the U.S. government have to support and provide counseling that advises women not to have abortions and they must condemn and demonize abortions publicly. In Bolivia, for instance, 390 women per 100,000 live births die from pregnancy-related complications. NGOs that have formed a coalition to press for the liberalization of Bolivia's abortion laws and spread public health awareness were forced to curtail their activities for fear of losing funding for speaking about the issue. In Russia, where most abortions are legal, U.S.-funded NGOs cannot meet with government officials to discuss their concerns regarding the negative health impact of a proposed restrictive abortion law. These examples reflect on the nature of the abortion debate in countries across the world, particularly low income countries, and demonstrate that the right to [*196] abortion is not just about choice, it is about saving women's lives. For millions of women in low income, developing countries, it is a matter of life and death. The Global Gag Rule also affects the ability of U.S.-based NGOs to advocate for safer abortion services and the decriminalization of abortion where it is illegal by making it impossible for overseas NGOs to collaborate with them. The Global Gag Rule undermines the sovereignty of foreign governments because foreign governments are not able to collaborate on abortionrelated projects with NGOs receiving U.S. government funding in their country. The Global Gag Rule prevents NGOs from carrying out their governments' public policy decisions in countries where abortions are legal, safe, and accessible.
The Global Gag Rule not only violates freedom of speech and women's right to safe and legal abortion, but it also violates international commitments to women's reproductive rights. It is discriminatory and a source of violence against women in so far as it compromises their physical and mental well being. The Rule violates the commitments made at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action in Cairo and the 1995 Women's Conference Platform for Action in Beijing, commitments made to ensure post-abortion counseling, education and family planning services that help prevent repeat abortions. It violates the international commitment to reduce recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family planning services, leading to more unwanted pregnancies. The United States government, through the imposition of the Global Gag Rule, has established a double standard for women, because the right to abortion is protected by the United States Constitution; but overseas, there is absolutely no respect for the right to freedom of speech or for the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion, even if it means that she should have to suffer terrible health consequences, or even die.
The restriction on overseas NGOs would be totally unconstitutional if imposed on an American NGO, and there is case law to that effect. Some important reactions to the Global Gag Rule across the world include the following: European Parliamentarians have condemned the Global Gag Rule. In March 2001, European Parliamentarians from twenty countries signed a landmark petition condemning the Global Gag Rule. In June of 2002, members of the Dutch, United Kingdom, and Russian Parliaments, and a member of European Parliament spoke before the U.S. Congress on how the Global Gag Rule restricts their foreign aid programs and hinders their democracy-building efforts as well. Rokitsky Rafailovoch, who is a Russian Parliamentarian, emphasized that President
Bush must realize his policies are not simply conservative politics. His decisions endanger women's lives, rupture political relationships, and demonstrate how little his administration is willing to do for women's health in this country and abroad. Restrictions on
speech is what my country faced under the communist regime and is what we have been trying to overcome this past decade.
In June 2001, the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the Global Gag Rule in court because it restricts the Center's right to freedom of speech and it impedes reform of reproductive health laws world-wide, including abortion laws. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Barbara Lee supported this lawsuit, and the Center also was able to obtain the support of a number of human rights organizations who signed petitions and submitted affidavits. Unfortunately, the Courts here in the U.S. did not see the issue the same way that we do; and they dismissed our case by ruling that any impact on U.S.-based advocates was caused by the independent choice of foreign NGOs to take USAID funds. The assumption that their choice is "independent" could not be further from the truth. The American Bar Association has issued a resolution against the Global Gag Rule saying that: To one seeking either legal or medical counsel, incomplete advice can be worse than no advice at all, misleading consumers into believing that they are receiving all of the information necessary to make informed choices, when, in fact, the advice is skewed toward a particular viewpoint. The prohibition [*197] imposed upon the healthcare professional against supplying complete information may be life-threatening. And this could not be closer to the truth. The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Nursing Association have also opposed the Global Gag Rule because it directly conflicts with the obligations of medical practitioners; punishing communication between female patients and their physicians is tantamount to exporting malpractice. Opponents of international family planning and related health programs have gone beyond the Global Gag Rule and continue to work for cuts and restrictions on funding. The cuts and restrictions imposed during recent years, and the threats to extend such measures into the future, continue to cause a significant increase in unplanned pregnancies, abortions, maternal and infant deaths, transmissions of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. The U.S. government's decision to cut funding to UNFPA is due to UNFPA's alleged support for coerced abortions in China. In fact, the State Department has submitted a report clearly establishing that this is not the truth. At the Asia Pacific Conference on Population and Development, the United States delegation tried to water down women's rights to health and family planning significantly, reducing the decisions on reproduction rights to a moral debate on abortion
. Given the nature of the impact of the Global Gag Rule, it is important to understand that the Global Gag Rule is not just about abortion. It is about so much more. It is about what the United States stands for in the eyes of the world and how it strives to promote human rights and democracy, not just within its borders but across the world.
The United States has a duty not to harm women's health and lives and to promote women's health actively, both in the United States and overseas. The reason why this administration has been able to get away with this policy so far is not because it is fair or just but because it impacts women who cannot vote President Bush out of power. As in the words of Senator Barbara Boxer, "He is not answerable to them, and they cannot hold him accountable. Hence, the onus is on the American people to recognize the injustices of such policies."
AND, THE GLOBAL GAG RULE IS NOTHING BU THE WORST FORM OF US IMPERIALISM IT IS POLITICAL HYPOCRISY THAT HOLD AS HOSTAGES IMPOVERISHED WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD IT IS JUST AN ADVANCEMENT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AGENDA AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OPPRESSED Neacsu 02 [Dana, reference librarian at the Arthur W. Diamond Law Library of the Columbia University Law School and a New York attorney, Law Review of Michigan State University - Detroit College of Law, "Imposing Sexual Restraint Abroad," Winter 2002, lexis] / elwell The reinstatement of the Mexico Policy Rule has an impact on far more than women's health. It gives a very different signal to the international community about American democratic values. Richard Gephardt summarized it best when he stated that we are putting on a gag order that would not be allowed in our country. 52 It is really a tragic day for democracy. It is not about abortion. It is about us imposing on others laws we would not impose on ourselves. 53 The policy shows political hypocrisy at the level of basic principles, and could be considered a kind of intellectual imperialism, imposing dominant values upon those who cannot afford to resist. And, because it primarily [*894] affects the lives of those most vulnerable, it is the very worst kind of bullying imperialism, depriving the possibilities of millions of powerless women to choose - first, to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and second, to terminate the pregnancies they were rendered effectively powerless to avoid. And, worst of all, the policy does not just deprive, it kills. "Every year, more than half a million women die of pregnancy-related conditions, including unsafe abortions." 54 The gag rule compounds the problem. It hobbles foreign governments' efforts to reduce maternal deaths and poverty. It also denies poor women the capacity to control their own destinies. 55 Instead of offering a solution, the rule also withholds assistance from thousands of impoverished women who unavoidably become pregnant. Many of these desperately poor women lack access to contraceptive information and services or have partners who refuse to
use the only methods available. Doctors are forbidden to counsel these women about abortion even when they are too malnourished to carry a pregnancy safely to term or when their health will be compromised by childbirth. 56 However, there is some hope. Other, equally wealthy but more civilized and humane countries, such as those of Western Europe, may pick up the tab and increase assistance to "fill the decency gap" created by the United States. 57 On a different level, this policy may be seen as nothing more than censorship. It prohibits speech on abortion by imposing a gag order that would not be allowed in the United States. 58 Or, it may be seen as the latest wave against family planning and reproductive rights, part and parcel of our semi-official national policy of "abstinence until marriage." 59 As such, it seems to suit Republican conservatism and its often-displayed ignorance of the reality of people's lives. Despite the fact that four out of five teens have had sexual intercourse by the age of nineteen, while the typical age of [*895] marriage is twenty-five for women and twenty-seven for men, 60 the current Republican administration still hammers down the "abstinence until marriage" approach and misrepresents the benefits of contraceptives and family planning both on the domestic and foreign fronts. 61 Some critics of the current Bush administration observe that "George the Second learned [from the fact] that his father was not sufficiently obsequious to the far right." 62 The cynic may thus see the gag rule as rather prosaic politics. It has its parallels in Bushfils' (Bush the son's) decision to end contraceptive coverage for federal employees, although that involved no net savings of taxpayers' dollars. 63 On a somewhat positive note, this policy may also be interpreted as a way to stop the conservative pressure at home and as a way to avoid a domestic gag rule that would prohibit clinics that use Title X money from offering poor women thorough physical examinations and free contraceptives. 64 Whether any of these possible explanations make sense or not, the fact is that the United States bullies innocent people from poor countries in order to assuage conservative interests at home. In countries such as Nepal (where abortion was, until a few days ago, illegal and women are still jailed after [*896] seeking one) 65 due to the gag rule, women's rights have diminished even more. For example, under the reinstated policy, one group that receives United States money was not able to demand the
release of such jailed women, for to do so would have put at risk their federally funded services such as Pap smears and HIV testing.
Of course, the future consequences are somewhat speculative. For example, in South Africa, between 2,500 and 3,000 abortions are performed every month; 67 with United States funding expected to shrink, surely counseling, referrals, and even abortion services may substantially decrease, but the extent can only be guessed until it is too late. 68
66
AND, THE GAG RULE IS JUST THE FIRST STEP IN THE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AGENDA TO IMPOSE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS GOLDENBERG 2004 (Suzanne is the US correspondent of the Guardian and is based in Washington, DC. She has won several awards for her work in the Middle East, Dying to have a baby: backward thinking. The Observer, October 10th, elwell)
Two days after his installation in the White House, in January 2001, President Bush resurrected an obscure piece of legislation from the Reagan era, setting out conditions on US foreign aid. Four years on, that event now seems prophetic. The legislation Bush revived n the Mexico City policy, popularly known as the global gag rule n prohibits international organisations funded by the US agency for International Development from using their own money to provide abortion or abortion counselling, or to lobby their governments to legalise abortion. The gag order, which emerged from a population conference in Mexico City in 1984, was scrapped nine years later by President Clinton. Its renewal, in the first hours of Bush's presidency, was an undeniable signal to the Christian conservatives who helped propel him to power, that his administration, under the stewardship of a man who has been very public about his religious beliefs, was determined to see through a radical, right-wing social agenda. It also put the international community and health professionals on notice; the era when the US government was a key support to international population programmes was decisively over. Washington began providing assistance to population programmes in developing countries in 1965, and American organisations are generally recognised as leaders in the family planning field. The decades of effort yielded results. Such beneficiaries of US aid as Mexico, Indonesia and Columbia have seen a steady drop in the average family size. In Thailand, the average couple now has only two children; the country no longer receives assistance. The foreign aid allotment for family planning has shrunk over the years n Bush cut funding in 2003 to $ 425m n but Washington remains a major player in the field. The US president's decision to re-activate the global gag rule produced a distinct chill, fuelling fears among health professionals that the White House intended a comprehensive break with the past. Many of those fears have since been realised. Four years after President Bush reinstated the rule, health experts describe an onslaught of policy initiatives n at home and abroad n that penalise organisations that countenance the very idea of abortion. As an American delegation to a 2002 population conference in Bangkok put it: eThe United States supports innocent life from conception to natural death.' Meanwhile, the conservative campaign broadened in scope, with rising pressure on non-governmental
organisations to preach sexual abstinence for teenagers instead of sexual education, and traditional morality instead of condoms for the prevention of HIV/Aids. At international conferences, a country that was once a pioneer of family planning now found itself
allied with Islamist states and the Holy See. The thing that is really most striking is that what appears, at first, to be events in isolation, if you look at them separately, you see an almost remarkable systematic initiative to roll back sexual and reproductive rights,' says Richard Parker, a professor at Columbia University's school of public health. eI am not sure there is someone in a war room, but when you connect the
dots you find there is really something systematic.' The new orthodoxy n a mixture of faith and political expediency n was enforced by various agencies: the White House, of course, but also government departments and the houses of Congress, the judiciary and scientific councils, where Bush appointees tried to turn faith into practice. It was politically convenient to begin abroad, where the new policy would encounter less organised opposition, especially in poorer countries heavily dependent on US aid. But there were other compulsions, says Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition. eI think it is very important to look at the implications of the two sets of policy by the right wing. Foreign policy initiatives extend their
ideology, but in addition what happens in these global arenas is that you start to get some legitimacy for what is, in fact, a very backward point of view,' she says. From the early stages of my lifetime, the right has played off domestic and foreign policy.'
Abortion has been legal in America since 1973, but the landmark Supreme Court verdict did not settle the debate on its morality. Church and pro-life organisations have lobbied strenuously to keep the issue on the public agenda. They have been unable n so far n to overturn the Supreme Court verdict, but they have restricted access to abortion, especially for minors and women on social assistance, in many states. In 2003, the anti-abortion movement recorded a symbolic victory when President Bush signed a law banning a procedure used in second and third trimester terminations. The ban has been successfully challenged in courts in the states of New York and California. But the struggle for America's hearts and minds has not abated. Over the years, the White House has championed religious groups preaching sexual abstinence to teenagers. President Bush is so enamoured with their work that he proposes doubling funding to such programmes to $ 272m in next year's budget. The trend is likely to continue so long as the Christian right preserves its ascendancy in American public life, and maintains its dominance over the Republican party. For the right, who are the political bedrock for Bush, no issue burns as fiercely as abortion. The party platform, unveiled on the eve of the convention last August, made that abundantly clear, with five paragraphs devoted to abortion. The manifesto called for changing America's constitution to outlaw abortion n although pragmatists recognise that would be virtually impossible n and for carrying on a battle to restrict the circumstances in which abortions can be performed by enacting new legislation, and by the appointment of pro-life judges. It called late term terminations efour-fifths infanticide'. That combination of
blind faith and realpolitik served as a polestar as the Republicans moved to implement their agenda at home. Abroad, the picture was additionally complicated by the administration's disregard for multilateral institutions, and the view that America, as the sole remaining superpower, was in an ideal position to sway other countries to its position. The global gag rule was merely the first step. AND, THE RIGHTS AGENDA ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IS TO ADVANCE PATRIARCHY THE GAG RULE ALLOWS FOR THE RIGHT TO HAVE A CHOKEHOLD ON EQUITY FOR WOMEN Gathii, 2006 (James, Chair of International Commercial Law at Albany Law School, U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall 2006, Exporting Culture Wars) / SENDERS From these disparate perspectives, the politics of the New Right are a reflection of the patriarchal underpinnings of a male dominated system, as well as the private order of market relations that structures patriarchy. 81 [*78] Thus, the New Right misleadingly argues that love and devotion govern traditional family relations. Further, the movement's assault on the welfare state reproduces hierarchical sexual and economic relations between men and women. 82 The New Right agenda does this, in part, by rejecting sexual and labor equality between men and women and instead seeking to reassert patriarchal authority, both within the traditional family as well as in sexual relations between men and women. 83
84
The New Right's traditional family agenda regards sexual inequality as the necessary outcome of biological differences. Sexual freedom and equality would, according to the New Right, erode and endanger procreation, thereby threatening the future of the traditional family. 85
Thus, the New Right's central mission considers "how sexuality is managed, sublimated, expressed, denied and propagated." 86 Indeed, the very sexual constitution of patriarchy is a key insight underpinning of the New Right ideology. In effect, the New Right embraces the idea that ending patriarchy would undermine the privileged status and authority of men and that the best way to avoid this is the control of women's bodies. To this end, the New Right seeks to legislate issues of sexuality by drawing boundaries between sex and love and by outlawing sexual choice and freedom with a view to curbing the excesses of liberal feminism and sexual egalitarianism. 87 The New Right emphasizes that sexual differences between men and women somehow justify unequal economic and social circumstances between individuals. 88 Therefore, the New Right considers interference with [*79] open competition through programs like affirmative action and aid to the poor - particularly to women of color on welfare - to be illegitimate. 89 The effect of the programs that are supported by the New Right is to promote the economic dependence of women. 90 That is also true of the World Bank's vision of market-centered equality. 91 The global gag rule encompasses these ideologies both explicitly as well as through its practical effect - that is to make reproductive rights less accessible to women, and thereby impacting women's opportunities. Access to reproductive rights, including access to family planning methods, health care, and where legal, access to abortion, increases women's access to equal opportunities with men.
AND, HEALTH IS THE CRUELEST NEXUS OF GENDER INEQUALTY THE US IS FAILING TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP IN THIS AREA Marton 2004 [Kati, chair of the international Women's Health coalition, A World Wide Gender Gap, Newsweek, Atlantic Edition section L wellness pg. 58, May 17, lexis / jasmine] Women suffer countless disadvantages compared with men. Even after decades of progress, we make up two thirds of the world's 880 million illiterate adults and up to 70 percent of its poorest citizens. But health remains the cruelest of all inequalities. In much of the world, women simply do not get equal medical attention. It is a fact with huge consequences for all of us. Maternal health translates into family health because healthy women are able to care for others--and family health is the foundation of any society's health. Experience shows that even small investments in women's health can pay large social dividends. Unfortunately, few of those who could make such investments are doing so. The gender gap in health is especially dramatic in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In sub-Saharan Africa, 60 percent of all AIDS victims are women. "It is a shocking fact," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said recently, "and one of which I, as an African man, feel ashamed, that a girl in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa is six times more likely to be affected than a boy." Polygamy, sexual coercion and violence against women all contribute to this shameful fact. Girls are frequently pressured into sex with older men in exchange for food, clothing or school tuition--or forced into it for nothing. Abstinence and monogamy make for fine rhetoric, but they are inadequate defenses for women who are married off young and deprived of education and social status. In Zambia, only 11 percent of women in a recent survey thought a woman had the right to ask her husband to use a condom--even though women are twice as likely as men to contract HIV from a single sex act. In Senegal, at least half the women living with HIV/AIDS have no risk factor other than living in a monogamous union. In India, where 90 percent of female infections occur within marriage, women who stand up to their husbands risk violence--and those who get infected by their husbands are often shunned by their families. Lacking other skills, they may survive by selling sex--which, of course, spreads the disease further. Any real solution to the AIDS pandemic will have to empower women through education, information and a guarantee of rights. AIDS is not the only threat women face. Consider the current state of reproductive health. An estimated 350 million couples want effective contraception but are unable to get it. The result: approximately 80 million unintended pregnancies each year, some 19 million of which are terminated under unsafe conditions. Those unsafe abortions cause 13 percent of the 600,000 deaths women suffer annually during childbirth. Wealthy nations could prevent this tragedy for a fraction of what they spend on the military. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, director of the United Nations Population Fund, noted recently that one day's global military budget could "improve the lives of millions of women and families in developing countries." Sadly, the current U.S. administration is not providing the leadership in this critical area. Driven by ideology, it has withheld its annual $34 million contribution to the U.N. Population Fund, the world's largest provider of family-planning services, since 2002. The Bush administration has also reimposed the so-called global gag rule, which effectively bars any organization that receives U.S. funds from discussing the full range of family-planning and reproductive-health services. At a recent regional meeting of 38 Latin American and Caribbean countries, the United States was the lone opponent of a declaration of support for women's right to reproductive-health care and services. When women lack reproductive-health services, they also miss opportunities to prevent and treat such killers as malaria and tuberculosis. Young children and pregnant women account for most of the world's 1 million annual malaria deaths, 90 percent of which occur in Africa. And as HIV destroys women's immune systems, they become ever more vulnerable to tuberculosis, the leading cause of death among people with HIV/AIDS. TB now causes half the AIDS-related deaths in Africa. This highly contagious disease can be cured with a $10 regimen of antibiotics, yet U.S. support for international treatment efforts is declining.
Disease isn't the only risk. Every year some 2 million girls and young women worldwide are subjected to genital mutilation, a barbaric practice that can cause infertility and long-term ill health. And far more experience rape, battering and sexual coercion. Almost half of all girls from 10 to 25 say their first sexual encounter was forced, and the United Nations estimates that one in three girls will fall victim to violence in her lifetime. Last year, during a trip to India, I met with a group of adolescent girls in the slums of New Delhi. Some were as young as 12. Most of their friends were already married--their futures foreordained and severely circumscribed. But the girls I met still had their hopes and dreams.
The question is whether they will be able to protect themselves in a world where the balance still tilts heavily against them. The answer will be decided not only in the slums of South Asia but in the capitals of the wealthiest nations. Leadership must come from the top--starting with Washington--or this injustice will never end.
AND, REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE KEY FOR WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE PUBLIC SPHERE Gerson, 2006 (Chad M., TOWARD AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD OF ABORTION RIGHTS: EMPIRICAL DATA FROM AFRICA, Fall 2006) / senders Bush's compromise, however, did not signal a softening of his administration's general policy regarding abortion in developing countries. On March 3, 2005, the Bush Administration reiterated its belief that the Beijing Declaration did not call for abortion to be viewed as an international human right. 44 The Beijing Declaration, 45 composed at the U.N.'s 1995 Fourth World Conference on
Women, 46 stated, "we are convinced that ... the explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment." 47 The Conference's Platform for Action states, "the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free from coercion, discrimination [*387] and violence." 48 Furthermore, "in most countries, the neglect of women's reproductive rights severely limits their opportunities in public and private life, including opportunities for education and economic and political empowerment. The ability of women to control their own fertility forms an important basis for the enjoyment of other rights." 49 The Platform also recognizes that "unsafe abortions threaten the lives of a large number of women; ... it is the poorest and youngest who take the highest risk." 50 The suggested remedy is an "improved access to adequate health-care services, including safe and effective family planning services and emergency obstetric care ... as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law... ." 51 Since the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action,
nations have disagreed over whether the two documents implied momentum toward the recognition of abortion rights as universal human rights. 52 Bush's proposed Amendment would explicitly renounce this possibility. 53 This Amendment was defeated because a consensus could not be reached, but most countries are hesitant to accept the responsibilities that would inhere from making abortion an internationally recognized human right. 54 Additionally, "Ms. Kyung-wha Kang of Korea, the Chairperson of the current 49th session of the [U.N.] Commission on the Status of Women, confirmed during the meeting that the Beijing documents created neither new international rights nor the right to abortion." 55
AND, THE PLAN IS A STEP IN THE CREATION OF A NORM THAT RECOGNIZES REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT - REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO AUTONOMY AND SELFDETERMINATION Babor 1999 (Diana D.M., writer for the Connecticut journal of international law, Population growth an Reproductive rights in International Human Rights Law, Connecticut Journal of International Law, Summer 1999, elwell) For coercion to occur, a right must be infringed. The concept of family planning as a human right is of only recent promulgation due to the fact that the requisite knowledge and means to control reproduction must first be accessible. Fairly effective methods to regulate the timing and occurrence of births have only been developed and commercialized over the last thirty-five years. The full exercise of reproductive rights, which in turn confers the necessary autonomy for the pursuit of individual self-determination, is founded upon the human rights principles of freedom and entitlement. 61 Two distinct, yet correlated, reproductive rights that emerged this century are the freedom to decide on the number of children to have and when (or whether) to have them, as well as the entitlement to both the information and the means by which to achieve this freedom. The entitlement, which was originally a right to adequate education and information, was later expanded to include education, information and the right to use and access modern means to control fertility. 62 As such, the purpose of family planning programs is to provide couples and individuals with the means to regulate their fertility "more safely and effectively than [*99] indigenous methods may allow" and to enable people "to achieve their own child-bearing intentions." 63 The ICPD has since added that individuals have "the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health." 64 These two reproductive rights have been formally recognized and upheld as human rights in various United Nations declarations and documents since the mid-1960s. One of the earliest international declarations on family planning was made on December 10, 1966, Human Rights Day, when twelve heads of state signed the Declaration on Population by World Leaders 65 which acknowledged that family planning is a basic human right and that this right should be vested in "each individual family." 66 This document reflected the prevalent western liberal culture by defining family planning as a means of "assuring greater opportunity to each person" and of "free(ing) man to attain his individual dignity and reach his full potential." 67 Eighteen more heads of state joined the list the following year. One month prior to the International Conference on Human Rights in Teheran, the United Nations Secretary General, U Thant, summarized the reasons for linking family planning with human rights, as follows: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else. But this right of parents to free choice will remain illusory unless they are aware of the alternatives open to them. Hence, the right of every family to information and to the [*100] availability of services in this field is increasingly considered as a basic human right and as an indispensable ingredient of human dignity. 68 The right to family planning was not explicitly included in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the subsequent International Covenants (ICESCR & ICCPR) which complement it. At the 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights in Teheran, 69 the United Nations proclaimed its first official recognition of the principle that couples have a basic human right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and the spacing of their children. Additionally, the resolution to insert the phrase, "a right to adequate education and information," was adopted unanimously. 70 The Teheran Proclamation was to mark the commencement of the articulation of human rights that were based on, and constructed from, the framework tenets of the Universal Declaration. In 1969, the United Nations Declaration on Social Progress and Development was the first proclamation concerning the duty of governments to provide families not only with the "knowledge" but also with "the means necessary to enable them to exercise their family planning rights." 71 This latter right "is an entitlement in theory if not in [*101] fact," 72 as people can only exercise their reproductive freedom by having access to safe and effective means to do so, along with the requisite education and information. Anything less can be viewed as being as equally coercive as compulsory birth control, forced abortions or sterilizations. The freedom to exercise reproductive rights is also qualified by the state's provision of social and economic entitlements to ensure
conditions within which genuine decisions can be made. 73 A range of potentially discriminatory practices exists which ensures that women are powerless to make choices that have not been influenced by cultural norms or expectations. An emphasis on the bearing of male children as a married woman's primary life aspiration renders personal choice meaningless, as the preference for a son may be so completely culturally-entrenched that child-bearing decisions are pre-ordained by familial expectations, which are often complicated by economic and religious factors. 74 At the 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest, the World Population Plan of Action, endorsed by 136 governments, extended the right to "individuals" as well as "couples," and provided a definition of "responsibly" as requiring that couples and individuals take into account the needs of their living and future children and their responsibility towards the community. 75 While these responsibilities are supposed to be "assumed freely and without coercion," 76 the aforementioned right has the potential to conflict with collective rights, which were agreed to be each state's sovereign right to determine. [*102] In 1980, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was opened for signature. 77 As the most heavily reserved of all treaties, 78 with a weak enforcement mechanism that is based on self-reporting by the signatories, it is up to non-governmental organizations to monitor state adherence. To overcome this limitation, the Working Group of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women is in the process of refining an Optional Protocol whereby communications detailing violations may be submitted. 79 Article 12(1) of the Women's Convention advocates access to family planning services as a step towards the elimination of discrimination of women in the field of health care. 80 Additionally, Article 16(e) of the treaty stipulates that men and women shall have equal rights regarding decisions as to the number and the spacing of their children. 81 All signatories to this Convention are legally bound to accommodate and facilitate the reproductive rights it promotes. [*103] The Population Conference held in Mexico City in 1984 reaffirmed in its Plan of Action that the knowledge and means for family planning are human rights. 82 In sharp contrast to the prior position taken at the Bucharest Conference ten years earlier, when it had proclaimed "of all things in the world, people are the most precious," 83 the Chinese delegation explained the necessity for its one child policy that had been underway since 1979, and the flexibility with which it was being implemented. 84 The 1985 Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women marked the culmination of the United Nations Decade for Women. In its Report of the World Conference, Paragraph 156 states, in part, that "the ability of women to control their own fertility forms an important basis for the enjoyment of other rights." 85 This ability also forms the basis for the enjoyment of an overall improved standard of living, as is mandated in the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child, wherein Article 27 directs that states ensure conditions for every child to a standard of living, "particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing," adequate for the child's development. 86 When governments fail to provide the knowledge and means to control births, these basic conditions tend to become much more difficult for either the parents or the state to provide. At the Earth Summit, reproduction was addressed in Chapter 5, Paragraph 50, of Agenda 21: Governments should take active steps to implement, as a matter of urgency, in accordance with countryspecific conditions and legal systems, measures to ensure that women and men have the [*104] same right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children, to have access to the information, education and means, as appropriate, to enable them to exercise this right in keeping with their freedom, dignity and personally-held values taking into account ethical and cultural considerations. 87 In Paragraph 7.3 of the Programme of Action of the ICPD, reproductive rights are declared to embrace certain human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. 88 The Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, reiterated family planning as a human right in its Platform for Action, where it states, in part: The Fourth World Conference on Women reaffirms that reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes the right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence, as expressed in human rights documents. 89 [*105] The Beijing Women's Conference drew largely on the statements from the ICPD to articulate the need to redress restrictions on women's overall reproductive freedom. By ensconcing family planning as a foundation for reproductive health, the ICPD ensured that the right to decide the size and spacing of the family would be fully established as an international human right. Since many of the foregoing declarations and instruments are not legally binding, 90 it is necessary to consider whether the right to family planning is nonetheless binding upon all states based on customary international law. To satisfy the test for opinio juris, or custom, a norm must be accepted as law by the international community and there must be consistent and general international practice by states. 91 It is not sufficient for a norm to be repeatedly referred to in conventions and declarations unless its provision or recognition amounts to a generally settled practice. Also, the manner in which the norm is put into practice should be evidence of the belief that its recognition is obligated "by the existence of a rule of law requiring it." 92 Such a belief is considered the subjective element that comprises opinio juris, as states must "feel that they are conforming to what amounts to a legal obligation." 93 Given that agreement on international human rights is subject to frequent controversy, the widespread acceptance and availability of the right to family planning as the basis for ensuring reproductive rights generally 94 is a strong indication of its recognition as a binding norm. Currently, nearly sixty percent of the world's couples use modern methods of family planning. 95 The obligatory quality of such a binding norm is [*106] particularly
valid when the most substantive resistance to the existence or practice of family planning has come from the Vatican, 96 the only sovereign lacking a national population. AND, TRUE US LEADERSHIP THAT PROMOTES REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND FREEDOM CAN NOT OCCUR UNDER THE CURRENT SET OF CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGICAL PRACTICES TEITELBAUM 1993 [Michael, researcher for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, The Population Threat, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Winter 1992/1993, ebscohost / jasmine] IT IS NOW TIME for a truce to be declared in rhetorical salvos. If constructive U.S. leadership is to be reestablished in this sphere, a few modest steps are required.
First, attention to population change needs to be liberated from the ranks of the "ideologically suspect," to which it was consigned during the Reagan administration. The subject deserves serious and balanced consideration by American policymakers, unconstrained by the fear
that they may be treading upon dangerous turf. Such a recalibration of official pronouncements on demographic matters should recognize the two-way mutually reinforcing relationship between economic development and responsible fertility behavior, in which each promotes the other. Second, there is a need to reinvigorate U.S. assistance for voluntary family-planning programs. Any fair-minded observer reviewing the ample evidence of the past two decades will conclude that such programs can be surprisingly effective both in moderating high fertility and in promoting public health. This generalization, while not everywhere true, applies to a wide variety of economic and cultural settings -- even
to exceptionally unfavorable circumstances, such as those found in Bangladesh and Kenya. There is strong grass-roots demand, much of it still unmet: an estimated 100 million additional women worldwide report that they would like to use contraceptives if they had access to the necessary information and supplies. Interest among Third World governments has risen dramatically. In an unprecedented action the 1992 summit meeting of nonaligned states emphasized the importance and urgency of the population question. Official requests for American financial support have grown rapidly, now far exceeding a supply that declined in real terms during the 1980s. In fact the sums involved are not very large -- a shift of only two percent of the foreign aid budget would
double the level of population assistance -- but they are not being provided.
As forcibly stated by President Bush in 1973, when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, assistance for voluntary family planning can have decisive impacts on the "great questions of peace, prosperity and individual rights that face the world." It can reduce the damaging effects of high fertility on the health of both women and children, allow millions to realize their desired family size, moderate the difficulties poor countries usually face in expanding basic health and educational facilities, and minimize the economic and political stresses caused by imbalances between the rates of labor force growth and job creation. The countries that would benefit most from such assistance are concentrated in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and parts of Latin America.
A rebalanced U.S. posture on population issues would recognize that sustained high fertility is not the principal or only cause of the endemic poverty and high unemployment that prevail in much of the Third World, that lowering fertility will not automatically lead to prosperity and health, and that economic conditions may under some circumstances improve even if high fertility continues. At the same time it would emphasize one key point: that economic advances and individual welfare both are likely to be greater in most Third World settings if moderate instead of high fertility rates prevail. Third, foreign population assistance is not an appropriate target for the heavy artillery of American abortion politics. The temptations are obvious for politically active groups on both sides of this continuing domestic fray. Yet thoughtful adherents in opposing camps agree that abortion -- whether or not it is supported as a basic human right -- is not a desirable method of family planning, and that improved knowledge of (and access to) effective contraception reduces the numbers of abortions, legal or illegal. Moreover, both groups are well aware that U.S. law has -- since the 1970s -- prohibited the use of foreign assistance funds for abortion services.
Fourth, one of the most effective contributions the United States could make would be to deploy its impressive research capacities toward improving the safety and effectiveness of contraceptive methods. Both basic and applied research in human reproduction has long been sparsely funded, especially research directed toward methods that fit the diverse human values and circumstances of the Third World. Most existing contraceptive technologies were developed by pharmaceutical companies, but their interest has declined due to difficulties with U.S. regulatory approval for new methods and the vagaries of the civil justice system in apportioning responsibility for contraceptive failure and side effects. The development of improved methods would serve many goals at once: enable millions of couples to realize their desired family size; improve the health of women and children; contribute to the effectiveness of national population policies; and reduce the volume of abortions, numbering in the tens of millions, annually, that follow many unwanted pregnancies in developing countries, often with mortal consequences for the woman. Fifth, the new administration should look again at the Reagan administration's ban on U.S. contributions to UNFPA and IPPF, two of the most effective multilateral actors in the population sphere. The American about-face on UNFPA, an agency created through American initiative, was premised initially upon the assertion, later abandoned, that it supported an abusive population program in China. The United States has received firm UNFPA assurances that none of its funds would be provided to China, and has officially acknowledged that UNFPA does not itself fund or support abortion services. The case of China was only a rationalization for the Reagan administration's decision to de-fund UNFPA, a prominent but inappropriate target of domestic abortion politics. The prohibition of U.S. support for IPPF was equally inappropriate, given its assurances that U.S. funds would not be used to support abortion services or information. For those opposed to abortion, the effect was most probably counterproductive: to the extent that IPPF-supported family-planning services have been constrained by funding shortages, unwanted pregnancies and subsequent resort to abortion have in all likelihood increased. Sixth, there is a serious need for the U.S. government to develop capacities for better foresight on international demographic patterns, and in general to "make the connections" between many elements of its foreign policy and powerful underlying demographic trends. Candidate topics include: --demographic changes internal to other countries, especially where shifting demography among competing ethnic, racial, national or religious groups are important destabilizing forces (as in the tragic cases of Lebanon and Yugoslavia) --the impact of dramatic growth in the labor forces of developing countries and of the emergence of "mega-cities" (such as Mexico City, Bombay and Sao Paulo), especially when these trends lead political leaders to adopt unwise economic policies. (During the 1970s many governments imposed price controls or subsidies for
urban food supplies, while seeking rapid job creation via heavy economic stimulus. Such policies were often financed by foreign borrowing that later contributed to the crushing burdens of international debt these countries still face.) --the implications of already large and ever-increasing human movements across international borders, often in abuse or violation of sovereign laws and international agreements. During the early years of the Reagan administration the CIA undertook serious studies of such matters, but those efforts were terminated during the late 1980s. While a low level of such analytic activity apparently continues to produce occasional background reports, the more concerted attention of past years is clearly in order. Seventh, there is a need for balanced yet serious attention to the linkages between demographic and environmental change. Pragmatic diplomacy must deal intelligently with sensitive world regions where environmental constraints interact force-fully with demographic trends in potentially destabilizing ways. Such regions include the volatile Middle East, where population growth and migration trends are exacerbating looming bilateral conflicts over scarce basic resources such as water: tensions simmer between Syria and Turkey over Turkish plans for the Great Anatolia Project for the Euphrates River basin, and among Israel, Jordan and Lebanon over access to the scarce waters of the Yarmuk River. It does not require exaggerated visions of global apocalypse to conclude that, for many poor countries, sustained high rates of fertility and urban growth both contribute to environmental degradation and limit the capacities of these societies to respond to such problems. Population issues were highly visible during the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, and are sure to continue on the international agenda. Needed: A Central Nervous System It is now apparent, to all who care to see, that thoughtful U.S. government attention to the powerful forces of demographic change has
been ideologically suppressed for over a decade. Continuation of this self-inflicted blindness to demographic insights is increasingly dangerous for U.S. foreign policy interests in many strategically sensitive world regions, and in arenas as diverse as health promotion,
economic development, political stability and environmental preservation.
Lack of female participation in the public sphere is the root cause of violence against womyn it legitimates exclusion and forces womyn into solely having power in private spheres, legitimating policies that sacrifice womyn on the global alter of exclusion Pheko prof Political Economist. University of the Western Cape U 11/14 2k3 (Mohau, THE NEW AFRICAN INITIATIVE IS A TRAGEDY FOR WOMEN http://www.igtn.org/pdfs/105_mpNAI.pdf) This August, Womens Month, women in our country ought to bring together all the energies and desires that they have whispered quietly or shouted out in great anger across the landscapes of this place we call Africa and demand initiatives that will deliver their aspirations. I have been reading the New African Initiative, through the eyes of an African women. I cant help feeling that a tragedy is being enacted on African women. A tragedy equal to or greater than Rwanda may be in the pipeline. African women, the poorest people in the world are being sacrificed on the alter of neo-liberalism and global capitalism. One of the objectives of the New
African Initiative is to promote the role of women in social and economic development by reinforcing their capacity in the domains of education and training; by the development of revenue-generating activities by facilitating access to credit; and by assuring their participation in political and economic life of African countries. What is new about this? Is this profound and life altering? There is a problem with the way policy is framed in Africa. The section on the
historical impoverishment of a continent is constructed with failed policies that will not deliver development to women. The analysis never identifies in a gendered manner the feminisation of poverty in Africa. Womens poverty is shaped by the interaction between gender, class, ethnicity and religion and by unequal relations in the international economy. Can you solve a problem you have not adequately named? Perhaps part of the problem with this initiative is that women have so far not been able to appropriate, that is, make their own, the social changes to which they have been subjected passively in the course of history. Women have and do make history, but in the past have not appropriated it. Such a subjective appropriation of their history, struggles, sufferings and dreams would lead to a collective womens consciousness without which no struggle for emancipation can be successful. If women do not do this they will suffer through excruciating patriarchal documents which subject women to the rhetoric and benevolent gestures of moving them from the sitting room to the courts and the kitchen budget to the stock exchange while doing the very opposite. Men have colluded to keep women out of the public sphere where rights and entitlements are located. Women have no rights in the family, only privileges and growing violence, exclusion and even death. While we laud the liberation struggle, women shy away from the acknowledgement that our government has retained the vicious socio-legal and coercive practices, which characterise the colonial state. The maintenance of the public-private divide through claims of cultural authenticity and the need to hold on to so-called traditions are practices and value systems that privilege men in the home and in key institutions of our societies prohibiting the participation of women in the transformation of Africa. Political and public lives of women are fundamentally tied to the claim that what women know
and do is best suited to the production of the household and reproduction of the children. Women, who have excelled in public and professional life as knowledge producers, are faced with continuous backlash. Look at the issue of taboos around the sexuality of women and how they are perpetuated, allowing women to be raped and violated and thereafter claiming that women bring violation upon themselves through the way they dress and by the nature of their female bodies as sexually dangerous. Each and every African women is the custodian of a sacred memory, drawn from the long battle to free herself from
colonization, racism, bigotry, backward feudal practices and conventions as well as the so-called civilising agendas of capitalist modernity as they are unfolding in this New African Initiative. Women need to demand a clear articulation of gender equity in the African Initiative as the power relationship that allows both women and men to have equal access to the scarce and valued resources of their continent. These include wages, employment, leisure, healthcare, education, personal autonomy and decision-making. Using this yardstick, women may have an interest not so much in reducing the role of the state and increasing the role of the market or vice versa as the New African Initiative presupposes. It may be in their interest to know what kind of market growth and what kind of state led development would improve gender
equity, and how both markets and states may be restructured to be more responsive to women specifically and men generally. Women must critique policies that reinforce globalisation. Globalisation is just another fancy word to describe patriarchy in its most nefarious form. African women must
challenge initiatives for Africas recovery that are ideologically, and fundamentally sexist and exclusionary of women.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 182 of 290 ADVANTAGE ___: REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
INITIALLY, THE GAG RULE HAS DEVASTATING EFFECTS ON WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IT TAKES AWAY NECESSARY ASSISTANCE FROM VITAL NGOs THAT FILL IN THE RESOURCE GAPS CAUSED BY GOVERNMENTS UPRETI, legal adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights, 2003 [Melissa, The Impact on the Global Gag Rule on Womens Reproductive Health Worldwide, WOMENS RIGHTS LAW REPORTER, Summer/Fall, page lexis] To understand the impact of the Global Gag Rule, it is necessary to understand certain things about the local content in which it operates. In low income countries, governments are low budget, and they have very limited resources. Also, while prioritizing expenditures, health, particularly women's reproductive health, is not really on the top of their list. As a result, NGOs fulfill a very important role in providing basic services to people that the government is otherwise responsible to provide; and this very fact alone significantly enhances the potential for damage by policies like the Global Gag Rule. It enhances the potential for damage affecting a great number people's lives, because NGOs are connected to the general population in a very special and critical way. Due to limited resources, NGOs do not have the luxury of huge office space and lots of staff; and as a result, they have to use the little money that they have in the most effective and frugal way possible. As a result, they usually try to perform and provide a number of services with funds they receive from one source; and the fact that projects are usually for a certain period of time leaves them constantly worrying about where they are going to find their next funding. This is why securing consistent funding from one reliable source is so critical. Apart from that, the nature of reproductive health is such that it has several components; and you cannot really provide one particular service, which is family planning, in complete isolation from the range of other services; such as, prenatal care, postnatal care, counseling about HIV, AIDS, or counseling about family planning, or even sex education. AND, THE GLOBAL GAG RULE LEADS TO NUMEROUS UNSAFE ABORTIONS -- THE GAG RULE HAS NOT DECREASED THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS -- LEGAL ABORTIONS DO NOT LEAD TO MORE ABORTIONS SEEVERS 2006 [Rachel, JD, The Politics of Gagging, BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil31iii_seevers.pdf] U.S. reproductive rights organizations, as well as international agencies and family planning advocates, have documented the widespread and damaging effects of unsafe abortions on womens reproductive health.43 However, since the Gag Rules reinstatement, the number of unsafe abortions has increased.44 Paradoxically, family planning organizations have found that a countrys abortion rate does not closely correlate with whether abortion is legal or easily accessible.45 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.46 While the legality of abortion does not seem to affect its prevalence, what does appear to be affected is the death rate of women undergoing abortions.47 In developing countries where abortion is more likely to be illegal, there are 330 deaths per 100,000 abortions while in developed countries, where abortion is more likely to be legal, there are 0.21.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions.48 It appears that the legalization of abortion does little to affect the prevalence of abortion in a country, while it drastically affects the numbers of women who die as a result.49 The Gag Rule has failed to accomplish its goal to reduce the incidence of abortion.50 It also runs against the global trend towards liberalizing abortion rights, and most distressingly, further endangers the health of women all over the world by prohibiting any local advocacy to increase the legality of abortions, which limits womens access to safe abortions.51 AND, THE GAG RULE PREVENTS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT UNSAFE, ILLEGAL ABORTION PRACTICES THE RULE DRIVES THESE PRACTICES FURTHER UNDERGROUND UPRETI, legal adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights, 2003 [Melissa, The Impact on the Global Gag Rule on Womens Reproductive Health Worldwide, WOMENS RIGHTS LAW REPORTER, Summer/Fall, page lexis] The first type of harm that has become visible to some extent is the harm to women's reproductive health. We live in a world where eighty thousand women die annually due to unsafe abortions. NGOs, in countries where abortion [*195] is legal, cannot provide abortions or refer or counsel on abortion. In Nepal, it is estimated that 539 women die from pregnancy-related complications for every 100,000 live births. In the United States, the maternal mortality rate is 7 per 100,000 live births; half of these deaths are due to unsafe abortions. Abortion was decriminalized in Nepal in 2002; however, NGOs receiving USAID funding for family planning programs will not be able to provide abortion counseling or services or make referrals. This will have a devastating effect on women because the government in its policy has clearly stated that the NGO will be the main providers of abortion services because the government does not have enough resources.
In Bolivia, the Ministry of Health, which technically is not even covered by the Global Gag Rule, has indicated that it will no longer endorse lifesaving care for women suffering complications from illegal and unsafe abortions because of the Global Gag Rule. The government also has gone to the extent of suspending efforts to permit distribution of emergency contraception because of the Global Gag Rule. This point demonstrates that the Global Gag Rule casts its net very widely; and it does not just implicate abortion, but also has a chilling effect and, as a result, affects a whole host of services.
The Global Gag Rule also limits women's access to information. The Global Gag Rule prohibits the distribution of neutral, factual information about abortion, even if the goal is making legal abortions available or preventing women from putting their lives at risk by undergoing unsafe abortions. As expressed in the words of one activist from Senegal, "I think that the Global Gag Rule is shortsighted, created by people sitting in Washington D.C. who cannot see the implications for women and the rest of the world. If it becomes taboo to talk about abortion, abortion will slip even further underground with disastrous implications for women."
In Bolivia, where abortion is legal, doctors and healthcare organizations cannot even provide information about abortion to protect a woman's physical health or even provide information that abortion is an option. In South Africa, healthcare organizations cannot engage in public education programs about HIV and AIDS that include the availability of safe and legal abortion
We live in a world where 80,000 women die from unsafe abortions per year. This occurs mostly in countries where abortion is highly restricted or illegal. The Global Gag Rule prevents overseas NGOs from lobbying their own governments to bring about law reform and, as a consequence, to save women's lives.
In Peru, the executive director of a U.S.-funded women's rights organization who was invited to Washington, D.C. to speak with the media and U.S. policymakers on the negative effects of the Global Gag Rule, declined to discuss the issue of abortion and its impact on women in Peru. She later revealed that she feared that publicly discussing abortion would jeopardize her U.S. funding, which provides low-income women access to family planning. NGOs experience firsthand the effects of illegal, unsafe abortion; and they are often called upon to participate in debates about abortion law reform. However, the Global Gag Rule forces these NGOs to limit their participation in a democratic process in order to continue to receive funding.
as an option for HIV-infected pregnant women. The Global Gag Rule is inherently anti-democratic because it violates the right to free speech.
Interestingly, the Global Gag Rule does not impose any restrictions on anti-choice speech. Only one viewpoint is restricted and suppressed, that of the NGOs. NGOs that receive funding from the U.S. government have to support and provide counseling that advises women not to have abortions and they must condemn and demonize abortions publicly. In Bolivia, for instance, 390 women per 100,000
live births die from pregnancy-related complications. NGOs that have formed a coalition to press for the liberalization of Bolivia's abortion laws and spread public health awareness were forced to curtail their activities for fear of losing funding for speaking about the issue.
The unsafe abortions mandated by the gag rule inflate the costs of health-care services and kill many due to infections Center for Reproductive Rights 03 (Breaking the Silence: The Global Gag Rules Impact on Unsafe Abortion, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, dbm) Unsafe abortion is a leading cause of pregnancy elated deaths and injuries in countries where access to abortion is significantly restricted or illegal altogether, as well as in those where abortion is legal but remains largely unavailable.52 Unsafe abortion is one of the most easily preventable and treatable causes of maternal mortality and morbidity. World Health Organization53 In many low-income countries, abortion is regulated in criminal codes established by colonial rulers years ago. Local customs that discriminate against women and pressure them to bear many children reinforce these antiquated laws. Legal restrictions on access to safe abortion services are now associated with some of the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity in the world. These restrictions can also increase the costs of related health-care services. In some countries where safe and legal abortions are unavailable, treating the complications of abortion consumes up to 50% of hospital resources.54 Even then, less than half of all women who require post-abortion treatment receive it.55 In other cases, women may not seek needed treatment due to fear of prosecution or stigmatization.56 Unsafe abortion is induced by traditional herbs. When there are complications, the girl or woman does not go to the hospital. She waits, and only once it gets very serious will she go. They do not want to tell anyone that they had tried abortion; they fear stigma. NGO, Ethiopia In the absence of safe, legal and accessible abortion services, women seek abortions from physicians, midwives, traditional or lay practitioners, or other health professionals who secretly perform the procedure, often at a very high price to compensate them for the legal and professional risk. In many cases women try to self-induce abortions. The riskiest abortion procedures are those performed by lay practitioners and women themselves. These procedures often involve inserting sharp or contaminated objects, or caustic substances into the vagina; drinking caustic substances, traditional herbs or medications; or vigorously massaging the abdomen. The use of unsanitary instruments by clandestine abortion providers is regularly a source of post-abortion infection and other complications.57
AND, THE HARMS ARE FURTHER MAGNIFIED THE GAG RULE UNDERMINES THE ENTIRE PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE IN AFRICA Motluk 2004 [Alison, covers science policy and writes for the New Science Magazine] A healthy strategy for whom
exactly? News; This Week; Pg. 21, lexis/ lance

The impact of the Mexico City policy has had consequences more far-reaching -- and more perverse -- than perhaps anyone had anticipated. For while the US gives more money in foreign aid than any other country, much of which goes towards improving human health, its blanket refusal to fund any agency that so much as breathes the word "abortion" is undermining its entire global strategy for health. For many women and children in Africa, family planning clinics are the sole contact with healthcare professionals. In some cases, the same clinic that offers abortion counselling also provides prenatal care, childhood immunisations and protection against malaria. When clinics close or are scaled down, it's not just abortions that fall by the wayside. Public health suffers too. "It undermines the whole health infrastructure," says Wendy Turnbull of Population Action International (PAI), an NGO based in Washington DC. Every one of the global health goals articulated by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been hampered by fallout from the Mexico City policy. Top of USAID's list is the desire to reduce unintended and mistimed pregnancies -- of which there are an estimated 60
million every year, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which promotes education and research in sexual and reproductive health. For NGOs that rejected the US ultimatum there have been cuts and shortages across the board, according to an audit this year by PAI. In Kenya, for instance, cuts in USAID funds have forced two of the leading family planning organisations to lay off 30 per cent of their staff and shut down five clinics. One of those shut was the Mathare Valley clinic, which served 300,000 people in a Nairobi slum. The Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, headquartered in Addis Ababa, has lost 60 per cent of its annual budget as a result of USAID cuts, which has affected not only staffing but also supplies. One rural clinic has nearly run out of the contraceptive Depo-Provera, used by 70 per cent of the women who attend it. The US was the single most important donor of contraceptives, providing more than one-third of those supplied to developing countries, says Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition in New York. "If you are closing down family planning clinics and denying contraceptives to women, you've got to be having increases in unwanted pregnancies," says Valerie DeFillipo, director of external affairs at the IPPF. This not only thwarts USAID's first goal, but jeopardises two others as well: reducing childbirth-related maternal death and improving When pregnancies are unwanted it is usually for good reason. Often they come on the heels of a previous birth, or the mother is unwell, so the health of mother and child are at risk. They also mean that the new child, and older siblings, are likely to face a more economically uncertain future. Over half a million women a year die from complications related to pregnancy, about one every minute. In many countries, this is a leading cause of premature death among women.
USAID has also made a priority of fighting infectious diseases. About half the US money spent on reproductive health last year went on tackling HIV and AIDS, but many of the clinics where people were tested and treated for the disease, or got condoms to protect themselves, no longer offer these services because of cuts in US aid. "USAID-donated condoms have been cut off to 29 of the most HIVaffected countries," Germain says. "That is a disaster in those countries." In 2003, President Bush staged a partial retreat and began allowing some funds to fight HIV and AIDS to be filtered through otherwise blacklisted agencies.
The irony is that for all the damage it has caused, the Mexico City policy appears to have done nothing to reduce abortion rates, and may even have caused them to rise. "When women are deprived of contraception, they resort to abortion," Germain says.
If Republicans who opposed abortion had evidence that their policy worked, they would publicise it, DeFillipo says. "After 12 years of the gag rule, they have never once produced any document showing that the policy served its supposed purpose." We'll never know for sure, she adds, since agencies that accept USAID money aren't allowed even to collect statistics on abortion.child health and survival.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 186 of 290 ADVANTAGE ___: OVERPOPULATION
The population bomb is about to explode particularly in sub-saharan Africa the MOST EFFECTIVE population control measure would be to remove the gag rule and allow for family planning strategies Conserve Magazine 07 (The Real, Unspoken Cause of Global Warming: Overpopulation, May 16,
http://www.conservemag.com/2007/05/16/global-warming/global-warming-population/2/, dbm)
One of the reasons why the population bomb didnt go off is because some of the warnings were heeded and the U.S. and other donor nations started programs to help couples choose how and when to have kids in the developing world, says Tod Preston, senior advisor with advocacy group Population Action International. Birth rates are still very high in some areas, but theyve come down. Our efforts have been a success. Yet, today around the world you still have huge and growing problems in terms of resource scarcity, water, arable crop land, forests and other resources. And thats only going to get much, much worse if we dont do more. Like many experts on population issues, Preston is less concerned with the U.S. than with developing nations, who are the main contributors to a runaway world population of 6.5 billion. America reaching 300 million is indicative of a much bigger story in the developing world, Preston says. Here were talking about sustainable development, sprawl, habitat loss, and other problems. But if you look at the developing world, the situation is much more serious. In Uganda or Ethiopia for example populations are doubling every 30 years. They already have huge issues with hunger and famine and are already dependent on food aid from foreign donors including the U.S. Imagine if we were talking about the likelihood that our population would jump to 600 million in 30 to 40 years. There would be a strong sense that this was a very grave problem. People would term it a crisis or a catastrophe. But thats the reality in some countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, its not being talked about much here and some easy, popular programs to ease this crisis are being neglected by the U.S. and other rich countries. When you hear so much bad news from places where population growth is a problem, particularly subSaharan Africa, its all too easy to fall into fatalism and apathy. The place may seem beyond help, so what can we do? But this kind of compassion-fatigue is unnecessary. The most effective population control measure, family planning, is many times cheaper than any military option. It is even cheaper than famine relief. Family planning has been so effective that, because of efforts to educate women and couples about contraception so that they can choose to have the number of kids they want at the time they want them, birth rates have fallen in many developing nations. In Mexico and Egypt, for example, birth rates have been halved in the last 35 years, according to Preston. Yet, despite its proved effectiveness, family planning has dropped to a small percentage of the U.S. foreign aid budget. U.S. taxpayers spend $1 billion on food aid yearly. Last year in Ethiopia alone we spent more on food aid than we did on family planning across the planet, Preston says. Since it came into office, the Bush Administration has cut family-planning funding significantly. Population experts like Preston say that this is not because family planning doesnt work it does or that people in developing countries dont want contraceptives they do, even in strongly Catholic or Muslim nations but for domestic political reasons. Some opponents of abortion also oppose contraception, and since the White House has been eager to obtain the support of its religious base, it has tried to distance itself from birth control. But since Americans overwhelmingly support access to contraception 81 percent in a Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive poll from last year the administration has
hesitated to declare open war on birth control. Instead, it has quietly cut funding to support family-planning programs abroad. This administration is in thrall to a domestic political base that is fundamentally opposed to the right of women to use contraceptives, said Brian Dixon, director of government relations at another advocacy group, Population Connection. One
of the first things that this president did in 2001 was to implement a global gag-rule, to cut off U.S. aid to any familyplanning providers around the world who had any connection to abortion. The gag-rule said that if health-care providers wanted to receive U.S. funds, then they couldnt even counsel patients on abortion or bring it up as an option. Because many doctors, nurses and medical aides were not willing to play by Washingtons new restrictions, they lost funding. The rule caused clinics to close in Zambia and Kenya and it caused the laying off of healthcare staff. It has also led to a shortage of contraceptives in Ethiopia. But the gag-rule has had no impact on abortion, except maybe to increase it, because weve cut off access to contraception. The U.S. no longer contributes to the UN Population Fund because the President refuses to release the funds that Congress has appropriated for it. The target in all of these cases is contraceptives. While Dixon agrees that the developing world should be the focus of family planning and other measures to control population growth, he feels that we need help in America too. Noting that a third of all births in the U.S. are
unintended, Dixon says that were not really paying attention to teenage pregnancy, though we have the highest rate in the industrialized world. Though the effects of overpopulation worldwide and even in the U.S. could be horrific imagine Blade Runner, Escape from New York or your favorite sci-fi vision of an overcrowded apocalypse Dixon says that the main
solution, family planning, is relatively simple to implement.
The real cause for hope is that we know how to do this. Theres no need to make
huge sacrifices. Were giving people the tools to make decisions about their lives. Not only does it help the global picture but it helps individual families.
Women can become part of their communities through work. Kids can go to school. Countries can catch up. It allows nations to start improving the quality of life for their people. Family planning is a relatively simple and cheap solution. Thats very hopeful.
We just need the political will. We dont need to find new technologies and complicated solutions. Its really about giving people what they already want.
AND, THE GLOBAL GAG RULE HAS CAUSED THE MASSIVE SHUTDOWN OF MANY FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA JONES 2004 [Allegra, editor, The Mexico City Policy and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/10_TXT.htm] Another practical effect of the Mexico City Policy has been the closure of family planning clinics due to USAIDs withdrawal of funding, notably in sub-Saharan Africa.73 Seventeen centers in Uganda, five centers in Kenya, one outreach program serving poor communities in Ethiopia, and several clinics in Tanzania have closed for this reason.74 In Kenya alone, the five clinics that closed served tens of [*PG200]thousands of women.75 They provided basic services that many poor women could not otherwise afford or access, including well-baby care, pre- and post-natal obstetric care, HIV testing and counseling, and contraception.76 In order to avoid closing seven more health posts and one maternal nursing home when President Bush imposed the global gag rule, health care provider Marie Stopes International of Kenya laid off one-fifth of its staff, cut the remaining employees salaries, reorganized its clinic structure, and increased client fees.77 The countrys other leading reproductive health provider, the Family Planning Association of Kenya, laid off nearly one-third of its staff, raised patient fees, and cut salaries in order to keep its remaining clinics open and running without U.S. funding.78 Similarly, the global gag rule has cost the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopiawhich runs 671 community-based reproductive health care sites, 24 youth centers, and 18 clinicsmore than a half-million dollars.79 The Association does not provide abortion services because abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. 80 Nevertheless, by communicating the fact that unsafe abortion was claiming the lives of Ethiopian mothers to local policymakers, the group forfeited its U.S. funding, which resulted in a loss of services to 301,054 women and 229,947 men living in urban areas.81 Clearly, the women and families who lost access to these resources and clinics were the true victims of the Mexico City Policy.82
AND, Access to family planning services in Sub-Saharan Africa is CRUCIAL to improving maternal health, checking AIDS, and curbing population growth helps limit family sizes and reduce pregnancies APPG 07 (All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, Population Growth and its
Impact on Maternal Health, http://www.appgpopdevrh.org.uk/Publications/Population%20Hearings/Evidence/Uni%20of%20Cal%20evidence.doc, dbm) Most countries where maternal mortality is the highest are not implementing effective interventions on a large scale, such as the provision of family planning and safe abortion. The beneficial public health impact of these interventions is well known, and so is their impact on reducing population growth and improving maternal health. There is an enormous and well documented unmet need for family planning in the developing world [figure 3]. About 150 million married women in developing countries want to delay or avoid pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Each pregnancy multiplies a womans chance of dying from complications of pregnancy or childbirth. In settings such as sub-Saharan Africa where most of the women do not have access to basic obstetric care, access to contraception may be a matter of life and death, particularly when presented with risks of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. According to the UNFPA, meeting the existing demand for family planning services would reduce pregnancies in developing countries by 20 per cent, and maternal deaths and injuries by a similar degree or more. We also know that as family planning use rises, womens desired family size declines. When family planning is made easily available, along with the correct information required to make the various methods useful, the population factor is indeed amenable to change. About 13 to 25 per cent of all maternal deaths are attributed to unsafe abortions, coupled with lack of skilled follow-up. The high level of unmet need for quality contraceptive services, along with the corresponding number of unwanted pregnancies, is a key reason why so many women who want to control their fertility seek out abortions. More than one quarter of pregnancies worldwide, about 52 million annually, end in abortion. There is a small difference in abortion rates per 1000 women aged 15-44 between developed and developing countries ( 39/1000 and 34/1000 respectively) . The large differences lay in the fact that developing country abortions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, are unsafe abortions and many of these results in the death of the woman. In 2005 the UNAIDS estimated that 17.5 million women were living with HIV (one million more than in 2003). Twenty-five percent of them have unmet need for contraception, representing roughly 4.4 million HIV+ women in need of contraception. Family planning is one the most cost-effective ways of preventing mother-to-child transmission . Clearly, a womans ability to plan how many children she wants and when she wants them is central to the quality of her life. The ability to control fertility can be given through family planning programs that have an effect on both population size and maternal and child health.
AND, The Gag rule is the linchpin of environmental protection and opression without family planning efforts, environmental resources are rapidly and uncontrollably consumed the Bush policy puts our environment on the brink of disaster Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director, 2001 (Sierra Club Statement on the Global Gag Rule San Diego Earth Times, Feb 2003, http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0201/et0201s10.html) / braswell
The global gag rule bars international family planning organizations that receive a single dollar of US funds from using their own money to talk about abortion with their patients, provide abortion services, or lobby to change abortion laws in their countries. Under this rule, overseas organizations cannot use their own revenue for these
purposes. If they do, they may be barred from receiving US humanitarian aid that goes to help maternal mortality and child survival programs. In reality, US law has prevented US taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions overseas since 1973. Reinstating the
global gag rule will hurt women and the environment. This policy will ultimately impact all efforts to protect the environment. Because rapid population growth exacerbates every environmental problem, it is intimately linked to all our efforts to protect the environment. The rate at which we are consuming natural resources is jeopardizing our planet's health and threatening the availability of water, fisheries, and forests for our children and future generations. For example, today more than 500 million people face water scarcity; the world's forests have shrunk from one third to one fifth of their original size; and we are increasing the level of green house gases in our atmosphere every day. By limiting access to information and services that help families to decide the timing and spacing of their children, President Bush is making it more difficult to protect the natural resources that are under pressure from the demands of rapidly increasing population. The 630,000 members of the
Sierra Club know that population and consumption pressures are critical environmental issues. To address the core causes of these problems effectively, we must adopt the strategy agreed to at the 1994 UN Conference on Population and Development - to
prioritize family planning, girls education and women's empowerment programs that encourage smaller and healthier families. Healthy families are good for the environment. The Sierra Club supports women and families and their right to information and access to family planning and reproductive health services. President Bush's action hurts women who are dying every minute of every day from complications of pregnancy. President Bush's action to reinstate the gag rule hurts families who are working to create a better life for their children. And President Bush's action hurts the environment. By damaging family planning groups overseas, President Bush is placing more pressure on our fragile environment. Family planning saves women, children and our planet. President Bush's act may satisfy a small group of extremists at the right wing of his party, but it does not represent the will and compassion of the American people.
Continued overpopulation in Sub-Saharan Africa will cause massive food shortages which empirically exacerbates ethnic tensions and provoke massive violence Larsen 03 (Janet-, Jan. 23, Earth Policy Institute, Population Growth Leading to Land Hunger, http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/ Update21.htm, dbm) The scarcity of arable cropland in sub-Saharan Africa helps to explain the region's declining production per person in recent decades. Nigeria, for example, Africa's most populous country, has seen its population quadruple since 1950 while its grainland area doubledeffectively halving the grainland per person. In northern Nigeria, pastoralists and farmers fleeing the encroaching Sahara, which annually claims 350,000 hectares of land (about half the size of the U.S. state of Delaware), have increased demands on the already scarce land elsewhere in the country, sparking ethnic tensions. The experience in Rwanda, Africa's most densely populated country, highlights the potentially serious ramifications of land scarcity. Between 1950 and 1990, Rwanda's population tripled from 2.1 million to 6.8 million. The per capita grainland availability fell to 0.03 hectares. James Gasana, Rwanda's Minister of Agriculture and Environment in 1990-92, has noted that rapid population growth led to farm fragmentation, land degradation, deforestation, and famine. These stresses ignited the undercurrent of ethnic strife, erupting in civil war in the early 1990s and culminating in horrific genocide in 1994, when some 800,000 people were killed. Gasana points out that violence was concentrated in the communes where the food supply was inadequate. A 2000 headline from the Pan African News Agency, discussing a ministry of lands survey, read "Rwanda: Land Scarcity May Jeopardize Peace Process." Now with a population that has rebounded to 8.1 million, and with the average family having six children, pressure on the land in Rwanda is again mounting. Most of the 3 billion people to be added to world population in the next 50 years will be born in areas where land resources are scarce. If world grainland area stays the same as in 2000, the 9 billion people projected to inhabit the planet in 2050 would each be fed from less than 0.07 hectares of grainlandan area smaller than what is available per person today in land-hungry countries like Bangladesh,
Pakistan, and Afghanistan. By 2050, India and Nigeria would cultivate 0.06 hectares of grainland for each person, less than one tenth the size of a soccer field. China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia would drop even lower, to 0.04-0.05 hectares of grainland per person. Faring worse would be Egypt and Afghanistan with 0.02 hectares, as well as Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Uganda, with just 0.01 hectares. These numbers are in stark contrast to those of the less densely populated grain exporters, which may have upwards of 10 times as much grainland per person. For Americans, who live in a country with 0.21 hectares of highly productive grainland per person, surviving from such a small food production base is difficult to comprehend.
There are 2 impacts (1) Food shortages trigger World War III Calvin 98 (William, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, The Great Climate
Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, p. 47-64) The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically
altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
And, escalation of conflict in Africa is the MOST LIKELY scenario for nuclear war Deutsch 02 (Dr. Jeffrey, Contributing Editor for Russian Politics, November 18, accessed 7/25/04,
http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html, dbm) The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.
(2) The process of meeting the global food demand would itself cause global extinction
Idsos 01 (Craig and Keith and Sherwood, Presidents and Vice President, Center for The Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Volume
4, Number 18: 5/2, dbm)
It thus behooves us to seriously consider the findings of Tilman et al. (2001), reported just four days later in the pages of Science, which Leo and Gergen had obviously not the advantage of seeing when they composed their essays. In an analysis of the global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion that will likely occur over the next 50 years, which was based upon projected increases in population and concomitant advances in technological expertise, the group of ten respected researchers concluded that the task of meeting the doubled global food demand they calculated to exist in the year 2050 will
likely exact an environmental toll that "may rival climate change in environmental and societal impacts." What are the specific problems? For starters, Tilman and his colleagues note that "humans currently appropriate more than a third of the production of terrestrial ecosystems and about half of usable freshwaters, have doubled terrestrial nitrogen supply and phosphorus liberation, have manufactured and released globally significant quantities of pesticides, and have initiated a major extinction event." Now, think of
doubling those figures. In fact, do even more; for the scientists calculate global nitrogen fertilization and pesticide production will likely rise by a factor of 2.7 by the year 2050. In terms of land devoted to agriculture, they calculate a less ominous 18% increase over the present. However, because developed countries are expected to withdraw large areas of land from farming over the next 50 years, the net loss of natural ecosystems to cropland and pasture in developing countries will amount to about half of all potentially suitable remaining land, which would, in the words of Tilman et al., "represent the worldwide loss of natural ecosystems
larger than the United States." Looking at it another way, the scientists say this phenomenon "could lead to the loss of about a third of remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and grasslands." And in a worrisome reflection upon the consequences of these changes in land use for global biodiversity, they note that "species extinction is an irreversible impact of habitat destruction." These findings
should come as no surprise to readers of CO2 Science Magazine, for we have dealt with them editorially many times (1 Oct 1999, 1 Feb 2000, 15 Nov 2000, 21 Feb 2001). Hence, we are in full agreement with Tilman et al. when they say "an environmentally sustainable revolution, a greener revolution, is needed." In fact, something far above humanitys normal ability to devise and execute will be required to avert the impending catastrophe; for as Tilman and his associates rightly conclude, "even the best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems." Here, then, is the real and truly inescapable problem facing the world and every living thing therein: where will we find the food and water needed to sustain our growing populations? We
are going to need much more of both of these precious commodities if we are ever going to make it through even the first half of the current century without self-destructing and taking most of the rest of the biosphere with us. So we ask Mr. Leo and Mr. Gergen the
very same questions they posed in their essays. Do you "care about saving the planet" and doing those things that will not "darken the prospects for mankind"?
ADVANTAGE ____: HIV/AIDS INITIALLY, THE GAG RULE ATTACKS THE PRIMARY FRONTLINE DEFENSE AGAINST THE SPREAD OF HIV/AIDS IT PREVENTS FAMILY PLANNING AND MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES TO THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS FOR MANY WOMEN, FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES ARE THE ONLY HEALTH SERVICES THEY RECEIVE The Lancet, 14 March 2003. Pro-life policy threatens US HIV/AIDS initiative
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-484MB741&_user=2518055&_coverDate=03%2F15%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000057738&_version=1&_url Version=0&_userid=2518055&md5=286d0488841d1be907be5fcbf760baac / LANCE
But, if implemented, the policy will hobble programmes that are in the best position to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic: the local clinics that provide family-planning and maternal-health services to women. Women in poor countries are at high risk because they often do not have the education and resources to protect themselves. In traditional societies women are often not granted the right to make independent decisions about sexuality. And because they lack financial independence, women have little choice should their partners engage in unsafe sexual practices and refuse to use a condom. In many cases, the only access these women have to any health services is through local family-planning and maternal-health programmes, many of which, because they may offer abortion counselling and services, will probably come under the Mexico City policy restrictions. To require these cash-strapped programmes, which are already struggling to deal with a catastrophic epidemic, to set up separate HIV/AIDS programmes is unreasonable. To deny these women the chance to learn about HIV/AIDS and receive care in a confidential setting in their regular clinics in which they are comfortable with health-care providers whom they trust is unfair. And to force them to go to separate programmes for counselling, testing, and care and thus put them at risk of the stigma of AIDSa stigma that can cause them to be driven from their homes, families, and communitiesis cruel.
AND, FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS ARE THE VITAL CENTER FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF MEDICAL ADVICE, EDUCATION, AND SERVICES TO PREVENT HIV/AIDS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA JONES 2004 [Allegra, editor, The Mexico City Policy and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/10_TXT.htm] In developing countries with poor health conditions and insufficient resources, family planning clinics are often the best, if not the only, places where individuals can obtain medical advice and resources for protecting themselves against STIs such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).10 In 2002, more than 90% of the 42 million people living with [*PG190]HIV/AIDS globally lived in developing nations.11 This proportion is expected to increase because the AIDS virus spreads rapidly in developing countries that have inadequate resources for prevention and treatment, as well as poor health-care systems.12 Worldwide, the region most affected by AIDS is sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS is the leading cause of death and has killed more than 19.4 million people.13 A news editor of The Namibian, a leading newspaper in Namibia, writes, when it comes to implementation of [AIDS prevention] in the Third World, family planning centers literally offer a lifeline . . . . The challenge is nowhere greater than in sub-Saharan Africathe epicenter of the AIDS pandemic.14 In the fight against HIV/AIDS, family planning centers are particularly vital for women, who are at greater risk for contracting HIV or AIDS than men.15 In sub-Saharan Africa, 58% of those living with HIV/AIDS are women.16 Women and girls are particularly susceptible because HIV transmission to women is biologically more efficient than transmission to men and, in many circumstances, women lack power to negotiate safer sexual practices due to gender inequality.17 Through education, counseling, and condom distribution, family [*PG191]planning centers can help women respond to high-risk situations and avoid contracting HIV.18 As it stands, the Mexico City Policy forces the recipients of U.S. family planning funding to make value judgments about the services they provide.19 Family planning organizations must decide whether to accept U.S. funding and cease their abortion-related services, or to reject U.S. funding and thus limit their potential services due to constrained budgets.20 Moreover, regardless of whether these groups decide to assist individuals with abortion-related services, the global gag rule forces organizations to prioritize which communities they want to serve: women seeking abortions or all other women, children, and families.21 Further, the rule does not allow pregnant women living with HIV/AIDS, for whom abortion may be a legal option domestically, full access to information regarding their medical options.22 Women in Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Rwanda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe are permitted to have abortions under certain limited circumstances, such as to protect their mental or physical health, or on socioeconomic grounds.23 A report by Ipas, a non-profit agency focusing on womens reproductive health, states that 2.5 million of the 200 mil[*PG192]lion women who become pregnant each year are HIV-positive.24 In sub-Saharan Africa, a growing number of women are testing positive for HIV at prenatal clinics, which indicates that their babies may become infected.25 Yet, because of the Mexico City Policy, women who visit many U.S.-funded clinics will not be made aware of their legal rights.26 Thus, the Mexico City Policy is not only an abortion issue, but is also an HIV/AIDS issue.27
AND, THE BUSH REINSTITUTION OF THE GLOBAL GAG RULE HAS UNDERMINED HIS OTHER HIV/AIDS INITIATIVES, SUCH AS PEPFAR JONES 2004 [Allegra, editor, The Mexico City Policy and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/10_TXT.htm] In his State of the Union address in January of 2003, President Bush announced his administrations $15 billion initiative to combat the AIDS pandemic over the next five years.128 This initiative includes U.S. participation in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, which is an independent partnership between governments of [*PG208]industrialized and developing countries, private corporations, foundations, and individuals.129 The administration proudly requested from Congress $500 million for the Global Fund, $540 million for USAIDs HIV/AIDS budget, and $500 million for a new International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative, which seeks to prevent motherto-child transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.130
Undoubtedly, this assistance is desperately needed, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where one-quarter of the regions population is expected to die from AIDS in the next ten years.131 Nevertheless, even as the Bush administration and Congress increase efforts to help those infected and affected by this pandemic, the 2001 re-imposition of the Mexico City Policy on family planning funding continues to undermine U.S. efforts to fight HIV/AIDS.132
AND, WOMEN ARE UNIQUELY AT RISK NOT HAVING ACCESS TO ALL REPRODUCTIVE INFORMATION INCREASES THEIR VULNERABILITY TO THE HIV/AIDS EPIDEMIC JONES 2004 [Allegra, editor, The Mexico City Policy and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/10_TXT.htm] The Mexico City Policy fails to address the complexities that HIV/AIDS raises for pregnant women in the reproductive health decision-making process by effectively foreclosing the option of voluntary, safe, legal abortion for many women suffering from HIV or AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.140 Ensuring individuals access to uncensored information regarding their full range of reproductive rights is essen[*PG210]tial in the HIV/AIDS context.141 In sub-Saharan Africa, women are frequently prevented from exercising full control over their sexual and reproductive lives due to gender inequalities, societal or spousal pressures, lack of information, or lack of financial means to implement their decisions.142 HIV-positive or AIDS status adds to womens vulnerability by creating pressure to conduct their reproductive lives in certain ways based on the stigma and discrimination they perceive from others, including even health professionals.143 Not only is full access to information and resources necessary for HIV/AIDS prevention, it is also crucial for pregnant women who have HIV or AIDS because they customarily face complex decisions regarding whether and how to proceed with their pregnancies.144 AND, THE IMPACTS OF AIDS ARE SUPERCHARGED DUE TO THE LACK OF FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS ORPHANS JONES 2004 [Allegra, editor, The Mexico City Policy and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/10_TXT.htm] Other pregnant women with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa may seek abortions or information about abortion because they realize that even if their fetus escapes infection, the mother will likely die before the child becomes self-sufficient.157 UN statistics show that of the more than 13.2 million children who have been orphaned by the AIDS epidemic, 95% are from sub-Saharan Africa.158 The psychological and emotional trauma on both a mother who is dying and her child is immeasurable.159 A woman from South Africa wrote: Apart from the pain, anxiety and the feeling of death being so near during the time of my HIV diagnosis, another hurdle and indescribable pain was when I had to disclose [my status] to my eldest child. I had never cried in front of anyone to whom I had told my status. On this particular day, [*PG213]when I tried to explain everything about my HIV status to my daughter, the tears kept flowing down.160 Children orphaned by AIDS experience trauma that can manifest itself in the form of depression, aggression, drug abuse, malnutrition, anxiety about the future, or developmental problems caused by the loss of consistent nurturing and guidance.161 In addition to the emotional and psychological toll, the economic burden on children affected by AIDS is significant.162 The presence of AIDS in a household often causes children to assume responsibility for generating income and providing food for their families, as well as caring for their ill family members.163 A case study by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) points out that [t]he death of a mother or father[M1] can leave unsettled debts which impact negatively on the future care and resources left for the remaining children.164 In Zimbabwe, when a familys breadwinner is ill or its income is spent on medical treatment for HIV/AIDS, children are often forced to drop out of school and work.165 In Uganda, 25% of children whose
parents have HIV/AIDS drop out of school.166 Children orphaned by AIDS often leave school to care for parents or younger siblings because they cannot pay school fees, or because of discrimination or emotional distress.167 These children are also at greater risk of illness, abuse, and sexual exploitation compared to children orphaned by other causes.168 Further, these factors increase orphaned childrens own chances of contracting HIV.169 AND, Numerous examples show the gag rule stigmatizes effective and necessary reproductive health
services resulting in the spread of HIV/AIDS Population Action International 03 (The Global Gag Rule & HIV/AIDS,
http://www.globalgagrule.org/pdfs/issue_factsheets/GGR_fact_HIV.pdf, dbm) The gag rule isolates and stigmatizes reproductive health services around the world, as some of the most experienced providers no longer receive U.S. family planning funds. A few examples4: In Cameroon, loss of U.S. assistance forced the Cameroon National Association for Family Welfare (CNAFW) to close one youth center. CNAFW's youth centers teach young people about responsible parenthood and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. In addition, family planning service delivery was eliminated in two branches: the North Province branch, where 9 percent of the 576,000 inhabitants live with HIV/AIDS, and the Western Province branch, where 6 percent of the 256,816 inhabitants live with HIV/AIDS. In Ghana, 697,000 Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana clients will lose access not only to family planning services, but also to voluntary counseling and testing, other counseling services, and HIV/AIDS prevention education. The St. Lucia Planned Parenthood Association was forced to cancel plans to train 218 "peer helpers" from eight secondary schools and one primary school. This program would have reached 12,000 school-aged children with comprehensive reproductive health information including HIV/AIDS prevention.
AND, African AIDS will spread globally causing human extinction Muchiri 00 (Michael Kibaara, Staff Member at Ministry of Education in Nairobi,Will Annan finally put out Africas fires?
Jakarta Post, March 6, ln, dbm) The executive director of UNAIDS, Peter Piot, estimated that Africa would annually need between $ 1 billion to $ 3 billion to combat the disease, but currently receives only $ 160 million a year in official assistance. World Bank President James Wolfensohn lamented that Africa was losing teachers faster than they could be replaced, and that AIDS was now more effective than war in destabilizing African countries. 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 [humanity] 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. Gender
paraphrased
AND, WE CAN NO LONGER STAY SILENT ON THE AIDS ISSUE WE HAVE A MORAL AND PRACTICAL IMPERATIVE TO STOP REPEATING THE SAME RACIST MISTAKES THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA IS BEING ERADICATED AS WE SIT IDLY BY. ZEITZ, CO-DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL AIDS ALLIANCE, 2001 [Dr. Paul S., Recommendations on the US Role in the Global Fight on HIV/AIDS, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, June 07, online]
The reality of the AIDS crisis hit home to my family and I several years ago when more and more of our Zambian friends started dying, when my Zambian work colleagues started dying more frequently--and were never replaced, when the numbers of orphans around us was increasing exponentially, when my wife and I were asked by friends to use our family van to transport a 3 month dead child by the name of David to his funeral in Zambia, and after I had refused to go to any more funerals as I had heard enough of the howling cries of grief, and on and on and on the tragedy rages.
I was shocked and devastated as I learned that the AIDS death rates that I was observing and experiencing in the late 1990s was just the beginning of what Zambia and much of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and parts of Eastern Europe will have to face.
The AIDS death rates in Zambia and other areas won't peak until 2005 or later and then they are projected to stay high for a subsequent ten to 15 years---wiping away a full generation of people--just like you and I. Those that are dying are women and men with families, people with dreams--just like you and I-and young people throughout Africa are becoming infected at an alarming rate--these are people who deserve a chance at life, liberty and the full realization of their God-given potential.
It is outrageous from both a practical and a moral standpoint that more than 99% of Africans are not able to obtain practical life-saving antiretroviral medications, because of a simple lack of resources. Millions have needlessly died and millions more will die unless this Congress and the international community comes together with all deliberate speed to ensure access to affordable lifesaving drugs. How many more Africans have to die? Just imagine what our response would be if millions of Americans or millions of Europeans were destined to die because they didn't have the resources to buy these readily available drugs? When one considers that 17 million Africans have already died and that another 2.5 millions are dying this year, and another several million will die next year, and several more the year after, and on and on.One can only conclude that the international and the US response is failing. The first question that must be considered, is why are we failing as a global community to confront this crisis? We then must ask ourselves, "Why do we keep repeating the same policy and institutional responses and wondering why the results are so inadequate? And finally, if we are serious and truthful about our intention to stop global aids, then we should ask ourselves, "What should we do now?" Bold, bipartisan US Congressional action and investment could play a critical role in reversing the tide against the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. While the incremental response of the 1990s has shown us that we have the tools and technologies to respond to the pandemic, our response paradigm has failed. The incremental response of the past is characterized by small inadequate investments in small-scale pilot programs that reach
only a small proportion of the target population. It is the incremental response of the past that is leading to the 6,000 AIDS deaths and 16,000 new HIV infections that will occur around the World today. It is the incremental response of the past that is leading to the death of over 2.5 million Africans
this year from AIDS. It is the incremental response of the past has led to the 13 million orphans roaming hopelessly throughout Africa, with a projected 40 million orphans by the year 2010.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, all this suffering is completely preventable. We have the proven technologies and tactics to reverse this crisis; what's still lacking is sufficient political will. A new expanded and comprehensive response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic--a new paradigm--can and must be implemented and sustained as a matter of urgency.
ADVANTAGE ____: CIVIL SOCIETY THE US GAG RULE FLIES IN THE FACE OF US TOUTING MATERNAL HEALTH THE GAG RULE ALLOWS THE US TO FORCE OUR ETHICAL VALUES ON INTERNATIONAL NGOS SEEVERS 2006 [Rachel, JD, The Politics of Gagging, BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil31iii_seevers.pdf] The situation in Peru is just one example of the individualized regional policies that local governments have developed in order to address the ICPD family planning agenda.38 However, against the backdrop of an international consensus on the need to address abortion with individualized regional education and legislation, the United States has imposed the Global Gag Rule.39 The Gag Rule restrictions enforce a broad antiabortion policy that effectively foists the moral and ethical values of the United States conservative and religious right on international health advocates, and presses a pro-life agenda on any foreign NGOs receiving U.S. funding.40 Ironically, though the United States does not agree with the ICPD consensus on the need to create regional abortion policies, it does agree with the ICPD assessment of maternal mortality rates and the dangers illegal abortions pose to women across the globe.41 The United States duplicitous response to this danger has been to impose the Gag Rule while devoting over sixty million dollars to USAID projects aimed at reducing maternal mortality, and establishing a thirty-three country, multimillion dollar effort to address complications that arise from the same unsafe abortions.42 AND, The gag rule precludes open dialogue destroying democratic dissent and the precluding civil
society Center for Reproductive Rights 03 (Breaking the Silence: The Global Gag Rules Impact on Unsafe Abortion,
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, dbm) Organized and peaceful expression is not only the cornerstone of any democracy, it is a universally recognized right. Freedom of speech is also a primary U.S. foreign policy goal: The development of civil society depends on freedom of expression and association. USAIDs strategy assessment framework explains that free and independent media, freedom of expression, and freedom of association are particularly critical for a pluralistic civil society and for democracy. In authoritarian or transitional regimes, where at least some associational life is permitted, the political establishment often tries to gain control over civil society or, failing that, to limit the freedom of expression and association upon which it depends.13 The ability to access and publicize information is a fundamental need of a politically active civil society.14 U.S. Agency for International Development Many of the people interviewed for this report felt oppressed by the environment of censorship, fear and distrust brought on by the global gag rule. Since USAID can unilaterally decide whether an NGO violated the rule and require that the NGO refund all USAID funds, groups take excessive precautions to avoid even the perception that they are speaking about the forbidden subject of unsafe abortion.15 The move to reform the abortion law is slow. People dont want to talk very loud. The debates take place in the academic world. These studies are
unfolding the problems. The communities themselves, they have to start advocating. We especially need advocacy on issuesto make sure people know and understand. NGO, Uganda Unsafe abortion and back street abortion is very common. There is little talk because of the dependence on donor funding. People dont want to talk about legalizing abortion because they fear risking donor funding. If the U.S. government is against abortion, they dont want to speak up. No organization will have the courage to speak. Women doctors have since spoken. But somebody has gagged the rest. International Donor, Uganda In Kenya, NGOs that were once vocal supporters of comprehensive reproductive health care for women now abstain from debates on reforming the countrys restrictive abortion law. Reproductive health organizations have been invited to the public debate but they dont come. They can feel the pressure on them not to participate. Unfortunately most NGOs working on reproductive health are also working with USAID. International NGO, Kenya In Ethiopia, where one of the largest NGOs lost
U.S. family planning assistance for refusing to be gagged, a climate of fear has pervaded advocacy circles and curbed free speech.
AND, NGOS ARE A KEY VEHICLE FOR THE FOSTERING OF A CIVIL SOCIETY SEEVERS 2006 [Rachel, JD, The Politics of Gagging, BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil31iii_seevers.pdf] Through this analysis, it is clear that there is a consensus from within USAID, as well as among NGOs and government agencies, that NGOs are imperative to the development of civil society and major players in the political activity of emerging democracies.141 NGOs draw on their ability to reach a diverse group of citizens, and their inclusion of marginalized segments of society represents an essential voice in any national policy debate.142 It is also clear that one of the essential goals of any NGO, and a measurement of success used by USAID itself, is the ability of NGOs to disseminate information to an informed populace.143 However, because of the Global Gag Rule, these agencies are denied democratic political participation, and it is this free flow of information that is specifically prevented by the Rules restriction on advocacy. Moreover, the agency providing the gagged U.S. funding and enforcing the Rules prohibitions is also promoting the democratic involvement and political advocacy of these gagged NGOs.144 AND, AFRICANS CAN NOT CHALLENGE GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION AND CONTROL WITHOUT PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE ALLOWING AFRICANS TO FORMULATE THEIR OWN DEMOCRACIES THROUGH ACTIVE POLITICAL VOICE IS A NECESSARY, ETHICAL CHECK ON LIFE AND DEATH
Udombana 03 [Nsongurua J., Senior Lecturer & Acting Head, Department of Jurisprudence and International Law, University of Lagos, Nigeria; former visiting Research Fellow, The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Copenhagen, Denmark; LL.M., LL.B., University of Lagos, Nigeria; Member of the Nigerian Bar, ARTICULATING THE RIGHT TO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA Michigan Journal of International Law, Summer 2003, lexis] / karen
[*1286] This Article identifies the challenges to democratization in Africa and suggests remedial actions - such as erecting and strengthening the institutional structures for democratic governance and working to reduce poverty and illiteracy - since these are the possible routes toward instilling meaning in the idyllic words of global and regional instruments. There are no rules of architecture for a castle in the clouds. The AU must move from dreaming to doing, and must strive to make the right to democratic governance real in Africa. African nations in general, must allow democracy and the rule of law to blossom, since the absence of the rule of law implies the presence of rule by law.n439 Fundamental challenges at the heart of development require not only leadership and resources, but a legal response as well; and a key barometer of Africa's progress will be the promotion of, and respect for, the rule of law. Similarly, economic, social, cultural, and political transformations are taking place daily in the continent, and a healthy degree of press freedom and political participation could help to absolve the strains of such wrenching changes. n440 At any rate, freedom and a genuine and meaningful political participation are among the tools for
democracy. Since Africans themselves are agents of sustainable democracy, they must never forget that the military remains the most formidable threat to democracy in Africa. They must watch out for such self-seeking and corrupt adventurers seeking to reap where they do not sow and must rise up and shout with one voice: "Never again!" to despotism, tyranny, and mismanagement of African economies. Despotism is almost always the end of societies that have been highly democratic. Africans must not allow the dying dynasty of dictators to resurrect in the continent. They must particularly resist trends toward omnipotence by incumbent rulers; and they should do so through
nonviolent disobedience, including sit-ins, strikes, and demonstrations - the kind that the international community has witnessed, and is witnessing, in the South American countries of Haiti, Argentina and Venezuela. Such actions will send clear messages to [*1287] prospective military adventurers that the era of military rule is over, "in the interest of the African image, progress, and development, and for the creation of an environment in which human rights values may flourish."n441
Africans must never forget that democracy, for all intents and purposes, is subversive of extant conventional social and political orders and relations. They must work to reconstruct such orders, bearing in mind that there are many imperfect democracies in the continent, and that the process of state building is far from complete. Since democracy itself is a goal as well as a process, there has to be continuous consultation, construction, and reconstruction to meet changing needs and opinions. As a Ghanaian taxi driver is reported
to have said: "government is like a T-shirt. If you don't change it from time to time, it begins to stink."n442 The process of democratic reconstruction certainly will not be simple, since the natural person is resistant to change and the oppressor does not usually give freedom and, a fortiori, democracy, voluntarily. The oppressed Africans must demand freedom, which is a cherished ideal. This struggle for change requires courage, for where courage is lacking, no other virtue can survive except by accident. Of course, the resolution to engineer change will sometimes relax, and diligence will sometimes be interrupted; but no accidental surprise or deviation, whether short or long, should dispose Africans to despondency. This is a life and death struggle; and, indeed, several Africans - including Nigeria's M.K.O. Abiolan443 - have died in defense of
democracy. Too much is at stake for silence to be anyone's option.
AND, FOSTERING CIVIL SOCIETY IS A KEY CHECK ON THE SPREAD OF GENOCIDE
AND, Civil Societies in African countries are historically necessary checks against totalitarian governments and bulwarks of democracy. Makumbe 1998 (John Mw Is There a Civil Society in Africa?; International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 74, No. 2. (Apr., 1998), pp. 305-317.) In most of Africa, civil society has been effective in bringing about social and political change. Indeed, some of the most active civic groups and coalitions in Africa were instrumental in the overthrow of authoritarian regimes and the installation of democracy in their countries. Post-independence Africa witnessed a continent-wide drive towards authoritarian one-party systems of governance, some of which claimed to be socialist in nature. The main argument advanced in favour of this approach as opposed to the multi-party system of as alien to Africa, and a costly luxury in a backward continent in dire need of development. The reality of the matter was simply that African political leaders were anxious to eliminate or, at the least, effectively control all forms of political opposition in their countries by occupying all possible political space through their parties and the control of state power and institutions. With all state power at their disposal, Africa's political leaders became invincible, or so they thought. Some declared themselves 'life presidents'; others looted
state coffers in broad daylight; virtually all of them made brutal use of the state machinery to crush all opposition, including that emanating from their own political parties. Many dissenters were detained, killed, maimed or forced to go into exile for long periods. Others were even followed and lulled in foreign lands, or were forcibly brought home to face charges. Meanwhile, the people were increasingly becoming despondent and disenchanted with the oppressive regimes. Political participation was replaced by depoliticization and withdrawal. Many, seeing their role in political life reduced to a farce, incapable of bringing about any change of government or improve- The disintegration of the socialist world in the late 1980s, following Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost, Western democracies was that the one-party state was African in character, and therefore more suited to the style of governance for Africa. Multi-partyism was viewed as divisive, splitting the people, and therefore a negation of national unity, that essential ingredient of national development. Democracy was seen
seems to have triggered widespread civil unrest in Africa. Both society and opposition parties challenged the status quo in most oneparty states and military regimes, forcing them to accede to some form of democratization of the political systems in these countries.
In a major study of political transitions in Africa, Bratton and Van de Walle lucidly outline some of the major developments on the continent between 1988 and 1994: The first half of the 1990s saw widespread political turbulence across the African continent, which can be surnrnarised with
reference to a few key political trends. Transitions away from one-party and military regimes started with political protest, evolved through liberalisation reforms, often culminated in competitive elections, and usually ended with the installation of new forms of regimes. While not unfolding uniformly and to the same extent everywhere, these movements and institutional rearrangements were evident to some degree in almost all African countries. Together, they amounted to the most far-reaching shifts in African political life since the time of political independence 30 years earlier. Starting in 1990, the number of political protests in sub-Saharan Africa rose dramatically from about 20 incidents annually during the 1980s to a peak of some 86 major protest events across 30 countries in 1991. The following year marked the pinnacle of a trend of increased political liberty in which African governments gradually introduced reforms to guarantee previously denied civil rights. There was also a marked upswing in the number of competitive
national elections, from no more than two annually in the 1980s to a record 14 in 1993. That the general direction of change was toward democracy is evidenced by the gradually increased availability of basic political rights, which climbed steadily from a low point in 1989 to a peak in 1994. There is thus little doubt that Africans experienced a broad and pronounced ferment of political change in the early 1990s. These political changes could not have occurred without the full participation of an active and dynamic civil society in Africa. ADVANTAGE _____: SOFT POWER FIRST, THE WORLD LACKS A LEADER IN THE AREA OF GLOBAL HEALTH THE US SHOULD SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REINVIGORATE ITS SOFT POWER Kickbusch 2002 [Ilona, PhD, Head of the Division of Global Health at Yale University School of Medicine, Influence And Opportunity: Reflections On The U.S. Role In Global Public Health; Lack of a central government leader has led to a global public health crisis, Health Affairs, Vol 21, Issue 6, Nov-Dec 2002, lexis] / karen Today's global health crisis illustrates many of the transnational governance challenges the United States faces today. In the arena of global health, the United States can create a new role for itself by moving beyond a national interest paradigm and strengthening its "soft power position in health. Health in recent administrations has moved beyond being "just a humanitarian issue to being one with major economic and security interests. Despite U.S. unilateralism, new approaches to global health governance are being developed by other actors, who have influenced the U.S. agenda and made important contributions. Yet a larger leader is still needed, especially in identifying and following a sound legal and regulatory global health governance system; bringing political legitimacy; and setting priorities. Responsible political action is needed to develop a new mindset and lay the groundwork for better global health in the future. It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world. Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792 In his recent analysis of u.s. foreign policy, Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, argued that the United States must come to terms with what he calls the paradox of American power: The stronger the United States is, the more it must orient itself toward a new global community. It must rely less on traditional measures of power such as military strength and more on the "soft power that comes from culture, values, and institutions. [n1] This differentiation between hard and soft power has been a major subtext of all discussions on America's role in the new global environment since the fall of the Berlin Wall and in particular in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the face of a global health crisis, Nye's paradox can help to define a new role that America can play. This role would imply strengthening the U.S. softpower role in health by moving beyond both a nationalinterest paradigm and an international diseasecontrol model based on macroeconomic arguments. A key dimension of this new global health strategy would be to address the larger issues of social justice, democracy, and law that are paramount to health in the context of globalization and that are part of U.S. political tradition. The global community expects the United States to take softpower leadership. The repeated suggestion of a new Marshall Plan or the call to contribute more generously to the new Global Fund on AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria is not just about more dollars. It is the plea of the global community that the United States apply the strength of vision and determination that it has shown in other historical crises to health and development today. [n2] AND, REVERSING THE GAG RULE WILL SHORE UP SOFT POWER OUR ALLIES ARE BACKLASHING AGAINST OUR UNILATERAL STANCE ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Boston Globe 2001 ("A Vote for Women," pg A22, May 9, 2001, lexis) / karen The global gag rule, instituted by President Reagan and adopted by each Republican administration since, cuts off funds for grassroots health agencies
working abroad if they so much as discuss abortion choices - even in those countries where abortion is legal. But US law already bans direct funds for abortions overseas, and it has since 1973. What the global gag rule does is strangle the other efforts of reproductive health groups, like ensuring hygienic conditions for childbirth, training birth attendants and midwives, reducing sexually transmitted diseases, combatting anemia in pregnant women, and helping girls to delay pregnancy past age 13. Every minute in the devoloping world, women and infants die because of poor reproductive health. A study issued in March by the relief group CARE estimated that one in 65 women in developing countries will die during pregnancy or childbirth. This rate is 33 times higher than in the industrialized world. The number of abortions worldwide is shocking: 46 million pregancies are terminated annually, the vast majority of these in developing nations. Even in countries where abortion is outlawed, desperately poor women often risk death or severe injury by seeking out underground abortions. In Latin
America, unsafe abortions cause nearly half of all maternal deaths, a quarter of these to teenage girls. Yet some 500 million couples do not have access to effective family planning, the best way to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion. This is the work of the reproductive health groups the global gag rule impedes.
Last Wednesday, the House International Relations Committee voted for an amendment to overturn the Bush policy, 26-22, with three Republicans joining the majority. Supporters of family planning have reason to be optimistic about the full House. There is no unanimity on this issue within the Republican Party or even in the Bush administration, where Secretary of State Colin Powell has said he personally disagrees with the policy. The Bush adminstration has roiled relations with foreign allies through its unilateral affronts to the Kyoto global warming treaty, the antiballistic missile pact, and world population programs. By overturning the gag rule, Congress would be taking a step toward restoring
faith with those governments - and with millions of poor families worldwide.
ADVANTAGE ____: FREE SPEECH INITIALLY, THE MEXICO CITY POLICY IS A VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION JONES 2004 [Allegra, editor, The Mexico City Policy and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/10_TXT.htm] The Policys provisions prohibiting advocacy that actively promotes abortion are inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because they restrict U.S.-based organizations communication activities, discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, and unfairly place U.S.-based NGOs that advocate anti-abortion views abroad at an advantage over pro-choice NGOs trying to do the same work.99 The Policy restricts U.S.-funded foreign NGOs that support legalizing, decriminalizing, or liberalizing abortion laws
from communication activities, such as organizing or distributing information during public debates or media events, participating in public fora including internet discussions, testifying before or providing briefings to the U.S. Congress, or attending or speaking publicly at UN conferences.100 Hence, when asked to testify before the U.S. Congress in 2001 at a hearing on the Mexico City Policys effects on international family planning funding, the President of a Peruvian NGO had to appear in a U.S. federal court to receive legal permission to testify without threatening her groups funding.101 The Center for Reproductive Rights, formerly known as the Center for Law and Reproductive Policy (CRLP), is a U.S.-based organization that advocates for reproductive health law reform in the United [*PG204]States and abroad.102 It brought an unprecedented lawsuit against President Bush in 2002, claiming, in part, that the gag rule violated its First Amendment rights by impeding its ability to lobby for abortion reform in foreign countries.103 Because it regularly works with gagged NGOs, the organization claimed that the implementation of President Bushs restrictions violated its First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly and association, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.104 In dismissing CRLP v. Bush, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relied on Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Agency for International Development (AID), which held that any impairment of PPFAs freedom of speech, association, or privacy by the Mexico City Policy was permissible because it rationally furthered a legitimate governmental interest using the least restrictive means.105 Reasoning that the plaintiffs in CRLP were not legally distinguishable from those in PPFA, the CRLP court implicitly determined that the Policy rationally furthered the legitimate governmental objective of refraining from funding abortion overseas, and the Policy also accomplished the governments objective by using the least restrictive means.106
Opponents of the global gag rule are also concerned about the rules viewpoint-based discrimination of speech.107 The rule permits [*PG205]anti-abortion communications but prohibits pro-choice communications by foreign NGOs.108 This particular restriction does not apply to domestic NGOs because it would violate their First Amendment rights to free speech, but foreign groups cannot invoke the First Amendment, as they do not receive protection under the U.S. Constitution.109
CRLP challenged this aspect of the Policy by claiming that it violated the organizations Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.110 Specifically, the group maintained that the Policy put anti-abortion groups at an unfair advantage over CRLP when communicating with foreign NGOs and advocating for abortion law reform.111 Although the court acknowledged that the Policy bestowed a benefit on [CRLPs] competitive adversaries engaged in advocacy, it dismissed this claim, finding that the governments preference for the anti-abortion position was rational.112
AND, It is only through criticism and free speech that world problems can be solve world leaders are insulated from public opinion, and must be criticized to force positive change, this grounds democratic politics Gumede visiting research fellow @ skool of public and development management @ Witwatersrand University 2k5 (William, Democracy and the importance of criticism, dissent and public dialogue http://www.wolpetrust.org.za/dialogue2005/DN042005gumede_paper.htm Though the press can do great harm, it can also enhance public justice and promote economic and social development. At the most basic level, the press, and free speech in general, play a crucial role in communication between citizens themselves and their government. It also has a protective function in a democracy, by giving voice to the vulnerable, disadvantaged and neglected issues. The rulers of a nation are often insulated, in their own lives, from the misery of the common people. They can live through a national calamity without sharing the fate of the victims. If, however, they face public criticism in the media, they might have a strong incentive to take action or deal with the problems of the poor and vulnerable. The press also has a role in disseminating knowledge and allowing critical scrutiny not only specialised reporting, but just informing people on whats happening. Moreover, informed and unregimented formation of values requires openness of communication and argument. New, priorities and values emerge through public discourse, and it spread through public discussion. Are the South African media up to the task? With exceptions, we are witnessing the implosion of journalism. This is largely the result of the concentration
of the production and dissemination of both news and entertainment, often amalgamated into infotainment and the tab iodisation of the media. Public fears remain that the government exercise undue influence on the public broadcasting system.
Freedom of expression and independent journalism are among the pillars of a democracy. The scope for freedom of speech determines the public area for democratic exchange. This public information space ... is still the vitally important as it provides the life force for, but
may also set the limits of, democracy . Freedom of expression should not only encompass a negative freedom from censorship and coercion, but also involve positive measures to promote equal and effective participation in decision-making through transparency and open government. It is in the nature of
hierarchical power structures to become opaque and foster internal secrecy while seeking transparency from others in order to exercise maximum control .
The Importance of Dissent
Pity the ordinary or to use that wonderful euphemism the grassroots and middle ranking ANC member still willing to risk publicly criticizing the president, government or the party. The ugly and patently misguided unleashing by the ANC leadership of the full wrath of the ANCs arsenal on such political heavies - the moral icon archbishop Desmond Tutu and Coast leaders Zwelinzima Vavi and Willie Madisha leaders with huge mass support compared to the ordinary grassroots supporter or sympathiser, for really mildly criticizing government has done the job. Alarm bells should be ringing, if critics in a free society are portrayed as disloyal, unpatriotic or enemies of the state.
Obviously, in political organisations bonded by affection, friendship and solidarity, such as the ANC, members are often unwilling to be critical for fear that this will prove disruptive and violate the organisations internal norms. Dissenters might well cause tension but, importantly, they are also likely to improve the performance of the ANC and its policies. For many in the ANC, however, the rewards for conformity involve salaries, benefits and
advancement. Indeed, to dissent means not only material hardship and marginalisation, but loss of valued friendships and a warm supportive network. Moreover, public criticisms are portrayed as giving ammunition to reactionaries, forces opposed to transformation, disgruntled expatriate whites, or racists wanting to see a black government fail. Heeding internal criticism of government a serious social and political malaise and the cost to society is immense. Freedom of speech is a meaningless right if group pressure demands conformity, but the real victims are those who are deprived of information and views they need. Already large numbers of black and progressive white intellectuals in South Africa have, to all intents, withdrawn from public debate, and society is the poorer for their silence. The greater danger is a decline in intellectual self-reflection, both within the state and among its critics, about what is actually happening on the ground. This happened in India and ultimately led to the backsliding of another once great liberation movement, the
Indian Congress Party. Institutions have a better chance of success if their leaders are subject to scrutiny and if their actions are continually monitored and reviewed. Moreover, leaders who explain themselves and can be questioned instead of merely issuing dictates and introducing policies that are beyond criticism are far more likely to be followed than those who discourage dissent and crush debate are. Irving Janis developed the notion of groupthink in the early 1970s and 1980s to describe the kind of decisionmaking that predictably leads to social blunders and policy failures. So, for example, when US president Lyndon Johnson and his advisors escalated the Vietnam War, it was because the leading group stifled dissent and tried to enforce consensus. A different case has been the recent sexual harassment scandals in the Catholic church. Often, victims and witnesses refrained from bringing deeply traumatic incidents into the open at great personal costs, because they feared bring the institution of the church and religion into disrepute. weakness is more constructive than wasting time and energy on such worries. Differently, others argue that the government has not yet had enough time to prove itself. Not surprisingly many bite their tongue rather than risk all this. But self-censorship is
Organisations susceptible to groupthink pressure their members into uniformity and self-censorship, thus creating the illusion of unanimity. This is fostered by direct pressure on any members who argue against the groups stereotypes, illusions and commitments. Increasingly, there is an eroding of internal democracy within the ANC. The case in opposition parties, for example the Democratic Alliance and
Inkatha Freedom Party, are most probably even worse. But a case can be made for political parties internal workings to reflect the democratic ethos and constitution, since they are subsidized through the public purse. Obviously, party leadership must have some powers of intervention, for example if it wants to push women leadership to the top or bring some geographic representivity to the leadership. Worryingly many ANC leaders even mimic the smallest mannerism of Mbeki. We see mini-me's, often verging on cult worship of the leader. South Africa must have a political culture that encourages disagreement and does not penalise those who depart from the prevailing orthodoxy.
Moreover, in a culture of silence and fear, there is the very real risk that leaders will not receive the information they require to make good decisions. When members of the ANC feel free to differ from the president or the party leaders, society is likely to hear
a wider range of opinions, and better decisions may result. Policy errors are most likely to occur when people are rewarded for conformity. A system of free expression and dissent protects against false confidence and the inevitable mistakes of planners in both the private and public arenas. If there had been more openness and discussion for example on governments market friendly economic policy, the Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy (Gear), opposition and the its cost to society might have been lower. Indeed, the economic and political cost to society of muzzling dissenting voices is huge. A lack of public criticisms, dialogue and dissent are deadly, it costs lives. If
more senior ANC leaders had questioned Mbeki and the governments controversial Aids policies and costly theorising around the pandemic, anti-retroviral drugs might have been made available at state hospitals much earlier, thousands of lives might have been saved and the devastating social consequences of the AIDS pandemic might have been ameliorated.
AND, Freedom of speech must come before everything else with it governments force conformity on people through manipulation of the media, destroying value to life Kay prof anthropology @ oxford 1997 (Jon, George Orwell's First Amendment http://www.omnivore.org/jon/orwell/George%20Orwell's%20First%20Amendment.html) / parquer George Orwells 1984 is many things. It is an indictment of totalitarianism. It is a dystopic science fiction fantasy. It is political satire. Perhaps more than anything, however, it is a book about the psychic pain of censorship.
In Orwells nightmare world, the surface of the globe is divided into three warring states, each a totalitarian dictatorship far more repressive than any the real world has yet known:
By comparison with that existing to-day, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient.Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical
advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police, and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete
uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed. Under Orwells conception of the totalitarian state, war, repression, torture, and propaganda are all merely the outward instruments which assist the state to lay siege to the human mind. Absolute power can only exist indefinitely if wielded by infallible and omnipotent leaders. But, since no human is infallible or omnipotent - even in a totalitarian regime - the very fabric of truth must be mangled in order to provide the illusion of infallibility and omnipotence. To perform the task of obliterating objective truth, the past must be continually rewritten
and human memories must be wrenched into conformity. One of the central themes of 1984 is the fundamental incompatibility between totalitarian political rule and independent thought. In this sense, 1984 reflects Orwells belief that the destruction of objective truth is a more dangerous consequence of totalitarianism than gulags and truncheons. Orwell despised all brands of nationalistic dogma - but he had a special contempt and distrust for Stalinist Communism and Nazism because he saw that propaganda in the service of a fuehrer-centered power clique threatened the idea of objective truth in a special way.
Orwell grasped before anyone else that Stalin and Hitler challenged the mental independence of their subjects in a way that capitalist, religious and feudal despots of the past had not. Since total outward conformity is necessary for survival in Orwells nightmare world, the human concept of self collapses to an abstraction - but that does not mean that it disappears altogether. Because he at least has dominion over his own mind, the heretic Winston Smith, 1984s protagonist, is very much a real human who commands the readers total empathy. The fact that he lives in a world without physical freedom and dignity is irrelevant. He is human because he has the power to remember past events and to love others and to control his own thoughts. The recanted
Winston Smith of 1984s final pages, however, is not nearly a true human being - though he actually enjoys more physical freedom and more dignity than his human precursor. His humanity has been ripped out in the Ministry of Love. The physical death which awaits him is an afterthought to the annihilation he has already suffered.
Human life loses a good deal of its value when the physical self is not free. The lesson of 1984 is that this loss pales compared to the nullification of the human spirit which results when a human loses control of his own thinking processes. The most important political struggle is that which takes place between individuals and society for control of the inner mind. Under the Orwellian rubric, the bounds of freedom of speech must be defined in the shadow of this struggle. ADVANTAGE _____: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CREDIBILITY INITIALLY, Stringent regulations in the Gag Rule violate International Law agreements, undermining human rights and shattering US credibility. YVETTE AGUILAR, St. Mary's University School of Law, Fall, 2002 (Comments Gagging On A Bad Rule: 1The Mexico City Policy And Its Effect On Women In Developing Countries 5 SCHOLAR 37, Lexis) / braswell
In addition to conflicting with the internal policies of developing nations, the Global Gag Rule conflicts with several international treaties and agreements. These international agreements can be divided into two categories; those which the United States have consented to promote and follow and those which it has refused to ratify. A. Treaties Ratified by the United States 1. The United Nations Charter
As a member of the United Nations, the United States is obligated to follow the provisions of the UN charter. Article 55 of the United Nations Charter outlines theories and practices member nations should promote in an effort to create stability and amicable relations between nations. 202 The
UN charter states that member nations should promote "social progress and development; solutions of international economic, social,
health, and related problems." 203 The charter further provides that promotion of aforementioned ideals should be done without discriminating on the Global Gag Rule violates Articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter. It has a disparate impact on the social and developmental progress of women by prohibiting access to all forms of abortion information. 205 It limits the ability of women in developing countries to be [*63] thoroughly informed about reproductive choices that may be legally and socially acceptable in their respective countries. 206 2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights In addition to the UN Charter, the Global Gag Rule is also in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States and other members of the United Nations signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. 207 This declaration provides that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including... medical care and necessary social services." 208 Access to family planning programs is a necessary medical and social service, as it promotes the health and well being of women in developing countries. By eliminating access to family planning services and information, the Global Gag Rule denies women in developing countries access to information. 3. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Finally, the Global Gag Rule is in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Unites States ratified this covenant in 1992. 209 Under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice." By prohibiting NGOs from disseminating information about [*64] the full range of family planning alternatives, 211 the Global Gag Rule restricts the right of women in developing countries to seek or receive information. The Global Gag Rule and its chilling effect on the ability to seek and receive information on abortion is a clear violation of the terms of the treaty. As a signatory of the treaty, the United States has a duty to follow its terms. B. Treaties Not Ratified by the United States The Global Gag Rule also conflicts with several other treaties
basis of "race, sex, language, or religion." 204 The
210 212
that have yet to be ratified by the United States. When the Mexico City Policy was announced at the United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City, a delegation from the United States cited the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child as support for the policy. 213 However, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child never states that the legal protections provided to children before birth are at all times superior to the rights of the mother and her reproductive choice. 214 Further, the United Nations has adopted more recent treaties dealing with the rights of children, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 215 Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child has not been ratified by the United States, it too incorporates the provision of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child cited as support for the Mexico [*65] City Policy. 216 Continued reliance on this provision alone as support of the Global Gag Rule, however, ignores several other provisions that directly conflict with the purpose of the Global Gag Rule. 217
Finally, the GGR violates various provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, [*66] Social and Cultural Rights 218 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 219 Imposition of [*67] the GGR ignores important rights that are recognized and protected by these treaties. By failing to ratify these treaties and issuing a policy that directly conflicts with the rights recognized in them, the United States is undermining its credibility in the international community.
AND, THE MEXICO CITY POLICY IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL FREE SPEECH AND HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS JONES 2004 [Allegra, editor, The Mexico City Policy and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa, BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_1/10_TXT.htm] The Mexico City Policy undoubtedly violates the free speech guarantees of international human rights instruments to which the United States is a party.113 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted without dissent by the UN General Assembly in 1948.114 The principles expressed in the UDHR include that all men and women are entitled to the right to freedom of opinion and expression.115 These principles are legally binding on the U.S. through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference . . . . Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, [*PG206]in writing or in print . . . .116 The global gag rule expressly violates the spirit of this agreement, as well as the explicit rights it seeks to protect.117 As such, the rule not only impairs the freedom of expression of U.S.-funded foreign NGOs that wish to pursue expressive communications with their own, separate funds, it also violates the rights of patients and citizens seeking medical advice to be fully informed.118 International human rights law, however, does not provide a particularly powerful means for attacking the Policy because many international treaties lack enforcement mechanisms and offer limited fora for challenging violations.119 One human rights law scholar points out that the effectiveness of a challenge to the Mexico City Policy need not be based upon a final decision of [an] adjudicatory body.120 Rather the mobilization of public opinion is more likely to reverse it.121
United States human rights promotion provides credibility necessary to fight the war on terror. Malinowski 2004 (Washington Advocacy Director U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/usint9009_txt.htm) Third, promoting human rights and democracy is important because Americas moral authority partly depends on it. American power in the world is more likely to be respected when it is harnessed to goals that are universally shared. People around the world are more likely to aid the United States in the fight against terrorism and other important goals if they believe the United States is also interested in defending their rights and aspirations. When America is seen to be compromising the values it has long preached, its credibility and influence are diminished. Another terrorist attack on the US will result in extinctionthe US will retaliate and nuclear pollution will affect the entire planet. Sid-Ahmed 2004, Political analyst for Al-Ahram Newspaper for more than 20 years and author of several books on the Middle East issues, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
ADVANTAGE ___: DEMOCRACY PROMOTION THE GLOBAL GAG RULE HALTS EFFORTS BY USAID TO POUR RESOURCES INTO DEMOCRACY PROMOTION SEEVERS 2006 [Rachel, JD, The Politics of Gagging, BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil31iii_seevers.pdf] Not only does the Global Gag Rule conflict with the international consensus established at the ICPD to allow states to determine their own abortion policies, it also conflicts with other major objectives of U.S. foreign policy.100 USAID, the U.S. agency that distributes family planning funding to foreign NGOs, has many objectives in its involvement with foreign governments.101 While the Global Gag Rule restrictions operate within the USAID family planning program, USAID also maintains an extensive democracy promotion effort and pours money into developing democracies across the globe in order to facilitate and encourage their transition into democratic governance and foster civil participation.102 Over 70 percent of all USAID field missions worldwide have identified strategic objectives related to democracy and governance, making this one of the agencys major missions.103
AND, FREE EXPRESSION BY NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE VITAL TO DEMOCRACY PROMOTION SEEVERS 2006 [Rachel, JD, The Politics of Gagging, BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil31iii_seevers.pdf] NGOs were recognized by USAID as essential actors in democracy promotion, however much of an NGOs ability to foster democratic participation hinges on its ability to speak openly and advocate to local and national government actors.126 The importance of this freedom to disseminate information was also noted by Natsios, who insists that the most significant way that
NGOs affect foreign policy is by facilitating the free flow of information and by speaking out on behalf of the population they represent.127 This sentiment is echoed by reproductive rights advocates.128 Development of human rights throughout the world is dependent on the efforts of NGOs to gather, process, and disseminate information with their domestic constituencies as well as with world organizations like the UN and nation state governments.129 A routine part of USAIDs analysis of the success of local NGOs in the political process is an examination of the percentage of the populace that is aware of the NGOs chosen issue or advocacy goal.130 USAID has determined that this is a relevant measure of NGO success because knowledge is a prerequisite to support and informed support is more useful than uninformed support . . . getting an issue on the public screen is an important contribution. 131 AND, Democracy necessitates public participation, fairness, government accountability, and interaction between the government and the governed. We have an obligation to promote democracy in Africait prevents wars, conflicts and promotes sustainable economic development. Udombana 03 [Nsongurua J., Senior Lecturer & Acting Head, Department of Jurisprudence and International Law, University of Lagos, Nigeria; former visiting Research Fellow, The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Copenhagen, Denmark; LL.M., LL.B., University of Lagos, Nigeria; Member of the Nigerian Bar, ARTICULATING THE RIGHT TO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA Michigan Journal of International Law, Summer 2003, lexis] / karen
This Article, however, asserts that democracy must be defined functionally, rather than as involving just formal political processes like periodic elections. Democracy is an ideology demanding that those entrusted with
n102 A significant element of democracy is reciprocity, "between governors and the governed, between those who exercise political leadership in society [*1230] and those who are led, between those who exercise authority and those who are the subjects of this
authority must use it for the common or public good. authority."n103
Democracy is connected "to thoughts about ... aspirations, solidarity, virtue, faith, [and] the development of political identities" in a civilized society.n104 More specifically, it is the right of peoples to make choices about the quality of their lives: the participation of all segments of society - not just the majority - in decisions that affect their lives. Democracy also requires that people have equal access to information so that they can make these decisions intelligently. It also means equality before law enforcement agencies, including equal protection from arbitrary
interference, whether it is from government officials or private actors. It involves the fair distribution of resources, including equal access to education. n105
A component of democracy is the right of citizens freely to express their opinions on all matters of governance. This includes the right to protest, dissent, or even disobey the laws. It even includes the right to abolish the government when it becomes destructive of citizens' rights and, ultimately, "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."n106
ii. Governance; Good Governance
Governance, in contradistinction with democracy, is the process whereby public institutions conduct public affairs, manage public resources, and guarantee the realization of human rights. Put differently, it is the structure of rules and processes that affect the exercise of power, particularly with regard to openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence. Goran Hyden defines it as that aspect of politics that aims to formulate and manage the rules of the political arena in which state and civil society actors operate and interact to make authoritative decisions. In more operational terms, governance refers to those measures that involve setting the rules for the exercise of power and settling conflicts over such rules. Such rules translate into constitutions, laws, customs, administrative regulations, and international agreements, [*1231] all of which in one way or the other provide the framework for the formulation and implementation of policy decisions.n107 Good governance, in particular, is "the responsible use of political authority to manage a nation's affairs."n108 It is the key to economic development and, therefore, must be participatory, transparent, and accountable. n109 It must also be effective and equitable, in order to promote the rule of law. n110 The yardsticks for its measurement are effective leadership, technical policy competence, and administrative efficiency. Good governance, really, is a basket of many practices: "a professional civil
service, elimination of corruption in government, a predictable transparent and accountable administration, democratic decision-making, the supremacy of the rule of law, effective protection of human rights, an independent judiciary, a fair economic system, appropriate devolution and decentralization of government, [and] appropriate levels of military spending." n111 The true test of "good" governance is the extent "to which it delivers on the promise of human rights - civil, cultural, economic, political, and social." n112 iii. Right to Democratic Governance The right to democratic governance has been defined as: the subjective capacity of individuals and peoples to demand of their rulers a political regime based on the rule of law and separation of powers, in which citizens can periodically elect their leaders and representatives in free and fair elections, on the basis of the interaction between a number of political parties, [*1232] full respect for the exercise of the freedoms of expression, the press and association and the effective enjoyment of human rights.n113
Democratic governance is about how individuals and societies can achieve institutions that make politics both civil and capable. Democratic decision-making gains its legitimacy from being rooted in the people. Accountability is defined as "holding public officials responsible for their actions."n114 As one observer noted, "Accountable governance is about reconstituting a political order in which the state's accountability towards society is increased. It ... brings state and society closer to each other," allowing for "a degree of bargaining between the government and the public," as well as increasing the public's discretion concerning the use of public resources. n115 In short,
accountability involves the constitution of the individual as a citizen with rights and duties rather than merely as a subject. This is a necessary condition for popular sovereignty and, ultimately, democracy. 1. The Case for a Right to Democratic Governance Many contemporary international jurists and scholars have advocated for recognition of the right to democratic governance. The foremost advocate is Thomas Franck,n116 and his proposition will be the point of departure for the discourse that follows. Franck asserts that "democratic entitlement" is a recognized and recognizable right. He anchors his theory on two notions: the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed n117 - a Lockeian [*1233] philosophyn118 - and the idea that the international legitimacy of a State requires acknowledgement by mankind. n119 These two notions form a "radical vision" that is "rapidly becoming, in our time, a normative rule of the international system." n120 Analyzing the international community's response to the coup in the former Soviet Union and in Haiti, Franck argues that, "a new legal entitlement is being created, based in part on custom and in part on the collective interpretation of treaties." n121 According to Franck, a community expectation has emerged, to the intent that "those who seek the validation of their empowerment patently govern with the consent of the governed. Democracy, thus, is on the way to becoming a global entitlement, one that increasingly will be promoted and protected by collective international processes."n122 The "democratic entitlement," he continues, is gradually being transformed "from moral prescription to international legal obligation" n123 largely because such entitlement results from "the craving of governments for validation." n124 As Franck argues, [In order to] achieve such a system of autochthonous validation (and thus to facilitate governing), those who hold or seek political power have made a far-sighted bargain comparable to John Locke's social compact; they have surrendered control over the nation's validation process to various others: national electoral [*1234] commissions, judges, an inquisitive press and, above all, the citizenry acting at the ballot box.n125 Franck argues that the evolution of democratic entitlement has occurred in three normative phases. The first phase was the right to self-determination, followed by free expression and, finally, "the entitlement to a participatory electoral process."n126 The right to self-determination, for example, has replaced the previously accepted norm of colonialism at the end of the Second World War. n127 As a universal concept, it encompasses obligations owed by all governments to their citizens, as well as to the international community. n128 The history of self-determination is, indeed, "a remarkable saga that tells of a rule that gradually augments its compliance pull, overcomes resistance and ultimately brings about an incontestable, historic transformation." n129 It is far from certain, however, that self-determination will lead to a "universal right to democracy," since the former "must permit a people to decide its own political system and form of government." n130
Franck's argument is also embedded in the idea of national democracy. In other words, the territorial state continues to define the limits of the democratic community. All that is necessary to satisfy the human right to democratic government is the creation and maintenance of national democratic institutions, including periodic elections and a representative assembly. There are also institutional voices that recognize the right to democratic governance. For example, in 1999, the U.N. Human Rights Commission adopted a resolution on the Promotion of the Right to Democracy,n131 which, significantly, was the first text approved in the U.N. recognizing the existence of this right. The resolution refers to developments in international law related to the recognition of democracy as a value for international protection, and to its interdependence with human rights. It recalls the large body of international law and instruments, including the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and those of the General Assembly, and confirms "the right to full participation [*1235] and the other fundamental democratic rights and freedoms inherent in any democratic society."n132 Furthermore, the U.N. recognizes that "the right to development and the principle of the right of self-determination of peoples are concepts that are mutually interdependent with democracy and human rights." n133
This recognition of the interdependence between democracy and development is particularly significant for Africa, which is struggling with questions of sustainable development. The continent has remained "the most backward in terms of development from whatever angle it is viewed and the most vulnerable as far as peace, security and stability are concerned."n134 Regrettably, African leaders have, until recently, failed to see that bad governance is the main reason for the underdevelopment of the continent. The UN Human Rights Commission has demarcated the various layers of the right to democratic governance.n135 These include: (a) the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, of thought, conscience and religion, and of peaceful association and assembly; (b) the right ... to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media; (c) the rule of law, including legal protection of citizens'
rights, interests and personal security, and fairness in the administration of justice and independence of the judiciary; (d) the right of universal and equal suffrage, as well as free voting procedures and periodic and free elections.n136 Other rights it has distinguished are: accountable government institutions; (g) the right of citizens to choose their governmental system through constitutional and other democratic means; and (h) the right to equal access to public service in one's own country.n137 [*1236] 2. How Democratic Governance Entered Into the Human Rights Agenda A number of developments led to the emergence of a right to democratic governance in international law. Franck, for example, cites U.N. instruments and programs in the field of human rights and electoral assistance.n138 Each of these instruments recognizes related specific entitlements as accruing to individual citizens, thus constituting internationally mandated restraints on governments. Others, however, trace the development to the insistence by Western aid donors on open and accountable government as a condition precedent to development assistance n139 to the poorer countries of the South. n140 Donor governments and agencies are continuously making decisions on which country to assist, how much aid to give, and for what purposes - largely because aid needs are much larger than available aid.n141 Up to the 1980s, conditions were only economic ones. Human rights were peripheral, for example, to the European Community (now European Union), essentially because the Council was founded as an [*1237] economic association. Besides, European nations were reluctant to condemn States that had only recently been decolonized.n142 Of course, human rights are not synonymous with democracy; but they are generally regarded as conditions for enhancing democracy and have, in recent memory, become the basic condition in deciding on performancerelated aid. Actually, the problems and consequences of marginalizing human rights and democracy from development led to a reformulation of donor aid policy in the late 1980s.n143 After the Cold War, the EU countries began to attach political conditions - including respect for human rights - to their development cooperation agreements. Western financial institutions imposed structural adjustments and economic stabilization as conditions for their assistance to African governments. They also insisted that aid must not support systems that deprive citizens of equal opportunities to enjoy economic and other resources, including education and political participation without discrimination. n144 Explicit linkage between reported human rights violations and development aid has increased in the last couple of years. n145 As a corollary, it has been noted that good governance: was born at the end of an era in which concern with the misappropriating, inefficient and patrimonial State prevailed. [It] was introduced as part of an agenda of creating enabling States, i.e., States that would establish a room for maneuver of enterprises and citizens that would engender growth as well as efficient resource utilization. The good governance agenda was thus the child of a modified liberal agenda, which made concessions to the fact that efficient resource utilization also depended on modes of governance and public involvement.n146 [*1238] African countries themselves appeared to have acknowledged the connection between democratic governance and development aid when, in 1996, they admonished the West in the following words: "We hope our efforts in embarking on macro-economic and political reforms geared towards achieving greater equilibriums and creating an enabling economic environment for both local and foreign direct investments would be supported by a substantial reduction in the debt and a major inflow of debt-free financial assistance."n147 This Article will now turn to some illustrative studies on the development of democratic governance at the international level. It starts with the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed by the Heads of State or Government of the Conference (now Organization) on Security and Cooperation in Europe on November 21, 1990. The Charter provides a striking example of this new approach. In the all-European context of the Conference, "but phrased in a language which radiated beyond European boundaries,"n148 the Charter states that: The free will of the individual, exercised in democracy and protected by the rule of law, forms the necessary basis for successful economic and social development. We will promote economic activity which respects and upholds human dignity. Freedom and political pluralism are necessary elements in our common objective of developing market economies towards sustainable economic growth, prosperity, social justice, expanding employment and efficient use of economic resources. The success of the transition to market economy by countries making efforts to this effect is important and in the interest of us all.n149 The Lome Convention has become one of the many forms of North-South multilateral arrangements between Western donor countries and Africa. Under the agreement, which has been revised on many occasions,n150 sub-Saharan Africa is entitled generally to non-reciprocal duty-free access to the EU market; technical and industrial cooperation; [*1239] economic assistance under the European Development Fund scheme; and insurance schemes to compensate Lome States for fluctuations in earnings from primary commodity exports to the EU. Lome Conventions III and IV brought human rights into the forefront of European development policies. Lome Convention III, for example, explicitly incorporated the promotion of human rights as an objective of development cooperation.n151 The turning point, however, came in Lome Convention IV. It reiterates "the right of each State to determine its own political, social, cultural and economic policy options."n152 It, nevertheless, provides that: Cooperation shall be directed towards development centred on man, the main protagonist and beneficiary of development, which thus entails respect for and promotion of all human rights. Cooperation operations shall thus be conceived in accordance with the positive approach, where respect for human rights is recognised as a basic factor of real development and where cooperation is conceived as a contribution to the promotion of these rights.n153 The Contracting Parties further reiterate Their deep attachment to human dignity and human rights, which are legitimate aspirations of individuals and peoples. The rights in question are all human rights, the various categories thereof being indivisible and interrelated, each having its own legitimacy: non-discriminatory treatment; fundamental human rights; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights.n154 This express linkage of the promotion of human rights to development "creates a legal basis for advancing the observance of human [*1240] rights through specific development programs."n155 Indeed, the international concern for democratic governance in Africa could be further illustrated with the Council of Europe's 1992 statements on the human rights situations of Zaire, Togo, Burundi, Kenya, Algeria, and Equatorial Guinea. The statements were issued with a view "to promote and raise awareness concerning human rights and democracy," and to "consolidate the processes of peace and democratisation." n156 The World Bank has also promoted good governance practice, including reform of the public sector.n157 The Bank defines governance in a three dimensional framework. The first relates to "the form of political regime." The second relates to "the process by which authority is exercised in the management of [the] country's economic and social resources for development." The third dimension relates to "the capacity of governments to design, formulate, and implement policies and discharge [government] functions." n158 The Bank regards the first dimension as outside its mandate, preferring to concentrate on the second and third dimensions. n159 Governance, from these dimensions, is a means toward promoting economic development rather than an end in itself. n160 This restrictive, though significant, interpretation is understandably borne out of the Bank's mandate, n161 as its Articles of Agreement do not permit it to drown in the political waters of member countries. n162 [*1241] The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the other leg of the Bretton Woods stool, also promotes those components of good governance that relate to economic performance.n163 The same goes for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), n164 which develop good governance standards for its development assistance activities. To sum up, development assistance and other forms of resource transfers to Africa are now tied to political reforms. This results from the fact that the international community now regards democracy and good governance as essential parts of human flourishing. Although actual donor practices differ,n165 what is not in doubt is that: There is increasingly strong agreement among donors that political reforms in Africa must result in reduced corruption and more financial accountability, better observance of human rights, independent media and an independent judiciary, participatory politics, and a liberalized market economy in order to move closer to the ultimate goal of meaningful economic growth and development.n166 3. A Critique of the Discourse on Democratic Governance The good governance discourse will certainly boost the transmission of ideas in Africa. Not many, however, are convinced. Some believe that the whole concept of democratic governance is a gimmick, and that international law has no business promoting what will merely legitimize a neoimperialist agenda to remake the world in the image of the West.n167 In the context of Africa, it is said that the democratization process might [*1242] actually be a public relations trick by African autocrats who are bent on making their regimes more presentable to Western donors in the aftermath of the Cold War. Critics also believe that the global governance debate could legitimize exclusionary democracies, because of "the idea that democratisation necessarily goes hand-in-hand with the retreat of the state from its public welfare role and increased economic liberalisation."n168 It largely prohibits the emergence of democratic systems that cater to the needs of Africa's poor majority. Like in Zambia, Ghana, Kenya, and Cote d'Ivoire, the World Bank and the IMF, for example, adhere to the distinctly undemocratic notion that democracies can only count as examples of good governance "if the electorate chooses governments that adhere to a free market ideology." n169 The conditions that permeate African nation-states, though conducive to the triggering of the transitions from authoritarianism, have been inimical for further democratization and consolidation. The nature of the forces that the transition unleashes has put a tremendous burden on the democratic project, giving rise to the dominant form of democratic polity in Africa, the pseudo-democracyn170 or virtual democracy. n171 In this new form of democracy, "authoritarianism or, at least, illiberalism and neo-patrimonialism subsist alongside electoral competition." n172 In Kenya, aid donors initially played a central part in advancing the cause of multiparty activities. Subsequently and on several occasions, they actively impeded further democratization, in order to avoid "any path that could lead to a breakdown of the political and economic order, even if this meant legitimising and prolonging the regime's authoritarian rule." n173 Cameroon offers another illustration of incomplete transition to democracy, given [*1243] the widespread corruption of President Paul Biya's regime and his unscrupulous determination to cling to power.n174 Although the good governance discourse has, at least in theory, "encouraged the emergence of multi-party states in Africa [that indulge] in periodic elections," these states are in practice "forced to pander to the needs of international donors and investors at the expense of the poorer elements of their domestic constituencies."n175 The results are the birth of "democracies that are exclusionary both in the sense that they cannot incorporate the poor majority in any meaningful way, and to the extent that this is a form of democracy where the power and influence of external constituencies is extraordinarily high." n176 Western financial institutions, particularly the Bretton Woods cabals, are largely to blame for this messy situation in Africa. Joseph Stiglitz, ironically former Chief Economist of the World Bank, offers a chilling criticism of the Bank's sister - the IMF in these significant words:
(e) the right of political participation, including equal opportunity for all citizens to become candidates; (f) transparent and
The IMF likes to go about its business without outsiders asking too many questions. In theory, the fund supports democratic institutions in the nations it assists. In practice, it undermines the democratic process by imposing policies. Officially, of course, the IMF doesn't "impose" anything. It "negotiates" the conditions for receiving aid. But all the power in the negotiations is on one side - the IMF's - and the fund rarely allows sufficient time for broad consensus-building or even widespread consultations with either parliaments or civil society. Sometimes the IMF dispenses with the pretense of openness altogether and negotiates secret covenants.n177 There is a widening gap between current political arrangements and the promise of democracy to give control over public decision-making on a footing of equality among citizens. This has led to what Susan Marks calls "democratic melancholy."n178 According to Marks, "large arenas of public power are unaccountable. Many citizens consider political institutions so irrelevant and remote they do not bother to vote. [*1244] Universal suffrage has not brought equal opportunities to exercise and influence political power. Economic and social resources continue to be asymmetrically distributed; and so on."n179 Similarly, the harsh reality of scarcity conspires with liberal economic dictates to seriously undermine the promises of democracy: "Liberal democracy on the edge of empire is very thin indeed." n180 The good governance rhetoric has also succeeded in legitimizing the particular view that Africa, in particular, and the Third World, in general, requires Western intervention to develop.n181 Globalization may indeed reinforce, rather than weaken, cultural differentiation between Western and non-Western societies. This could trigger, in the process, culturally conservative and even reactionary backlashes capable of complicating the evolution of a global culture of human rights. n182 It may also undermine the articulation of shared social and political identity essential for sustainable economic growth. The civil society, thus, will not be able to articulate its position clearly where ethnic and group solidarities inhibit the emergence of autonomous individuals acting as moral agents. n183 These criticisms notwithstanding, it may be said that the instrumentality of international law,
the right to democratic governance is a core right and that the international community should, through advance and promote it, especially in developing African countries. One central problem of governance is the relationship between the State and its citizens. Consequently, the search for limitation on arbitrary government - embodied in the concept of constitutionalism - must be a universal, as
opposed to merely a Western, ideal. Constitutionalism is not opposable [*1245] to a government; it only insists on a limitation on its powers, since the opposite of constitutionalism is despotism.n184
This is not to say that democracy is a perfect system; it is not. In fact, as this Article indicates, many democracies have failed in Africa as, indeed, elsewhere. Even those surviving are sometimes too marked by violence and intrigues as to warrant a sanguine view of the chances for democracy. Nevertheless, these are not sufficient reasons to despair; at any rate, it is wrong to judge a philosophy by its abuse. Pessimism concerning the success of democracy enhances the likelihood that nondemocratic forms of government will prevail. Democracy "is not even a system of government that fully embodies all democratic ideals, but one that approximates them to a reasonable degree."n185 Ideologically, democracy is the only form of government that currently enjoys legitimacy. n186 Other than a small number of theocracies, alternatives to democracy are rejected at both ideological and political levels. n187 Democracy makes it possible, but by no means certain, that human rights will be protected and secured. It validates emancipatory change, and, alongside rationality, equality, and freedom, represents part of "the deeply ambiguous legacy of modernity." n188
Research on wars among nations has also shown that democracies almost never fight one another, and that "since 1816, no democracy has fought another democracy."n189 It has also been shown that "the more people in individual communities within a society participate in community decisions, the less fighting there is among communities in that society." n190 The AU should consider this, particularly given the avalanche of inter-and intrastate conflicts that plague the continent. Furthermore, it is not true, as some insist, that development could be fostered under any type of economic or political system - including an authoritarian regime. Experience shows, to the contrary, that a democratic political system is more conducive to economic development, as well as a necessary [*1246] condition to sustainable economic development.n191 It is generally associated with economic well-being and is, thus, better placed to meet "the most pressing social needs of citizens, particularly at moments of crisis or displacement that most affect poor people." n192 AND, AFRICAN DEMOCRACY DEVELOPMENT IS KEY TO STABILITY ON THE CONTINENT Shattuck asst sec for democracy, HR and labour 1995 (John, Human rights and democracy in Africa http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n9_v6/ai_16908042 Before I turn to the details, let me offer a general assessment. First, we have seen and have every reason to expect to see some very encouraging developments. The majority of Africa's states are turning toward democracy and market-based economic systems, having realized that
one-party rule and state-run economies do not and cannot work. Progress here has not been uniform. The fullness and consolidation of democratic and market reform vary across countries. For our part, we in the U.S. Government intend to do what we can to support these transitions. I would, of course, highlight South Africa's transition from legal apartheid to democracy, which led to the election of Nelson Mandela as president in 1994. We are proud of our contribution to that change, and we look forward to a continued effort to help South Africa succeed over the local haul. The most immediate effect of its success will be felt in its region, where other democratic governments, such as Botswana and Namibia, among others, will benefit from a vibrant, free-market democracy in South Africa. In Africa, of course, we see major problems, most stunningly in Rwanda but elsewhere as well. One of Africa's largest and most important states, Nigeria, remains under the rule of the military, which seized power after the elections of 1993. There are civil wars in Liberia and Sudan. Last year, The Gambia slid back into military rule. I will take up many of these problems in detail later in my remarks. Here, I will say only that we believe that democracy and human rights in Africa matter to the United States, and we intend to do what we can to work with those trying to improve their own countries and to work with multilateral organizations, including the UN, to help resolve civil conflicts and prevent future crises.
*Continued* Africa is also the site of very serious human rights problems. Liberia continues to be wracked by brutal civil war. We are working with the UN and with regional organizations to bring the parties together. In Southern Africa, Angola has been unable to bring its conflict to a peaceful conclusion, and egregious violations of human rights continue, although there is hope that the Lusaka Protocol, signed late in 1994, will finally bring peace--and U.S. participation helped bring this about. In the Sudan, the civil war continues, and the dismal human rights situation shows no signs of improvement. Both government and rebels commit horrendous abuses, with the official pressure for Islamization presenting special hardships for the non-Muslim population. We have made a resolution on Sudan one of our top priorities this year in the UN Human Rights Commission. Both military and civilian governments in Africa are responsible for human rights abuses. In Nigeria, the military seized power in November
1993, following the annulment of the elections in June of that year, which had been judged by national and international observers as the freest and fairest in that nation's history. The military government, as I noted earlier, has an abysmal human rights record and is making almost no progress toward
democracy, disregarding any semblance of democratic process. We have made unambiguously clear that we support responsible efforts to restore civilian, democratic government and bring an end to human rights abuses. We have, as I mentioned, instituted visa restrictions and export controls, terminated all aid except for humanitarian and democratization aid through non-governmental entities, suspended consideration of applications for OPIC and Eximbank financing--and we do not rule out the possibility of further sanctions. *Continued* Finally, a group of human rights disasters poses enormous challenges for the United States and the world community in responding to and getting ahead of the immediate conflict, coping with the refugee movements that result, and resolving the conflict so that longterm stability can be established. Our efforts to create or assist effective, local conflict-prevention and peace-keeping institutions will be critical if we are to avoid future disasters. Somalia, where the civil war continues unabated and the human rights situation goes on
deteriorating, is an obvious example. The international community has not been able to find a means to resolve this conflict. Without political reconciliation, and faced with a worsening security situation, the Security Council reluctantly ordered a total withdrawal of UN forces by the end of March 1995.
CONTENTION ___: SOLVENCY FIRST, Congress is key to checking presidential authority on the gag rulethe plan must be done by Congress Aguilar 02 [Yvette, St. Mary's University School of Law, Candidate for J.D., May 2003; Texas A&M University-Kingsville, B.A. Political Science, May 2000, THE MEXICO CITY POLICY AND ITS EFFECT ON WOMEN IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues, Fall 2002, lexis] / karen
Many members of Congress are in favor of repealing the Global Gag Rule; they recognize the fact the rule does not protect women from human rights abuses in family planning, but instead ignores the hardships faced by women in developing countries. 270 The first step in repealing the Global Gag Rule is to
limit the President's authority to implement the policy. Several of the attacks on the Global Gag Rule included challenges to the authority of the President to limit the granting of USAID funds to organizations which did not conduct abortion related activities. 271 However, in each case the courts found that Congress intended for the President to have discretion in the allocation of USAID funds. 272 Thus, Congress must take affirmative steps to limit the President's authority to implement the Mexico City Policy.
In 1985, both Congress and the House attempted to impede the President's ability to deny USAID funds to NGOs based on the abortion related [*75] activities they promote. 273 The proposed amendment to the FAA by the House would "prohibit the president from denying population planning assistance funds to any country or organization because of the types of voluntary and non-coercive family planning programs which it carries out or promotes, or for which it provides funds, goods, or services, so long as it does so entirely with funds other than the funds made available by the United States under this part." 274 The House bill directed that the Administrator of USAID "shall not subject any non-governmental or multilateral organization to any requirement more restrictive than any requirement applicable to a foreign government for such assistance." 275 Unfortunately, in conference both bills were dropped and the President's broad discretion remained intact. 276 Recently, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2001 approved the Global Democracy Promotion Act, sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe. 277 The Global Democracy Promotion Act contains two provisions which guarantee United States foreign policy is compatible with human rights. 278 The Act prohibits the denial of funding to foreign NGOs "based on the medical services they provide." 279 In addition, foreign NGOs cannot be forced to relinquish their rights to free speech and assembly in exchange for federal funding. 280 The Global Gag Rule violates the first of these provisions because it denies foreign NGOs aid on the basis of services they provide with their own resources. 281 Additionally, the Global Gag Rule violates the second [*76] provision because recipient organizations must first sign the Standard Clause prior to receiving funds, stating they will not "promote" abortion as a family planning method. 282 Under the Mexico City Policy, promotion of abortion includes speech, printed information, verbal advice, public forums and lobbying of governments to change current abortion policies. 283 The House of Representatives' Appropriations Committee also passed a bill containing the same language as the Senate bill and included it in the Global Democracy Promotion Act. 284 However, the House bill was dropped as a compromise to secure funding for United Nations Fund for Population Assistance (UNFPA). 285 The Global Democracy Promotion Act presented by the Senate remains on the calendar unaffected by the House bill because it was introduced as a stand alone bill. 286 Legislative efforts to repeal the Mexico City Policy by limiting the President's authority to place such restrictions on foreign NGOs should be supported. The initial reform of foreign assistance programs under President John F. Kennedy's administration supported legislation which was less restrictive on USAID recipients. 287 USAID was created as a foreign assistance program free from the political functions of its predecessors, in an attempt to better assist the developing nations of the world. 288 The Mexico City Policy restricts USAID resources and allows politics to hinder the developmental purpose of the
organization. The Executive has too much power to dramatically affect the family planning options of women in developing countries from one day to the next. This problem is evident in the history of the Mexico City Policy, [*77] created and maintained by Republican Presidents, repealed by a Democrat President, then reinstated by a Republican President. 289 The rights of women in developing countries should not hang in the balance of the religious beliefs of one man which are in conflict with the legal rights enjoyed by American women. Further, a repeal of the Mexico City Policy would effectively make the United States foreign policy similar to our domestic policy and case law regarding the use of government funds for family planning services. 290
US LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL TO COMBATING THE AIDS EPIDEMIC WE ARE THE COUNTRY THAT CONTROLS THE TECHNOLOGY, RESOURCES, AND KNOWLEDGE TO SOLVE ZEITZ, CO-DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL AIDS ALLIANCE, 2001 [Dr. Paul S., Recommendations on the US Role in the Global Fight on HIV/AIDS, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, June 07, online] Since the beginning of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic--20 years ago--the United States has been instrumental in demonstrating successful ways for combating the virus. Our efforts here in the United States have shown that when we invest sufficiently in available technologies and a grassroots community outreach, we can have a profound effect on reducing HIV transmission and treating infected people. Our support overseas has shown on a small-scale that cost-effective interventions can be applied in resource-poor settings and with positive results. Yet, we have not had the desired effect on reducing HIV transmission around the World because we have not invested sufficiently to do so. At this critical juncture in history, the United States has an unprecedented opportunity and responsibility to support and lead a more ambitious global effort to genuinely reverse the tide against AIDS.
United States leadership in the global effort to combat AIDS will also result in tangible benefits to the American people:
US leadership will lead to faster and greater people-level impact in decreasing HIV transmission and reducing the impact of HIV/AIDS, thus reducing the risks of the global pandemic, including the spread of drug resistant strains of HIV/AIDS and TB, to the American public; US leadership in combating AIDS will protect US national security interests by reducing the need for US intervention in HIV/AIDS devastated countries in Africa, Asia, and Europe; US leadership in combating AIDS strengthen the US economy by strengthening the attractiveness of new markets. AND, THE US GAG RULE UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ALL OF OUR HIV/AIDS ASSISTANCE IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE TO DANGLE THE ASSISTANCE IN FRONT OF THOSE COUNTRIES THAT NEED IT THE MOST THE GAG RULE IS THE BARRIER FOR US ASSISTANCE GETTING TO POPULATIONS THAT ARE DYING WITHOUT IT Center for Reproductive Rights 2/10/03 Urging Opposition to the Addition of the Global Gag Rule to HIV/AIDS Programs http://www.reproductiverights.org/hill_ltr_0203ggr.html / lance Many girls in Africa who are orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS are forced to form sexual relationships with much older men in order to survive. [See, e.g., BBC News, "Abuse Spreads HIV among Zambian Girls," (January 29, 2003).] These girls who are taken advantage of by older men often suffer a quadruple burden of 1) being subjected to sexual abuse, 2) becoming infected by HIV/AIDS themselves, 3) being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and 4) becoming responsible for caring for an infant (which can force the adolescent to drop out of school, leading to reduction in future employment opportunities, and forcing her to remain dependent upon older men for support). By taking money away from organizations that try to help these girls, the U.S. government itself will become an accomplice to the multiple oppressions inflected upon these girls which cannot be tolerated. By contaminating international HIV/AIDS assistance with the global gag rule, the U.S. government would force HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment organizations either to deny their patients vital medical information and treatment or lose all U.S. funding. Forcing them to make that choice is immoral, cruel, and anything but compassionate. The Center for Reproductive Rights is thrilled that Congress is finally moving forward with a much-needed increase in U.S. assistance for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in other countries, and we must ensure that this assistance is available immediately. Yet we must also take the lead to ensure the integrity of our HIV/AIDS initiatives that they are not mired with deadly stipulations such as the global gag rule. It would be unconscionable for the U.S. government to dangle foreign assistance in front of HIV-decimated populations who so gravely need it, only to wrench the funding away because health care organizations are trying to provide their patients with full and compassionate medical care in an attempt to extend their health and lives.
AND, AMERICA SHOULD BE A LEADER IN FAMILY PLANNING, NOT GAGGING IT THE GAG RULE CUTS AFRICAN HEALTH ASSISTANCE IN HALF PLAN IS KEY TO OVERALL HEALTH SERVICES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Meehan and Feldt 2004 (Marty and Gloria, US Representative Marty Meehan represents the Fifth Congressional District of Massachusetts. Gloria Feldt is president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Lift the Family Planning Gag Rule, The Boston Globe, August 12th, elwell) The "Mexico City" policy prohibits US dollars and contraceptive supplies from going to any international family planning program that provides abortions or counsels women about their reproductive health options. The policy isn't about money going to pay for abortions. Even those groups that use only private funds for abortion services - where abortion is legal - are barred from assistance. This is money going to family planning programs. President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City policy in 1993. But President Bush reinstated and expanded it on
his first day in office. Now not only are organizations that provide or counsel about abortion services affected; those that dare to take part in a public discussion about legalizing abortion are also affected (hence the name "global gag rule"). Of course, those that call for restricting abortion rights are not affected. This policy has nothing to do with government-sponsored abortions overseas. Ten years before the gag rule was in place the law strictly prohibited that. This policy is about disqualifying prochoice organizations from receiving US international family planning funding. Under Bush's policy, organizations that play a vital role in
women's health are forced to make an impossible choice. If they refuse to be "gagged," they lose the funding that enables them to help women and families who are cut off from basic health care and family planning. But if they accept funding, they must accept restrictions that jeopardize the health of the women they serve. The most tragic ramifications have been felt in the developing world. In Kenya, for example, two of the leading family planning organizations have been forced to shut down five clinics dispensing aid from prenatal care and vaccinations to malaria screening and AIDS prevention. Kenya's experience is common, according to "Access Denied," a report on the impact of the global gag rule on developing nations. Researchers found that programs for rural communities and urban slums have been scaled back by as much as 50 percent. As a result more women are turning to unsafe abortion - a leading cause of death for young women in much of Africa - because they lack access to family planning information and essential contraceptive supplies. International family planning programs work. For more than 30 years, the United States has supported programs in some of the poorest regions of the world to deliver voluntary family planning and reproductive health services. These programs help educate and empower women to take better care of themselves, their families, and their communities. Every day, international family planning services save lives, reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, combat the scourge of global HIV/AIDS, and promote sustainable development worldwide. Consider the facts. More than 500,000 women die annually from pregnancy-related causes. Babies of women who die in childbirth are unlikely to survive one year. Family planning can cut maternal mortality rates by 25 percent and infant mortality rates even further. More than 38 million people live with HIV/AIDS worldwide. Family planning programs provide education and contraceptives that play an important role in curbing the spread of the pandemic. More than 80 million unintended pregnancies occur annually worldwide, and more than half of them result in abortion (78,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions). Family planning reduces the need for abortion. These are not new issues. A decade ago, the nations of the world came together in Cairo at the International Conference on
Population and Development with a unified vision of improving the quality of life for women, families, and the environment. They made a promise to commit moral and financial resources to ensuring that all people have access to information and services that include health care, family planning, and a basic education. The United States was a leader in that effort. But with the advent of the current global gag rule, this work is threatened. It is the tragic outcome of a decision-making process that puts blind ideology before sound public health practice and global cooperation. Thousands of Americans have joined together in the campaign "A Mother's Promise the World Must Keep" to call on our government to cooperate with other nations to meet our promise. We must restore common sense and America's leadership role by reversing this misguided policy. So many lives are at stake. We can't afford to exclude any family planning organization that can safely and effectively provide comprehensive reproductive health services. America should be leading - not gagging - global efforts to improve women's
health.
AND, THE AFRICAN PEOPLE WANT THIS POLICY LIFTED - WE ASK YOU TO HEED THE CALL OF THE AFRICAN PEOPLE TO REMOVE OUR ARROGANCE FROM THEIR ABILITY TO DEPLOY HEALTH SERVICES Grundy 2003 [ Trevor, UK-Based journalist and author who lived in Zimbabwe for 20 years, Bush Killing Women With Pro-life Aid, 06-28, lexis / jasmine]
THOUSANDS of African women are being condemned to death because of America's refusal to give any aid money to health workers giving abortion advice, it was claimed last night. Health workers and human rights campaigners are furious at American government policy which prevents overseas family planning aid going to any organization that offers women abortion counseling, provides abortion services or campaigns for a change in abortion laws. They claim the so-called Mexico City Policy, or 'global gag rule', zealously supported by fundamentalist Christians in the US, is being used to force an anti-abortion agenda on developing countries ravaged by Aids and struggling to cope with a population explosion. Some 78,000 women die each year as a result of unsafe abortions, many of them in Africa.
The Mexico City Policy was instituted by Ronald Reagan during a visit to the Mexican capital in 1984. While it was temporarily suspended by Bill Clinton, it was reinstated by George W Bush within hours of his taking office in 2001. Last month, amid a blaze of publicity, the American president appeared to make a magnanimous gesture when he announced that $ 15bn of US Aids funding would not be subject to the rule. However, critics have accused him of actually using the new cash to impose Draconian new restrictions on American funding. The gag rule has never applied to Aids funding, but now groups that provide Aids prevention as well as abortion services must keep their abortion and family planning operations separate. The gag rule would force perennially under funded health workers and Non -Governmental Organizations with proven track records of success against Aids to set up separate buildings even book-keeping systems - in order to continue to receive funding from the US. It is expected that
many will simply shut down their family-planning clinic altogether to qualify for Aids money. In many African communities the best health care is found at women's clinics. Half the victims of Aids in Africa are women. Now health workers, lawyers, human rights activists and women's advocates are calling on Bush to abandon his plan to replace established scientific and medical techniques to fight the spread Aids in Africa with a politically acceptable form of Christian fundamentalism which they say threatens the lives of millions of women.
Gloria Feldt, of the American group Planned Parenthood, said: "It is so disingenuous. They're the US government spinning this by saying they're not putting in a gag rule that never belonged there in the first place." She added: "Those who are attempting to impose their own theological perspective instead of applying proven public health practices are playing a deadly game; an unconscionable game."
Recently hundreds of African officials have held an emergency summit meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where they expressed outrage about America's "arrogance" and lack of understanding about the problems they face in the battle against the 21st century's fastest spreading killer disease.
They plan to send their communique to leaders at the United Nations, the African Union and the Commonwealth with a message warning the world that if Bush has his way, it will seriously hamper attempts to half the spread of Aids and HIV.
Women's rights campaigners are also furious that Christian "missionaries might soon partly replace experienced medical technicians who are demanding that African women and girls be afforded clean and safe clinics and hospitals where abortions can be carried out. The Bush administration has made it clear that religious groups are the preferred providers of social services in developing countries."
Frances Kissling, a Canadian author and women's rights campaigner, said: "Given the president's belief that religious groups are the best providers of social services, we can expect they will be favoured recipients of the funds. "Will evangelical Christian groups who still believe that homosexuality is a sin that can be cured by prayer proliferate? Will Catholic groups that abhor family planning offer anything that prevents Aids other than abstinence?" Dr Jenny Tongue MP, the Liberal democrat spokesperson for International Development, added: "President Bush is doing this because some of these programmes are also trying to combat unsafe abortion which is a major cause of material death in poor countries." Susan Armstrong a Scottish journalist who writes about Aids for the World Health Organisation, said: "It's a fact borne out in one country after another, that making abortion illegal doesn't stop it from happening - it just makes things more dangerous as desperate women have to resort to backstreet abortionists with their dirty twigs, needles, sharpened bicycle spokes and all kinds of corrosive potions which they shove into the womb." Ana Oliveria, the executive director of a gay health group in New York City, points out those only African countries in tune with Washington's moral agenda will receive any of the $ 15bn from Bush's Aids war chest. "The distribution of funds over five years is a method that connects the funding for Aids with the governments that America is friendly with and supports. The governments that aren't on side with America won't get anything."
suffering from one of the worst Aids outbreaks in Southern Africa with more than 2.3 million children living with Aids and HIV. The epidemic, so far, has caused over 200,000 deaths, making orphans of over 800,000 children. Other Sub-Saharan countries that will be excluded from US funds are Angola, Congo, Malawi, Somalia and Zambia, the latter because it objects to receiving GM modified food as famine relief.
FINALLY, This isnt a question about the morality of abortionwe must focus on the negative effects of the gag rule in the status quo; we have a moral obligation to offer assistance to promote freedom in family planning Aguilar 02 [Yvette, St. Mary's University School of Law, Candidate for J.D., May 2003; Texas A&M University-Kingsville, B.A. Political Science, May 2000, THE MEXICO CITY POLICY AND ITS EFFECT ON WOMEN IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues, Fall 2002, lexis] / karen
For instance, Zimbabwe is not on the Bush administration's list, although the country of 12.5 million people is
In any case, the issue should not be whether abortion is moral or immoral, but rather focus on the negative effects the Mexico City Policy has on the lives of women in developing nations. Daniel E. Pellegrom, President of Pathfinder International, stated in his testimony before the Senate that he is unaware of any research which demonstrates a decline in abortion rates. 300 Further, any claims attributing a decrease in abortion rates to the Mexico City Policy are unsubstantiated. 301 In addition, a study conducted by the Population Crisis Committee found the Mexico City Policy did not have the desired effect of decreasing the abortion rate. 302 The Mexico City Policy, however, is endangering the lives of women in developing countries by restricting their access to family planning services. Access to family planning services plays a major role in diminishing the abortion and high maternal mortality rate in developing countries. 303 [*80] Studies show abortion-related deaths decrease in countries that have decriminalized abortion. 304 After the Fourth World Conference on Women, several countries liberalized their existing abortions laws in an effort to reduce the high rate of maternal mortality. 305 The trend in developing countries is abortion reform and the Mexico City Policy should not hinder this trend. Why, then, should the United States continue a foreign economic assistance program? The answer is that there is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations - or economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy - and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom. 306
1AC Samford
Contention 1 is the Status Quo -In 2001 President Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule, making family planning services in sub-Saharan Africa and the world woefully inadequate. Citizen Times 2007 [Barbara Byrne, guest commentary, Population Control is Critical to Our Way of Life, http://www.citizentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770604051] The global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy, was reinstated by President Bush on his first day in office. This rule prevents any foreign family planning organization that receives U.S. funds from providing abortion services, lobbying its government for abortion law reform or disseminating information about abortion even using its own money. How many of us self-respecting women realized that this was only the beginning of Bushs war against us? Zimbabwe is just one of many Sub-Saharan African countries suffering under the GGR. Case Study 2005 [http://www.globalgagrule.org/country_zimbabwe.htm] In Zimbabwe, the gag rule makes the daunting task of providing high-quality reproductive health services all the more challenging, and blocks progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS. For two major family planning organizations, essential expansion activities, which could improve access to reproductive health services for men and women, are limited by a lack of funding and coordination of HIV/AIDS and reproductive health services. Without sufficient resources these organizations are also unable to implement important lessons learned from the field into current reproductive health programs. Ultimately, the gag rule places additional, unnecessary restrictions on the already limited amount of USAID funds available, which otherwise could be used to improve the lives of Zimbabwean men, women, and their families. The Global Gag Rule has compounded the dire situation of family planning and reproductive health in Zimbabwe, and its implementation along with the Brooke-Alexander Amendment has drastically reduced the amount of funding available for family planning service. We are approaching the perfect time to repeal the GGR the House has already started the process, but Bush has promised a veto. Millions of lives depend on the success of the repeal. Feminist Daily News 2007 [House Approves Bill Giving Birht Control to Foreign Organizations, June 22, http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10378] The House yesterday voted to approve a measure that would reverse a ban on donating contraceptives to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion. In a 223-201 vote, the House added the measure as an amendment to fiscal year 2008 foreign aid spending bill,
which also passed the House yesterday. New York Representative Nita Lowey (D) authored the amendment, saying it will "reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies and abortions and save the lives of mothers," the Seattle Times reports. Shortly after taking office, President Bush reinstated the global gag rule, originally adopted by former President Reagan in 1984 and removed by former President Clinton. The policy, also known as the "Mexico City Policy," bars the US from funding overseas organizations that support abortion in any way -- including direct services, counseling, or lobbying activities -- even if the groups use their own monies for such activity. Supporters of the recently passed amendment say that the measure does not conflict with Bush's foreign aid policy. Still, Bush has indicated that he would veto any legislation that
would affect abortion-related policies and laws, and conservative lawmakers will likely be able to block a Congressional override of Bush's veto.
Contention 2 is Overpopulation Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing massive population growth, family planning is critical to stop it. John May, Carl Haub, and Fama Hane ba 2006 [Senior population specialist, demographer with the Population Reference Bureau, associate
with the U.N. Population Fund, March http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-07 voa80.cfm?CFID=168115983&CFTOKEN=55707209] While experts worry about a decline in much of the industrialized world's population, sub-Saharan Africa is among the few places where the
population is expected to grow dramatically over the next 50 years. VOA's Catherine Maddux reports on what is being done to help ease the social and economic pressures of overpopulation in Africa. First, the numbers: by the year 2050, demographers predict there will be 1.7 billion people living in sub-Saharan Africa. That's up from the current population estimate of 752 million, according to the Population Reference Bureau. That means in terms of percentages, the population of sub-Saharan Africa is widely expected to make a staggering leap from just over 12 percent to about 20 percent of the world's total population. John May is Senior Population Specialist with the World Bank. He says despite a new awareness and great efforts by African governments, the continent is a latecomer - indeed, the last region in world to begin to seriously address overpopulation. "But it is like a runner on a treadmill and they are running very fast and faster and faster," he said. "But unfortunately, the treadmill is running even faster than they are but population growth is so fast and so rapid in many ways that they cannot just cope with the challenge of providing services, especially in education, health and, also, employment to their population.
Especially huge growth is expected in Nigeria - already Africa's most populous nation at an estimated 129 million people - Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Other nations on demographer's lists: Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Somalia and Uganda. So, why exactly is Africa set to experience such a huge population bulge? African birthrates are the highest in the world. It's due to a variety of factors, certainly the desire for large numbers of children," said
Carl Haub, a demographer with the Population Reference Bureau. "The fact that the population is very rural, is still dependent on the land. And
governments in Africa have not been very efficient in making contraceptive services and reproductive health services available to the general population. And in part because it is difficult. It is a difficult logistical exercise." Haab says this bulge is coming despite high morbidity rates due to
AIDS, currently ravaging much of the continent, most especially in South Africa where the vast majority of HIV-infected people in the world live. He also says massive population growth paradoxically assumes there will be a decline in fertility rates in some African nations. When talking about overpopulation, demographers speak of this phenomenon: the so-called "global demographic transition." That is the transformation of populations from short lives and large families to longer lives and smaller families. And this has not yet happened in Africa, a fact that has experts warning about how overpopulation will add monumental pressures to countries that are already too poor to provide basic services "One of the consequences is the tremendous challenges is to take care and to provide social
services to this growing population," said Fama Hane Ba, Director of the Africa Division at the United Nation's Population Fund. "And I think that one of the major responsibilities of governments is to look at those trends and to integrate into their development plans and programs these current population trends so that they can plan well ahead of time for the social services like education, health.
But it's also to create the economic opportunities and livelihood opportunities and employment opportunities to be able to find jobs and take care of their families. Experts say issues like food security, housing and public transportation are also major concerns when populations grow at such a furious pace. Take the example of Niger, which, at an average of eight children per woman, now has the highest fertility rate in the world. John May of the World Bank has begun to work with Niger on ways to reduce that number. The key, he says, is family planning. And that means making sure people in rural areas have access to
contraceptives. US policy and discussion frames abortion decisions for the entire world; it sets the global population agenda with abortion policy Center for Reproductive Rights, Accessed February 2 2007 p. http://www.crlp.org/pub_art_mosaic4.html Moreover, U.S. policy makers and the general public are also largely unaware of the significant impact that the domestic abortion debate within the U.S. has upon the issue of abortion in other countries. Foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations who depend upon U.S. assistance for survival have every incentive to implement policies within their own countries that will not offend the U.S. government and jeopardize their funding. When anti-choice rhetoric surrounding domestic politics in the United States increases, it has
a ripple effect upon public response to abortion in other countries.
Overpopulation is Root cause of poverty and is a leading cause of terrorism Fornos, president of the Population Institute, 11/16/01 p. online (David, http://media.www.redandblack.com/media/storage/paper871/news/2001/11/16/News/Fornos.Population.Growth.Terrorism.) Overpopulation and terrorism are closely linked, said Werner Fornos, president of the nation's Population Institute, who will speak about that connection this afternoon. "There are 6.1 billion people in the world today," he said. "In the last year, global population increased by 80 million people. Ninety-seven percent of that growth took place in developing nations." As the populations in developing nations continue to grow, an increasing number of people will be living in extreme poverty, Fornos said, adding that such population growth will make international terrorism an even greater possibility. "We need to get at the root cause of terrorism," he said. "About 1.2 billion people worldwide live in extreme poverty. They live on less than a dollar a day. The impact to this is nuclear escalation and extinction BERES, 1984 (TERRORISM AND GLOBAL SECURITY; PG. 50-51) Nuclear terrorism could even spark full scale nuclear war between states. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclear conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a nonnuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. How might such farreaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in the 1980s Israel and her Arab state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already several years old, only the interests of the Palestiniansas defined by the PLOseem to have been left out. On the eve of the proposed signing of the peace agreement, half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousand dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public mood, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, whereupon the Lebanese government and it allies retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries in the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. Of course, such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the Soviet response? It is entirely conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue, one that would involve the superpowers or even every nuclear weapon state on the planet. What, exactly, would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human, the consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. Only such a paradigm would allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration and the outer limits of human destructiveness. Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible consequences. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities, it would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations. Poverty is the equivalent to a thermonuclear war between Russia and the US this systemic impact is bigger and more probable than any war James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, 2000 edition, Violence: Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic, p. 195-196 The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
And it outweighs- poverty is a great impact than nuclear war PLUS Overpopulation makes all impacts inevitable; wars, famine, water wars and civil conflict Thomas, Member, Global Population Concerns, 1994 (Steve, Overpopulation and Violence, November, http://perc.ca/PEN/1994-11/s-thomas.html) Population is the key to the matrix of environmental degradation, scarcity of resources and political disorder. It is the most easily controlled factor and therefore should be the highest priority on any agenda. Overpopulation results in a scarcity of water, a scarcity of arable land, deforestation and depletion of fish stocks in the oceans. Because of population pressures, especially in the third world, the environment is being continually despoiled. There are limits to the resources needed to satisfy basic human needs: food, shelter, education and health care. Poverty, ignorance, fear and hunger exacerbate ethnic conflict and political instability. The inevitable result is violence, civil war and inter-state strife. Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan both stated that the only reason they would go to
The world's population is increasing at a rate of over 1.5 million people a week95 million people a yearequivalent to a country the size of Mexico. war would be over water. Both countries have high birthrates and a pressing need for water. Syria and Iraq both rely on water from the Euphrates. This river originates in Turkey and its flow is now being altered by the Turkish southeast Anatolia project. This will have serious consequences for the region. India and Bangladesh both have increasing population pressures on their shared river, the Ganges. China with 23% of the earth's people has only 8% of the world's water. But
as much of a tinderbox is the paucity of arable land on our precious planet. This is the root cause of many explosive situations around the world. Some recent examples are Haiti, Central America and Rwanda. As land is subdivided because of inheritance, farmers are no longer able to support themselves on family farms and so migrate to the cities. The scarcity of land is often a conflagration point for ethnic and tribal warfare. Moreover, landowners in certain countries are under pressure to share ownership of the land with the
tenants who traditionally farmed for them. As good land gets scarcer, the common crop and grazing land owned by the whole village is disappearing, leaving more destitution. Inequity and poverty breed violence. Another factor festers. In countries such as Haiti and Somalia the depletion of forests leads to soil erosion and lack of fuel for cooking fires. Internecine strife and tribal warfare results when agrarian people are forced to move and they encroach on others' land. In the African Sahel and West Africa deforestation causes erosion, crop failure and famine. There are vast migrations of indigents, destabilizing neighbouring countries and sparking civil wars. Finally (and this example hits home to Canadians), because of overfishing, climactic changes and technological innovation in fishing methods, fish stocks are fast declining in many areas of the world. Two notable examples are the Philippines and Canada's Grand Banks. As we know in Canada, shortages of fish result in a change of lifestyle for many, much international bickering and more significantly the occasional use of gunboats to further national interests. A shortage of fish cannot help but displace a large number of gainfully employed families who have fished the seas for generations. Bitterness, economic despair and frustration follow, increasing international tensions. Shortages of this valuable foodstuff only serve to increase pressure for other sources of food in a world of already increasing demand. We now see finite limits to the vast bounty of the ocean. These finite resources of water, land, forests and fish are being consumed at an alarming rate by an ever-increasing population. The most cost-effective method of dealing with this environmental deterioration and diminution of scarce
resources is to ease the population growth in developing countries. Some suggest that the level of population in the world today is not sustainable at the high levels of consumption. We may be faced with apocalyptic images of starving and emaciated people killing each other in anarchic chaos that could well reach our own borders. Even today millions of people are on the move, struggling to avoid war, famine, plagues and other catastrophes in their homelands. Water wars go nuclear Weiner, Prof. At Princeton, The Next 100 Years p.270 1990 [WATER WARS GO NUCLEAR] If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, tram North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over 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 at the 60.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
Contention 3 is Soft Power Current global image of the U.S. is eroding. U.S. unilateralism fuels resentment from allies.
Quigly, 2006
(Kevin, President of the National Peace Corps Association, Jan. 13 The Peace Corps and global image abroad The Globalist www. theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5053)
Since the turn of this new millennium the global image of the United States has been steadily eroding. From its reckless unilateralism to the stalling war in Iraq, the U.S. image abroad is badly tarnished. But as the country tries to restore some of its previous luster abroad, Quigly argues it is neglecting the one existing institution that could help it the most. Despite generating some goodwill through its aggressive and generous response to the Tsunami in Southeast Asia in 2005, the U.S. did not give the world a very good view. The ongoing war in Iraq, the seemingly blatant disregard for other countries interests and the strikingly unilateral approach to global challenges are just some of the reasons why the U.S. is broadly disliked. According to a recent report by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, what is especially startling is not that the government of the U.S. is broadly disliked, but that attitudes about the U.S. people are becoming increasingly negative, even among traditional friends. More and more, Americans are viewed in negative terms like greedy and violent. It has gotten so bad that a majority of our Canadian neighbors consider Americans rude. Given
these negative perceptions about the U.S. and its people, it is understandable that Western European publics are pressing for greater autonomy from the U.S., especially in terms of increased independence in security and foreign affairs.
The Global Gag Rule makes the U.S. look hypocritical in the eyes of the international community damaging democracy and soft power worldwide. Neacsu 2002 [Dana, Imposing Sexual Restraint Abroad, Michigan State University Law Review, 2002 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 885, lexis] The reinstatement of the Mexico Policy Rule has an impact on far more than women's health. It gives a very different signal to the international community about American democratic values. Richard Gephardt summarized it best when he stated that we are putting on a gag order that would not be allowed in our country. It is really a tragic day for democracy. It is not about abortion. It is about us imposing on others laws we would not impose on ourselves. The policy shows political hypocrisy at the level of basic principles, and could be considered a kind of intellectual imperialism, imposing dominant values upon those who cannot afford to resist. And, because it primarily affects the lives of those most vulnerable, it is the very worst kind of bullying imperialism, depriving the possibilities of millions of powerless women to choose - first, to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and second, to terminate the pregnancies they were rendered effectively powerless to avoid. And, worst of all, the policy does not just deprive, it kills. US leadership is essential to prevent 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.
Contention 4 is AIDS AIDS is spreading rapidly around the globe: it is the deadliest epidemic humankind has ever experienced Terry Leonard, 6/6/2006 http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060604/NEWS/606040519/-1/State
Johannesburg, South Africa | It began innocuously, when a statistical anomaly pointed to a mysterious syndrome that attacked the immune systems of gay men in California. No one imagined 25 years ago that AIDS would become the deadliest epidemic in history. Since June 5, 1981, HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS, has killed more than 25 million people, infected 40 million others and left a legacy of unspeakable loss, hardship, fear and despair. Its spread was hastened by ignorance, prejudice, denial and the freedoms of the sexual revolution. Along the way from oddity to
pandemic, AIDS changed the way people live and love. Slowed but unchecked, the epidemic's relentless march has established footholds in the world's most populous countries. Advances in medicine and prevention that have made the disease manageable in the developed world haven't reached the rest. In the worst case, sub-Saharan Africa, it has been devastating. And the next 25 years of AIDS promise to be deadlier than the first. AIDS could kill 31 million
people in India and 18 million in China by 2025, according to projections by U.N. population researchers. By then in Africa, where AIDS likely began and where the virus has wrought the most devastation, researchers said the toll could reach 100 million. "It is the worst and deadliest epidemic that humankind has ever experienced," said Mark Stirling, the director of East and Southern Africa for UNAIDS. An unchecked AIDS epidemic threatens human survival itself: Mathiu, 00 (Mutuma, Africa News, July 15, lexis) Every age has its killer. But Aids is without precedent. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes and the
graves it fills. But unlike the plague, Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration, the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. The Black Death - the plague, today easily cured by antibiotics and prevented by vaccines - killed a full
40 million Europeans, a quarter of the population of Europe, between 1347 and 1352. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated. With Aids, the vector is humanity itself, the nice person in the next seat in the bus. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the
human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim. The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a
veritable holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. Last year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the
First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so
hopelessly in jeopardy
AIDS is fundamentally rooted in gender inequalitysolutions to AIDS are found through rights for women: Cobb, Chris; Edmonton Journal (Alberta), 8-16-2006, "Women's Rights Key to Fighting AIDs", LN On Lewis's first day in Mozambique, he arrived at Maputo's five-star Polana Hotel from Geneva, where he had been urging a high-level United Nations panel to endorse his idea for a women's agency modelled after UNICEF. As he envisages it, the new UN agency would have a $1-billion annual budget and a staff of thousands worldwide. He insists that the HIV/AIDS pandemic across Africa is rooted in gender inequality: Women have few, if any, legal rights and are chronically vulnerable to sexual violence and the male sense of sexual entitlement. As he comes to the end of his five years as special envoy, he believes that legislation that brings property rights -- any rights -- for women will help slow the spread of AIDS. Female empowerment is key to stopping AIDSmultiple reasons why Donovan, Paula; Ottawa Citizen, 8-13-2006, LN The AIDS pandemic is one case in point, but a devastating one that foretells the future. HIV has efficiently exploited our universal, stubborn, self-destructive refusal to let go of the notion that women are less important, less entitled, less capable and less deserving than men. For a quarter-century, AIDS has proven that unless you work at women's empowerment on every level, from the halls of power to the remote rural village, all the condoms, doctors, drugs and social workers in the world won't succeed in stopping a virus that has locked itself on to the world's Achilles heel.
The GGR hinders AIDS prevention efforts by blocking family planning Populaiton Action International 2004 The Global Gag Rule and HIV/AIDS http://www.globalgagrule.org/pdfs/issue_factsheets/GGR_fact_HIV.pdf The Global Gag Rule adversely impacts HIV/AIDS prevention efforts through its erosion of family planning programs. The same family planning providers who lose funding due to the gag rule are on the front line in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS. These providers have integrated their traditional family planning services with HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, recognizing both as essential components of reproductive health care. The effects of the Global Gag Rule prove that health care policy that puts ideology before sound public health practices has a tremendous impact on service delivery. With so many lives at stake, the United States cannot afford to alienate, disparage, or leave out any provider or group of providers that is able to deliver cost-effective and comprehensive reproductive health services, including HIV/AIDS prevention.
Contention 5 is Solvency Repealing the GGR is essential to womens empowerment, population control, AIDS reduction, and effective family planning. Harrison 2005 [Dian, staff writer for SF Gate, Women worldwide face effects of Bushs gag rule http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/07/EDGT0ARPRT1.DTL] The World Bank reports that more than 2 million Ethiopian women have HIV/AIDS. Those rates are worsening because of the Bush administration's position on women. In 2001, President Bush reinstated the global gag rule restricting funding for family planning. Under the gag rule, family planning agencies that receive U.S. money may not offer abortion counsel or refer women to abortion providers, or lobby to make or keep abortion legal in their own country, even if they use separate funds not provided by the United States. Providers are forced to make a cruel choice: Give up vital assistance and try to afford to continue to counsel women on all pregnancy options, or withhold critically important information. The gag rule restricts the simplest ways to improve the status of women: funding birth-control supplies so they can avoid unintended pregnancies and care for children they already have. In Ethiopia, abortion is illegal. Because most nongovernmental organizations that provide family planning have refused to abide by the gag rule, the resulting lack of U.S. funds has restricted the contraceptive supply, which means that abortion is also very common. Women take their lives into their own hands when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. If they cannot adequately care for another child, they try to end pregnancies with herbs, poisons or wire. Complications from unsafe abortions are the second leading cause of death for women, after tuberculosis, in Ethiopia. As long as the Bush administration restricts women's rights by blocking access to contraception with the gag rule, unintended pregnancies will occur. So will abortion. The Bush administration's global gag rule and political posturing last week only exacerbate the situation. Women in all countries should have the right to make responsible decisions without coercion, discrimination or violence. They should have access to comprehensive information and health care. They should be able to own property, pursue an education, decide who and when to marry, and whether and when to have children. The situation in Ethiopia, however, is endemic around the world. Traditions and laws inextricably link sexual rights to education, employment, property rights and political participation. The rights the U.S. delegation was lobbying against last week are the very rights that would improve the status of women and their children. Rather than taking into account the harsh realities of women's lives and working to provide real solutions for women and girls, the Bush administration is playing politics with women's lives. Family planning solves population and is key in the developing world Population Reports, A Johns Hopkins Statistical Journal, July 1999 p. http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/j49edsum.shtml National leadership commitment and adequate funding for family planning programs are essential to assure widespread access to good-quality reproductive health care. Support from health care officials, policy-makers, donor agencies, women's organizations, the news media, and religious and community leaders also is important. Advocacy for family planning is becoming crucial as demand for reproductive health care grows. Worldwide, as many as 600 million people use contraception, and millions more would do so with better access to good-quality services. Although fertility levels are falling in much of the world, rapid population growth remains a critical issue in most developing countries, where needs are great and resources are scarce
1AC North Texas Futurism version

Plan:
1AC North Texas Capital version

Plan:
1AC UTNIF (Texas)

Contention One: Faith Based Family Planning Status Quo public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa is subject to the Mexico City Policy, a This Global Gag Rule conditions U.S. aid on the total silence of health providers on abortion, whether it be political speech, advocacy, or medical advice. From abstinence only education to proselytizing zealots, this policy sacrifices African lives on the altar of fundamentalist ideology Tavrow, Dir., Bixby Program in Population and Reproductive Health at UCLA, 2005 [Paula, Undermining the AIDS fight, Baltimore Sun op-ed, October 18, http://www.actupny.org/ reports/bush_undermining_ed.html] AIDS has hit Africa hard. But nongovernmental organizations confronting the epidemic have been hit even harder by the Bush administration's ideologically based edicts. Last month, the U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, and others declared that the administration's policy of emphasizing abstinence-only programs and cutting federal funding for condoms has undermined Uganda's HIV/AIDS effort. Sadly, Uganda is not alone. Having recently returned from Kenya, where I have worked intermittently for a decade, I can report that the best and brightest health professionals there are despairing not of AIDS, which has infected 7 percent to 9 percent of Kenyans, but of numerous U.S. restrictions. For years, with our assistance, these Kenyans had risked their reputations to challenge their own conservatives who oppose sex education and access to reproductive health services. Now they feel abandoned. What happened? First was the global gag rule, reinstituted by President Bush immediately after he assumed office in 2001. It mandates that no foreign agencies may receive U.S. assistance if they provide abortion services, including counseling or referrals, or lobby to make or keep abortion legal.
Since abortion is largely illegal in Kenya, one would expect the gag rule to have had little impact. But because organizations such as International Planned Parenthood Federation refused to buckle, they experienced major cuts, which they had to pass along to their developing-country affiliates. Hence, the Family Planning Association of Kenya's budget was halved, and many clinics offering birth control and other vital services were closed. This significantly reduced Kenyans' access to contraceptives and, ironically, probably increased unsafe abortions. One of my colleagues, Dr. Solomon Orero, a Nairobi obstetrician, estimates that more than 200 maternal deaths in Kenya can be attributed to the gag rule. Second was the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This five-year, $9 billion program supports AIDS treatment, care and prevention activities in 15 countries, including Kenya. Health professionals have been dismayed by the regulations governing disbursements. One-third of PEPFAR prevention funds must be spent on "abstinence/be faithful" youth programs, even though Kenya's AIDS Control Program promotes "ABC" messages ("abstain, be faithful, or use condoms").
Last year, 11 faith-based organizations - some with no prior youth health experience - were awarded about $1 million each to engage in questionable abstinence-only campaigns in Kenya. Programs such as mine, which offer comprehensive sex and life skills education and services to rural youths, were ineligible. One recipient was, which requires that its employees call Jesus their savior. A spokesman, Samson Radeny, told me that World Vision's
activities will include Christian "transformative education" and encourage "abstinence peer models" in schools. For the estimated three in five youths who are sexually active, the organization will promote "teen faithfulness" but will not provide any contraceptive information. Apparently, unprotected "faithful" sex is preferable to safer sex.
Many Kenyans fear that abstinence-only programs will stigmatize sexually active youths and undermine the government's efforts to encourage youth-friendly health services. Moreover, abstinence-only programs prevent vulnerable youths from obtaining lifesaving information. Where I work, about half of Kenyan youths think birth control pills make you sterile and HIV can pass through condoms. Abstinence education skirts these issues. The latest indignity was the Bush administration's decree in June that any nongovernmental organization receiving U.S. government funding must explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking. This caused consternation among NGOs, which train sex workers to serve as health educators and condom distributors.
Refusing to adhere to this new requirement, the Brazilian government returned $40 million to the U.S. Treasury. Unfortunately, NGOs in Kenya are too cashstrapped to reject money. Instead, they are quietly ending their prevention programs for sex workers, even though experts believe these activities are vital for combating AIDS. At a public health conference last year, an American colleague declared, "At least under Reagan we could still do our jobs." Regrettably, the
Bush administration's policies are reducing the effectiveness of our foreign aid, squandering our reputation and alienating our scientifically minded public health allies in Africa.
The new missionaries the Bush administration has put in control of public health is rolling back gains made against AIDS. Doubling rates of HIV-infection are the price Africans are paying for the fundamentalist fantasy of a world without sex Susskind, Communications director of MADRE, December 2 / 3, 2006 [Yifat, MADRE is an international women's human rights organization, End the Global Gag Rule Greed, Dogma and AIDS, CounterPunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/susskind12022006.html] A whole generation into the AIDS pandemic, we now have significant (though still insufficient) knowledge of how to combat the disease. But while the world's collective understanding is gradually advancing, U.S. AIDS policy remains mired in a right-wing economic and social vision that is curtailing progress and costing lives. In fact, the politics that drive U.S. AIDS policy--and sexual and reproductive health policy in general--have swung so far to the right that many in the United States are no longer outraged by the truly outrageous. Something that once would have sounded utterly insane, like requiring health clinics around the world to sign a loyalty oath condemning prostitution, today passes for business as usual. But as public debate shifts to the right, we should refuse to drift with it. Last month's election of a Democratic Congress offers some hope, but only if we succeed in shifting public debate onto more reasonable ground. One place to begin is to recognize how financial greed, religious dogma, and hostility toward women's rights are fueling AIDS policy. Then we can begin to address the gap between what AIDS policy is and what it should be.
Greed and Dogma After another three million AIDS deaths this year around the world, the Bush administration is still prioritizing pharmaceutical industry profits over people's access to medicine. Patents that allow drug companies based in the United States and Europe to control the manufacture and sale of AIDS medicines prevent countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America from providing people with cheaper, generic AIDS drugs (even though 95% of AIDS patients are in those countries). Meanwhile, the nine largest US drug companies turned a profit of nearly $43 billion dollars last year--more than the gross national income of some of the worst AIDS-affected countries. The latest trend, embodied by Bill Clinton, is to haggle with drug companies for reduced prices or donations. But charity is not what the countries of the
Global South are asking for. Nor are they asking for religious dogma. Today, a full one-third of international U.S. AIDS prevention funding is mandated for programs that promote either abstinence or fidelity as prevention strategies. Condoms are decried as a "last resort." But moralizing about abstinence does not reduce the spread of HIV. On the contrary, in Uganda, it took only two years for HIV rates to double after U.S. missionaries-turnedpolicymakers effectively shifted the emphasis of the country's AIDS prevention programs from condom use to abstinence.
Yet Bush continues to favor right-wing Christian organizations that preach abstinence in disbursing federal AIDS funding. He has stacked his Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS with religious fundamentalists and incompetent ideologues. This year's notable appointment was of Herbert Lusk, a vocally anti-gay pastor with no HIV-related experience. And just last month, Bush picked Eric Keroack--who opposes birth control--to head the family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. Keroack believes that publicly funded sexual education should consist almost entirely of abstinence promotion. Contempt for Women's Rights Current U.S. AIDS policy gives drug companies control over treatment options and allows religious fundamentalists to dominate prevention strategies. This union of greed and dogma has produced an AIDS policy that undermines women's human rights at a time when HIV infects more women than ever before. The drug industry's hostility towards generics is disproportionately harmful to women, who represent the majority of the world's poor. Their health so often neglected within families and communities, women have the least access to costly AIDS medicines. The abstinence-and-fidelity mantra of the religious right endangers women by ignoring the fact that many women lack the power to refuse sex--especially from their husbands. In sub-Saharan
Africa, where 65% of this year's new HIV infections occurred, being married actually increased a woman's chance of contracting the virus. And the fundamentalist attack on abortion rights--which now permeates U.S. international health policy--continues to fuel the spread of AIDS. The "global gag rule" has pulled U.S. funding from any health organization that provides information about abortion. As a result, clinics that once offered a
range of critical health services--including AIDS treatment and prevention programs for women in some of the poorest countries--have been forced to close. Choice, Not Charity Everything we know about combating the AIDS pandemic points to the need for a synthesis of prevention and treatment strategies within a human rights framework. It's not Bono's or Oprah's job to develop and enact those strategies. Safeguarding public health and upholding human rights are the responsibility of government. Rather than a fundamentalist fantasy of stamping out sex, AIDS prevention strategies should be grounded in what we
know works: education and access to condoms within a framework that promotes women's and girls' rights to negotiate sex and make the best choices for their well-being.
The gag rule has a spill-over effect to all other reproductive health assistance policiesempirically, clinics are shut down, condoms are not distributed, and all programs become ineffective Higgins et al, Prof. & Co-Dir. Crowley Program in Intl Human Rights at Fordham Law, 2005 [Tracy E., Martin S Flaherty, also Professor of Law & Co-Director, Joseph R. Crowley Program in International Human Rights, Fordham Law School, * Mehlika Hoodbhoy, 2003-2004 Crowley Program Fellow, Special Report: Exporting Despair: The Human Rights Implications Of U.S. Restrictions On Foreign Health Care Funding In Kenya, December, 29 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1, Fordham International Law Journal, l/n]
3. The Impact of the Mexico City Policy on Overall Strategies to Improve Care Although it is impossible to measure with precision the effect of the Mexico City Policy on the delivery of reproductive services nationwide, the dramatic impact on perhaps the two most important NGO providers is clear. As documented above, these NGOs provide vital services to women
throughout Kenya and often serve as the sole source of health care for poor and rural women. The closure of the clinics has therefore had a severe impact upon the women in the communities they served. But the significance of FPAK and Marie Stopes goes beyond the populations directly served by their clinics. These NGOs provide [*82] integrated outreach and education designed to cultivate clients who might not be able to access important health services. In so doing, they have developed a highly effective model of reproductive health care delivery, one which foreign donors, including USAID, have promoted for the past two decades in Kenya. The loss of funding for FPAK and MSI undercuts the further development and replication of this model in underserved areas. Perhaps ironically, USAID itself felt the impact of the Mexico City Policy through the loss of the expertise of FPAK and MSI in its own project. At the time the Mexico City Policy was reinstated by the Bush Administration, USAID had just initiated the "AMKENI" project, which means "new awakenings" in Kiswahili. 501 AMKENI was to be a five-year, 16 million dollar program integrating family planning, reproductive health and child survival services based in part on the model already followed by FPAK and Marie Stopes (and encouraged by USAID through grants to these programs). Both FPAK and Marie Stopes were to have been key participants in AMKENI. Yet, in the wake of the decision to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, FPAK and MSI could not be included, depriving the project of their expertise, their clinics, and their trained networks of community outreach volunteers. As a result, the effectiveness of the overall project has been compromised. The AMKENI experience is just one example of the inefficiencies in the provision of health care caused by the Mexico City Policy. Another problem results from the artificial separation of family planning funds from a larger health policy agenda. Although from a medical perspective the advantages of combining information about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment with family planning seems obvious, the fact of separate funding streams for family planning (restricted) and HIV/AIDS (unrestricted) programs forces organizations to maintain distinct programs and information campaigns. Margaret W. Gatei, Project Manager of Pathfinder PMCT Program
expressed frustration with having to maintain this division. She said:
It is critical to tell women that even if they are on the pill they must still use condoms to avoid the transmission of HIV... . You cannot separate family planning from HIV. You must encourage women to take the test before having more children. [*83] Counseling will be a big part of this service. Once the decision is made they will choose a method of family planning and that method must be maintained... . We give information and counseling and emphasize the importance of knowing one's HIV status.
502 Although the overall impact of the Mexico City Policy may defy precise quantification, these
examples confirm its direct impact on some of Kenya's most vulnerable people. More broadly, the policy has created significant inefficiencies in the delivery of care in a country that has not a single health care dollar to waste. This evisceration of the 40% of global programs supported by the U.S. has fare more than ideological effects, emiserating the lives and hastening the deaths of real people500 thousand women die every single year for this dogmatic fantasy
Plumer, reporter-researcher at The New Republic, December 12, 2006 [Bradford, Gag Reflex, How to stop the global gag rule's destructive effects, The New Republic Online, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml ?i=w061218&s=plumer122106]
In 1984, at a U.N. population conference in Mexico City, Ronald Reagan first declared that not one cent of USAID money would go to any nongovernmental organization that promoted abortion as a method of family planning. If a health-care provider wanted to receive U.S. funds, it couldn't refer women to abortion clinics, or offer post-abortion counseling, or lobby to make the practice legal, or even so much as discuss abortion policy in public. Many groups agreed to the new rules. Others refused and immediately lost their funding--no small thing, given that the United States provides some 40 percent of the global aid
budget for population programs.

The tug-of-war over the gag rule has never ceased. Bill Clinton repealed the policy on his first day in office. In 1999, Republicans in Congress forced Clinton to reinstate it in exchange for releasing nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations. The rule was reversed again the following year, but George W. Bush, on his very first day in office, brought it back and, two years later, expanded the gag rule to cover other State Department family-planning grants. The religious right, suffice to say, rejoiced. The destructiveness of the gag rule is hard to overstate. The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 500,000 women in developing countries die each year from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. Of those, roughly 70,000 die from back-alley
abortions. And aid restrictions have hurt those groups best positioned to help. In Kenya, for example, two health organizations have had to shut down eight clinics since 2001 after proving unable to abide by the gag rule and losing their USAID funding. Many of those clinics were the sole providers of health care for women and children in their respective regions, and most had
offered post-abortion care--critical in a country where abortion is illegal, unsafe, and causes an estimated one-third of maternal deaths annually. Increased access to birth control would, of course, prevent many of those pregnancies from occurring in the first place. Thanks to the gag rule, though, many NGOs can no longer receive donations of contraception from the United States, a primary supplier. As of 2002, at least 16 developing countries had lost their entire USAID supply of birth control, because an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood had been the only group distributing contraception in the country--and refused to accept the gag. A recent study in the Lancet found that 120 million couples in low-income countries don't get the contraception they need. Partly as a result, 80 million women have unwanted pregnancies each year, more than half of which end in abortion.
Anti-abortion groups tend to gloss over these points. Asked whether it seems plausible that the gag rule has actually increased the number of abortions in the developing world, Jim Sedlak, vice-president of the American Life League, simply retorts that abortion statistics are hard to come by. "The important thing is that we have hindered the efforts of organizations like Planned Parenthood to lobby for abortion, in countries where it's illegal, using U.S. taxpayer money." He's right: Family-planning groups funded by USAID are forced to sit on the sidelines in local debates over reproductive choice, leaving abortion opponents free to dominate the discussion. In Peru, where abortion remains illegal, women's health organizations that want to preserve their funding can't even cite statistics on the 50,000 women hospitalized each year due to unsafe abortion. For many abortion foes in the United States, that's exactly as it should be. Indeed, conservatives who talk loudly about democracy-promotion in other contexts have little to say about a policy that effectively stifles public debate throughout the developing world.
This horrendous toll is only magnified by AIDSMillions are dying every year Hernandez-Truyol, Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law at Florida, Fall 2006 [Berta Esperanza, On Disposable People and Human Well-Being: Health, Money and Power, U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 35, l/n] AIDS is unique in human history in its rapid spread, the extent of infection, and the depth of its impact. Since the diagnosis of the first AIDS case in 1981, the world has struggled to reconcile the devastation the disease has caused. At present, more than 20 years after the first diagnosed case, the disease has claimed over 20 million lives. Astoundingly, the estimate is that 37.8 million people worldwide are living with HIV. 99 The disease continues to spread at an alarming rate. Beyond claiming lives, it seriously threatens the fabric of some societies. 100 Notwithstanding the seriousness of the epidemic, over the years it has become evident that comprehensive action, including comprehensive approaches to prevention, yield positive results in its containment. 101 The now 20-year-old battle against AIDS has resulted in important successes and has taught significant lessons about which approaches work best. Although a cure remains elusive, the palliative care available is effectively curative because the prolongation of life it produces can be indefinite. 102 In instances where national leadership has focused on the disease and there exist efforts to create widespread public awareness and to engage in intensive prevention efforts, entire nations have succeeded in reducing HIV transmission. For example, "within Africa, Uganda remains the pre-eminent example of sustained success. In Asia, it is estimated that comprehensive action in Thailand averted some five million HIV infections during the 1990s. Cambodia, too, has managed to curb rapid growth of its epidemic." 103 On every continent it is possible to show examples of where concerted efforts have managed to curb spread of the disease. Currently "antiretroviral medicines can prolong life and reduce the [*55] physical effects of HIV infection." 104 The advances in treatment have slowed the progression of HIV infection to AIDS and has hugely decreased the incidence of death from AIDS, although the number of diagnoses has risen. 105 In addition, the existence and development of effective treatments also has resulted in a larger number of persons who are living with AIDS. 106
People on the antiretroviral drugs may still need treatment for opportunistic infections from time to time and treatment for pain that may be a side effect of the drugs themselves. 107 Moreover, many persons with HIV/AIDS will need access to psychosocial support and treatment to cope with an illness that has serious familial and societal implications with respect to behavior and lifestyle. Finally, patients on antiretroviral drugs will have ongoing needs for sexual and reproductive health services. 108 One problem attendant to antiretroviral treatments is the frequent need to change the medication. As learned in countries where antiretroviral therapy has been widely used for many years, the "first-line" of antiretroviral therapy at some point ceases to work for many patients. This failure of the treatment then requires that the patients switch onto a "second-line" regime. 109 This creates a new layer of economic concerns because second-line drugs are far more expensive than first-line drugs. For example, in Kenya, Doctors Without Borders pays $ 1400 per patient/per year for a second-line regimen, compared to only $ 200 for the first-line drugs. 110 Nation states and international bodies have bonded together to place [*56] recently-developed, effective medications within economic reach of individuals and countries alike. The price of once untouchably expensive medication has been greatly reduced to allow access to necessary medications to low-and middle-income countries. There exist ongoing efforts to make these medications available to people living with HIV across the world who desperately need antiretroviral therapy but lack the economic means to afford treatment. 111
It is significant that the secrecy about, and stigma associated with, AIDS that has hugely interfered with efforts to respond to the epidemic is either disappearing or softening in many countries and within society as a whole. 112 Leaders of governments, businesses, and religious and cultural institutions are increasingly joining forces to take action against AIDS. 113 In addition, the social/political movements of people living with HIV have been global forces in the vanguard of social change in demanding that states and international entities alike respond to the epidemic.
Notwithstanding concerted efforts, including comprehensive prevention programs in which local governments, international entities, and social networks participate to battle the HIV/AIDS epidemic, it continues to grow. Sadly, the growth mirrors deprivation of economic, social, and cultural power. 114
Increasingly, there is global recognition of the impact of AIDS on development prospects in the worst-affected regions. Thus, this recognition motivates the action necessary to make fundamental shifts in development practice. 115 In this regard, the demographics of AIDS are telling. Of the 40.3 million people infected with AIDS in 2005, 17.5 of them were women and 2.3 were
children under the age of 15. 116 Out of the 4.9 million people newly infected with HIV in 2005, 700,000 were children and 3.2 million of the new infections occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. 117 That year, a total of 3.1 million people died of HIV/AIDS-related causes. 118 The North/South and East/West populations experience markedly different conditions with respect to contraction and spread of HIV/AIDS. In
sub-Saharan Africa, 25.8 million persons are living with HIV/AIDS while [*57] 3.2 million people became infected with the disease and 2.4 million people died from it in the past year. 119 In contrast, in Western and Central Europe, 1.9 million persons have HIV/AIDS - a figure less than 10 percent of the sub-Saharan Africa numbers - while 65,000 people became infected this past year and 58,000 died of AIDS-related causes. 120
And, these atrocities are the particular face of a broader ideolgyThe Gag Rule is a concerted effort to export the United States culture wars globally, including the new fundamentalism that wants to put women back in the kitchen and sacrifice social welfare policy to the dark gods of the free market Gathii, Gov. George E. Pataki Professor of Intl Commercial Law at Albany Law, Fall 2006 [James, Exporting Culture Wars, U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67, l/n]
These events demonstrate some of the effects of the global gag rule on the operations of these NGOs discussed in this paper. The paper makes three arguments. First, I will argue that the enactment of the global gag rule in 1973, 19 and its expansion by the Reagan and George W. Bush's administrations, 20 was and continues to be a concerted effort to export the United States' culture wars, particularly insofar as those wars relate to women's freedom from patriarchy and conservative and traditional religious and moral values. 21 Even if one was to object that the gag rule is a not concerted effort to export the U.S.'s culture wars, its effect has essentially achieved this purpose. 22 Second, I will argue that the moral absolutism of the global gag rule overlaps with the criminalization of abortion and the patriarchal customary and religious norms and practices in sub-Saharan African countries, not only to undermine access to safe and affordable reproductive health care services, but also to consolidate and legitimize gender inequality. 23 As a result, the intersection of the global gag rule with conservative religious, cultural, and customary norms, as well as with conservative free market reforms that have reduced public spending in health care, undermines making progress towards substantive gender equality.
[*71] Third, this paper will conclude that the global gag rule is a reflection of the expansive and unlimited plenary authority of the President in the exercise of foreign affairs powers. 24 In addition, the extraterritorial projection of the global gag rule is inconsistent with international legal norms and standards. Part One outlines the emergence of the global gag rule by tracing its genealogical roots to the New Right's agenda from the early 1970's to date. Part Two examines how the gag rule overlaps with conservative religious and customary norms in developing societies. Part Three traces some problematic international legal problems with the global gag rule. In my conclusion, I call for a holistic and balanced approach to reproductive health care. II. Culture Wars A. The Emergence of the Global Gag Rule and Other Policies Contrary to the Goals Pursued by Supporters of Reproductive Rights In 1973, Congress enacted the Helms Amendment, the initial legislation that led to the global gag rule. 25 Conservative Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina proposed the legislation soon after the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which established the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy within the first two trimesters. 26 In 1974, further refinement to the Act prohibited USAID from funding "information, education, training, or communication programs that seek to promote abortion as a method of family planning." 27 In 1984, President Reagan announced his Mexico City Policy, which extended the gag rule to prohibit any NGO from receiving U.S. government funding if it engaged in legal abortion, even if the NGO was using its own funding rather than the U.S.'s money. 28 It also prohibited any funding of NGOs that provided information or counseling on legal abortion as an option for unwanted pregnancy. 29 Such NGOs cannot participate in public [*72] information campaigns for the legalization of abortion. 30
Further reflecting
this country's gradual movement away from contributing to programs promoting family planning, since the mid-1980s, the U.S. has argued "that "good economic policies do more to reduce poverty than fertility and family planning programs.'" 31 In other
words, the U.S. has asserted that good governance reforms, rather than comprehensive family planning and reproductive health care provisioning, will best promote health in developing countries. 32 This point of view is contrary to the experiences of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. 33 Unlike President Clinton who suspended the gag rule while in the White House, 34 one of President Bush's first acts in office was to reinstate the rule. 35 As restored, the global gag rule expressly prohibited funding for NGOs that engaged in lobbying a government to "legalize or make available abortion as a method of family planning or...to continue the legality of abortion as a method of family planning." 36 Furthermore, in 2002, the Bush administration revoked its financial backing of United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) 37 (the international body that addresses reproductive health and rights, as well as population issues) due to the assumed impression that UNFPA supported coercive abortion or forced sterilization in China. 38 This withdrawal of support continued notwithstanding the fact that a U.S. delegation had found no evidence of UNFPA's involvement in either of the offensive practices. 39 [*73] The administration based its decision on evidence that computers provided to Chinese authorities by UNFPA had been used to facilitate the collection of fees and penalties for violation of China's population policy. 40 A British fact finding team sent to China during the same time period as the U.S. delegation found no evidence of coercive abortions or forced sterilizations in the counties where UNFPA worked. 41 The British team concluded that UNFPA's work had a "positive effect" in the provisioning of reproductive health care services in China and that, although there remained problems in some parts of China, the Chinese government had shown willingnASof the US government's decision to revoke funds from UNFPA by the amount of money the organization had spent in China (the amount funded by both the U.S. and all other sources) was that it reduced UNFPA's ability to serve the other 140 countries in which it operates. 44 The effect of this application of the global gag rule is estimated to have disabled UNFPA from preventing ""two million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths.'" 45 Withdrawals or reductions in funding result in the unavailability of voluntary contraceptive and related reproductive health care services, as well as information and support for HIV/AIDS work. 46 This results from the integrated nature of reproductive health care programs, which means that cuts in funding affect not only abortion related services, but other services including those related to HIV/AIDS. 47 In addition, the Bush administration's support of abstinence-only programs, 48 its reluctance to fund the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, 49 as well as its equivocating position on the use of [*74] condoms 50 has resulted in overall reductions in support of HIV/AIDS funding. 51 For example, the emphasis on prevention, embraced in abstinence-only programs, has greatly reduced condom distribution, 52 which is a far more cost-effective method of addressing the spread of the virus than antiretroviral therapy. 53 Supporters of abstinence-only programs argue that condom distribution promotes promiscuity and abortions, and that condom use is inconsistent with the sanctity of human life. 54
Over the last several years, the U.S. has supported extremely strong protections of pharmaceutical patents, including those of antiretroviral drugs. 55 In particular, the Bush administration has argued that poverty, rather than high drug prices, accounts for the overwhelming lack of access to these essential drugs, particularly for those with HIV/AIDS. 56 Thus, pharmaceutical company profits inform the administration's policy on making these drugs both affordable and accessible to the nearly five million people that need them in sub-Saharan Africa alone. 57 In recent testimony before Congress, the Health and Human Services Secretary suggested that, in order to curb a flu pandemic, the U.S. could override patents. 58 This is [*75] consistent with a proposed amendment to the TRIPS Agreement which would allow countries with the capacity to produce essential drugs to export them to countries that lack such capacity when they are experiencing a national health emergency. 59 The Secretary, however, argued that this option was unavailable for other countries. 60 B. "New Right" Ideologies Underlie the Global Gag Rule and Other Policies
The foregoing reversals on funding for reproductive health care and for HIV/AIDS work largely results from the ideological commitments and goals of the New Right. 61 As a result of the Roe v. Wade decision, 62 as well as other influences, including the rise of feminism in the 1970's and the increase in women entering the labor force, the New Right came to regard the structure of the traditional family as being in crisis. 63 In addition, for a variety of other reasons, the New Right's pro-life/anti-abortion, pro-family/anti-welfare movement gained strength. 64 Some of the key elements of this New Right movement are as follows. The first element involves dismantling the welfare state and reasserting the traditional male-headed family. 65 The premise here was that the traditional family forms the "fundamental building block and the basic unit of the society." 66 Thus, the New Right believes that reconstructing the family along these lines would save it from the liberal takeover of the family by the welfare state and its proponents. Implicit in this ideology is the perspective that a woman's primary role is as a mother - a proposition applied in ways that are antithetical to the goal of gaining increased access to services related to women's reproductive rights. A woman who plans, limits, and controls [*76] the size of her family in order to pursue an occupation does not conform to the New Right's limited view of her role. In fact, she is supposed to reduce her reliance on welfare programs that the New Right so abhors. Second, although committed to a view of individual rights, the New Right did not support the Equal Rights Amendment, which it perceived as an unwanted state interference with the private sphere of the family. 67 Thus, the New Right was, and continues to be, committed to an "ideology of equal opportunity and individual freedom coupled with a structural reality of economic, sexual, and racial inequality." 68 The New Right asserted "that contraception is a "private good'" and that, therefore, policies that increase access to contraception are outside the realm of proper governance. 69 Third, the New Right supported a reduction of taxes and relief for married couples because men would bring more money home to support and protect their families. 70 In turn, women would pursue their "natural" duties of nurturing and caring for their families. 71 These views are contrary to the goals of supporters of reproductive rights, as such rights encourage, rather than discourage women's economic independence from men. 72 Fourth, reassertion of the traditional heterosexual marriage would, according to the New Right, control the dangerous sexual passions and freedoms that pose a threat to the "moral fiber of society." 73 The abstinence-only policy of the Bush administration is strikingly similar in its views of female sexuality as that of the New Right. 74 U.S. foreign aid policies reflect these ideologies. The New Right supports the commitment of U.S. foreign aid to spread the moral agenda of conservative family values, even at the expense of making reproductive health care widely available. Finally, the movement's
ideologies are reflected in this country's commitment towards the protection of pharmaceutical patents at all costs, even in the face of enormous disparities [*77] in access to essential drugs. 75 III. Implications of the New Right's View of Family and Sex The state "participates in the sexual politics of male dominance by enforcing its epistemology through law." 76 When the U.S. exports and imposes policies reflecting its culture wars on developing countries, this amounts to a form of "cultural imperialism." 77 This assertion proceeds from the view that international relations are composed of the "relations between people ("women' and "men'), between people and states, and between organizations and economies," and not simply relations between states. 78
A. A Critical View of Exporting the U.S.'s Culture Wars In this section, I analyze the global gag rule in part through the lens of liberal feminism whose contemporary roots are sometimes traced to the publication of Betty Freidan's book, The Feminist Mystique 79 as well as through critical perspectives that do not assume that western feminism should necessarily assume a "master discourse' outside the West without acknowledging that is relatively well "supported by a high level of material well-being, intellectual freedom and personal mobility." 80
From these disparate perspectives, the
politics of the New Right are a reflection of the patriarchal underpinnings of a male dominated system, as well as the private order of market relations that structures patriarchy. 81 [*78] Thus, the New Right misleadingly argues that love and devotion govern
traditional family relations. Further, the movement's assault on the welfare state reproduces hierarchical sexual and economic relations between men and women. 82 The New Right agenda does this, in part, by rejecting sexual and labor equality between men and women and instead seeking to reassert patriarchal authority, both within the traditional family as well as in sexual
relations between men and women. 83 The New Right's traditional family agenda regards sexual inequality as the necessary outcome of biological differences. 84 Sexual freedom and equality would, according to the New Right, erode and endanger procreation, thereby threatening the future of the traditional family. 85
Thus, the New Right's central mission considers "how sexuality is managed, sublimated, expressed, denied and propagated." 86 Indeed, the very sexual constitution of patriarchy is a key insight underpinning of the New Right ideology. In effect, the New Right embraces the idea that ending patriarchy would undermine the privileged status and authority of men and that the best way to avoid this is the control of women's
bodies. To this end, the New Right seeks to legislate issues of sexuality by drawing boundaries between sex and love and by outlawing sexual choice and freedom with a view to curbing the excesses of liberal feminism and sexual egalitarianism. 87
The New Right emphasizes that sexual differences between men and women somehow justify unequal economic and social circumstances between individuals. 88 Therefore, the New Right considers interference with [*79] open competition through programs like affirmative action and aid to the poor - particularly to women of color on welfare - to be illegitimate. 89 The effect of the programs that are supported by the New Right is to promote the economic dependence of women. 90 That is also true of the World Bank's vision of market-centered equality. 91
The global gag rule encompasses these ideologies both explicitly as well as through its practical effect - that is to make reproductive rights less accessible to women, and thereby impacting women's opportunities. Access to reproductive rights, including access to family planning methods, health care, and where legal, access to abortion, increases women's access to equal opportunities with men. 92 This ideology literally draws the line between which populations are worthy of living, and which will be left alone to die. This imperial power over life relegates Africans to the category of disposable people, garbage humans whose lives are not valued Hernandez-Truyol, Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law at Florida, Fall 2006 [Berta Esperanza, On Disposable People and Human Well-Being: Health, Money and Power, U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 35, l/n]
V. Looking Forward In Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, the South African Constitutional Court upheld a hospital administration's decision to provide dialysis only to those who were eligible for transplants, i.e., those patients who, in the judgment of the state, could be "cured." 157 Conversely, the state could deny dialysis treatments to patients ineligible for transplants, i.e., for whom it would simply be palliative care, notwithstanding whether the treatments would be beneficial to the patient's length or quality of life. The Soobramoney Court's reasoning, ostensibly a rational allocation of scarce resources case, might be palatable or necessary in non-health related contexts. It held that the state, which has limited means, can make the difficult decision on how best to utilize its available resources. However, in dealing with health matters, this framework has the state effectively deciding which life to value. Each re-reading of Soobramoney increases my discomfort with the decision and the reasoning behind it. To be sure, no one can argue with the reality of a
state's finite resources. But it seems inappropriate, if not alarming, to place the potentially life and death delivery of health care
services decision-making power on a governmental body with its attendant and ubiquitous structural prejudices. The process unveils and underscores some reasons for concern. For example, until very recently in South Africa, [*63] all classes of nonwhites were disposable people - second-class citizens who were denied well-being. In addition, to make treatment delivery options contingent on the state's perception of the treatment being curative is inappropriate. Nobody has a preordained time-line. Anyone can be healthy and be involved in a tragic accident or suffer a catastrophic illness and be gone in an instant.
Specifically with regard to the Soobramoney rationale, even with respect to those eligible for transplants, there are enormous risks and contingencies involved. For one, the transplant might not take. Similarly, an organ might not be available for transplant, or a person who undergoes a successful transplant may have an accidental death or suffer an unrelated, yet still terminal, illness. Moreover, although a treatment may be palliative, one day a cure may be found for the disease. Alternatively, as in the HIV/AIDS
case, the palliative treatment may effectively indefinitely prolong life although it does not effect a cure. The possibilities concerning efficacy of treatments are innumerable. Thus, having the state decide the guidelines for who gets treatment and who does not, effectively deciding who lives and who does not - reasonable as the guidelines may appear to be - seems to be a hugely dangerous proposition particularly in a world where not all lives are valued equally, in a world that is replete with disposable people.
In this regard, the ostensibly clear line drawn by the Soobramoney Court between palliative and curative care is deeply flawed. The palliative/curative distinction is not a bright, clear line; rather, it is part of a continuum. The HIV/AIDS pandemic exposes this reality. Medications that have been developed, while not curative, in fact have the effect of the indefinite prolongation of life. As such, the palliative function of the medications blurs the line to cure because they do more than reduce the violence of a disease. Thus, we should consider health care delivery to be a process that operates along a life/death continuum. The
process ranges from prevention to cure. The delivery of health care services and treatment that takes place along this life/death continuum works to effect human dignity and well-being.
Human well-being is an international human right. This goal of human thriving involves the rights to health, health care, life, family, information, nondiscrimination, and conditions for an adequate standard of living. Yet as the figures for the gag rule and the HIV/AIDS statistics reveal, these rights are at best illusory for vulnerable populations. Disposable people - the poor, the ill, the disempowered and disenfranchised, women and children, populations from the South and the East - all disproportionately lack access to well-being. The effects of the Global Gag Rule on health care and the realities of HIV/AIDS epidemic for disposable populations provide lessons to be [*64] learned about human rights, economic power, and human well-being. Both show the connection of money and health. An analysis of the gag rule reveals that it can be interpreted as an imperial power move that contributes to the deterioration of health. It
deploys economic power to ignore sovereignty and subtract from human well-being. The policy purposely denies access to funds that enable the provision of health education, supplies, and services simply to implement political ideology. Ironically, while claiming a policy of preventing loss of life through prohibition of abortion, the gag rule policy actually costs more lives by not engaging in programs that can reduce maternal and infant mortality. Significantly, the policy also deleteriously results in more orphans (who are usually left in very vulnerable and unstable situations) and in the failure to provide certain services and supplies necessary for HIV/AIDS victims. This reveals a direct link between economic power (quantity of aid) and availability of service.
The HIV/AIDS example, on the other hand, unveils both direct and indirect connections between money and health. As suggested above, the gag rule affects delivery of some HIV/AIDS-related services although that is not the intent of the policy and, indeed, separate HIV/AIDS USAID funding would, in theory, be able to support the delivery of supplies and services. Beyond the gag rule, it has become evident that states with greater access to economic resources can better protect their endangered ill citizens. However an important lesson, that is significant to any analysis of health as a fundamental human right, can be learned from the HIV/AIDS treatment options. The scientific progress in treating HIV/AIDS blurs the palliative/curative line and instead places health care delivery on a prevention to cure continuum. Lack of clear lines separating palliative treatment from curative treatment exacerbates the problem of economic access. The concern is that the most disempowered persons around the world, North and South, East and West alike - women and children, the aged, the poor, the ill, the infirm - may lack the economic power to enjoy the benefits of human well-being if delivery of health care services is based upon an econometric model that includes evaluating whether the treatment can effect a cure. This reality provides the
foundation for starting a conversation about the reconstruction of the health paradigm along dignitary lines. Soobramoney case from South Africa is instructive both to some perceived parameters of the right to health care and the need for a paradigmatic transition that centers human well-being in considering health matters. Even in South Africa with one of the most progressive constitutions in the world that expressly includes a right to health, the power of money is patent. The right to health - in this instance, access to state-provided heath care - is dependent upon, as Soobramoney underscores, the [*65] state's available resources. The decision is in
In this regard, the accord with the international documents, which provide that access to protected services depends upon the economic limitations of the state. 158 This results in a situation in which those who can afford to pay for health care treatment can obtain it and have access to procedures and medication that can improve their condition. Yet those who cannot privately pay for medical care are limited to receiving only the treatment that the state has chosen to
provide. That, in turn, subjects persons to the state's value judgment of what is important treatment and what are properly treatable illnesses. This judgment is linked to a state's decision about who is a disposable person rather than the health needs of the individual human being.
The human rights construct acknowledges that all human rights are indivisible. Since the earliest days the right to health has been viewed as a right central to humanity. A critical analysis reveals that vulnerable populations bear the cost of life by the deployment of money as the factor to
determine access to health care services. The value of life ought not to depend upon uncritical economic models, relative value of life judgments by those on the economic power, or the whims of the state. All families, not just the rich, western, or northern ones, are important; all parents have the right to health for their children; all children deserve a chance at a long healthy life. To achieve these goals it is imperative to overcome the economic urge to ignore disposable people and instead to center human well-being in the health paradigm. By abandoning Sub-Saharan Africans to the New Bush Order we are literally letting die. This is a new biopolitics whereby entire populations are relegated to disposability and invisibility. Race and class-based
exclusions are creating a global population of the living dead, bodies to be bombed, starved, or simply excluded from sight in our collapsing public sphere Giroux, Global TV Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster, 2006 [Henry A., Reading Hurricane Katrina: Race, Class, and the Biopolitics of Disposability, College Literature 33.3 (2006) 171-196. project muse] In the current historical moment, as Catherine Mills points out, "all subjects are at least potentially if not actually abandoned by the law and exposed to violence as a constitutive condition of political existence" (2004, 47). Nicholas Mirzoeff has observed that all over the world there is a growing resentment of immigrants and refugees, matched by the emergence of detain-and-deport strategies and coupled with the rise of the camp as the key institution and social model of the new millennium. The "empire of camps,"
according to Mirzoeff, has become the "exemplary institution of a system of global capitalism that supports the West in its high consumption, low-price consumer lifestyle" (2005, 145). Zygmunt Bauman calls such camps "garrisons of extraterritoriality" and argues that they have become "the dumping grounds for the indisposed of and as yet unrecycled waste of the global frontier-land" (2003, 109). The regime of the camp has increasingly become a key index of modernity and the new world order. The connections among disposability, violence, and death have become common under modernity in those countries where the order of power has become necropolitical. For example, Rosa Linda Fregoso analyzes feminicide as a local expression of global violence against women in the region of the U.S./Mexico border where over one thousand women have been either murdered or disappeared, constituting what amounts to a "politics of gender extermination" (2006, 109). The politics of disposability and necropolitics not only generate widespread violence and ever expanding "garrisons of
extraterritoriality" but also have taken on a powerful new significance as a foundation for political sovereignty. Biopolitical commitments to "let die" by abandoning citizens appear increasingly credible in light of the growing authoritarianism in the United States under the Bush administration (Giroux 2005). [End Page 180] Given the Bush administration's use of illegal wiretaps, the holding of "detainees" illegally and indefinitely in prisons such as Guantanamo, the disappearance, kidnapping, and torture of alleged terrorists, and the ongoing suspension of civil liberties in the United States, Agamben's theory of biopolitics rightly alerts us to the dangers of a government in which the state of emergency becomes the fundamental structure of control over populations. While Agamben's claim that the concentration camp (as opposed to Foucault's
panopticon) is now the model for constitutional states captures the contrariness of biopolitical commitments that have less to do with preserving life than with reproducing violence and death, its totalitarian logic is too narrow and fails in the end to recognize that the threat of violence, bare life, and death is not the only form of biopower in contemporary life. The dialectics of life and death, visibility and invisibility, and privilege and lack in social existence that now constitute the biopolitics of modernity have to be understood in terms of their complexities, specificities, and diverse social formations. For instance, the diverse ways in which the current articulation of biopower in the United States works to render some groups disposable and to privilege others within a permanent state of emergency need to be specified. Indeed, any viable rendering of contemporary biopolitics must address more specifically how biopower attempts not just to produce and
control life in general, as Hardt and Negri insist, or to reduce all inhabitants of the increasing militarized state to the dystopian space of the "death camp," as Agamben argues, but also to privilege some lives over others. The ongoing tragedy of pain and suffering wrought by the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina reveals a biopolitical agenda in which the logic of disposability and the politics of death are inscribed differently in the order of contemporary powerstructured largely around wretched and broad-based racial and class inequalities. I want to further this position by arguing that neoliberalism, privatization, and militarism have become the dominant biopolitics of the mid-twentieth-century social state and that the coupling of a market fundamentalism and contemporary forms of subjugation of life to the power of capital accumulation, violence, and disposability, especially under the Bush administration, has produced a new and dangerous version of biopolitics.4 While the murder of Emmett Till suggests that a biopolitics structured around the intersection of race and of invisibility and disposability. As William DiFazio points out, "the state has been so weakened over decades of privatization that it . . . increasingly [End Page 181]fails to provide health care, housing, retirement benefits and education to a massive percentage of its population" (2006, 87). While the social contract has been suspended in varying degrees since the 1970s, under the Bush Administration it has been virtually abandoned. Under such circumstances, the state no longer feels obligated to take measures that prevent hardship, suffering, and death. The state no longer protects its own disadvantaged citizensthey are already seen as dead within a transnational economic and political framework. Specific populations now occupy a globalized space of ruthless politics in which the categories of "citizen" and "democratic representation," once integral to national politics, are no longer recognized. In the past, people who were marginalized by class and race could at least expect a modicum of support from the government, either because of the persistence of a drastically reduced social contract or because they still had some value as part of a reserve army of unemployed labour. That is no longer true. This new form of biopolitics is conditioned by a permanent state of class and racial exception in which "vast populations are subject to conditions of life conferring upon them the status of living dead" (Mbembe 2003, 40), largely invisible in the global media, or, when disruptively present, defined as redundant, pathological, and dangerous. Within this wasteland of death and disposability, whole populations are relegated to what Zygmunt Bauman calls "social homelessness" (2004, 13). While the rich and middle classes in the United States maintain lifestyles produced through vast inequalities of symbolic and material capital, the "free market" provides neither social protection and security nor hope to those who are poor, sick, elderly, and marginalized by race and class. Given the increasing perilous state of the those who are poor and dispossessed in America, it is crucial to reexamine how biopower functions within global neoliberalism and the simultaneous rise of security states organized around cultural (and racial) homogeneity. This task is made all the more urgent by the destruction, politics, and death that followed Hurricane Katrina.
class inequalities, on the one hand, and state violence, on the other, has long existed, the new version of biopolitics adds a distinctively different and more dangerous register. The new biopolitics not only includes state-sanctioned violence but also relegates entire populations to spaces
Plan
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 249 of 290 Thus we are resolved that:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance to SubSaharan Africa by rescinding the Global Gag Rule, including all restrictions on programs involving abortion, sex workers, or other sexual minorities, and ending programs that promote abstinence-only or primarily faith based policies or organizations Contention Two: Silence = Death Our demand to replace faith-based family planning with legitimate public health policies joins with myriad groups across the globe figthing the imposition of sexual fundamentalism by the new missionaries. The time to act is now. Petchesky, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Hunter College, May 14, 2006 [Rosalind P., Rights of the Body in Times of War: Keynote Lecture, York Institute for Health Research, York University, http://www.choike.org/documentos/petchesky.pdf, p. 7-9] I have gone on at length about the US government because it claims to represent me, though I oppose its murderous policies and feel
responsible and ashamed that they are inflicting so much death and suffering on people across the globe. So this is a personal as well as a political matter. But its also the fallout of imperial power. As a friend and colleague in Brazil has written, Because the United States is the major military and economic force in the post[Cold] War world, at present each and every negotiation, debate, or decision in the international sphere is slanted by the positions and unilateral actions of the Bush government. (Pazello 2005) In every arenawhether it be the UN General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights, the upcoming UNGASS on AIDS, or in national settingsfeminist, LGBT and transnational human rights NGOs find themselves contending with US right-wing, behind-the-scenes maneuvering; I call it the un-diplomacy of bribe, bully or bomb. Here we enter the last theater, one that, as much as trade, affects the destinies of people at risk for and living with HIV/AIDS everywhere: the global theater of sexuality. With regard to sexual subjectivity and sexual normativity, the Bush regime has been unusually multilateralmaking alliances with like-minded fundamentalists wherever it can find them, and even when these unlikely bedfellows are its arch-enemies over in the military theater. Along with the Vatican and its client states in Latin America, Central America and parts of eastern Europe, the US-led alliance against sexual and reproductive rights includes the Islamist OIC (Organization of Islamic Conferences) countries such as Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, and Sudan as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. This Christian-Islamic axis of evil succeeded for the past three years in the Commission on Human Rights in fending off a Brazilian resolution to recognize freedom of sexual orientation as a human right. It did so in part through back-door pressure by the US to boycott UNCTAD negotiations and subvert the attempt by Brazil to advance trade between Latin America and Arab countries. Here, the sexual theater and the trade theater converge. (Pazello) More directly related to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the right to health are the ways in which the Bush administration has insinuated the heterosexual, conjugal and procreative model of sexuality so dear to the hearts of the Christian right into its funding for AIDS prevention and treatment (PEPFAR). Both in the legislation and regulations authorizing PEPFAR and in its practical implementation, this has meant three things: (1) a policy strongly promoting the A-B-C (abstain, be faithful, use a condom) approach to prevention, but with a clear emphasis on A and a subtle if not direct discouragement of C (the legislation requires that at least one-third of all funds be devoted to abstinence programs); (2) priority in the distribution of funds to faith- based (usually Christian) organizations over secular or public-health based ones, whether or not those groups have any experience in AIDS treatment and prevention; and (3) stigmatization and disqualification of advocacy groups that are composed of or reach out to sex workers, even though these groups have been among the most effective in developing prevention strategies that work and virtually halted the spread of the virus among sex workers in many communities in Brazil, Thailand, India, and elsewhere. So in Uganda, for example, long considered the poster child of the ABC approach, recent studies indicated that rates of infection were rising again, abstinence not working, and the government, fearful of losing PEPFAR funds, was leaving mountains of condoms to rot in warehouses (www.genderhealth.org). In South Africa, India and Thailand, NGOs are being required to sign the infamous prostitution pledge, in which they promise that no US funds they receivewill be used to promote or advocate legalization or practice of prostitution or to provide assistance to any group . . . that does not have a position explicitly opposing prostitution. So groups have to sign or risk losing precious funds.
Resembling the global gag rule against US funding of groups that advocate safe, legal abortionBushs first act as president the prostitution pledge and the abstinence-only policy not only put health workers in an impossible double bind and put religious ideology in the place of basic public health methods. They also violate rights of free speech and expression in ways that would be unconstitutional in the
United States. US policy (both PEPFAR and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act) equates all prostitution, consensual or not, with trafficking and promotes a strictly punitive, criminalizing approach to its eradication. When one organization in India, SANGRAM, which has a long history of working on HIV/AIDS prevention and for the human rights of sex workers, refused to sign the pledge, USAID officials accused it of being implicated in exploitative sex trafficking. But Condoleeza Rice calls PEPFAR transformational diplomacy in action and says its aim is to empower every nation to take ownership of its own fight against HIV/AIDS. (Washington Post, 2/13/06) I guess this is the same way Iraq has been empowered for
democracy.
Conclusion: Talking Back, Acting Diversely in Unity
But there is another, more positive side to this story, and that is the upsurge of resistance that a war-minded empire has wrought. This is true even in the US, where (as you probably heard) Bushs poll ratings and popular support for the Iraq war are sinking deep into the mud. According to a
recent New York Times/CBS News poll, the percentage of respondents who said going to war in Iraq was the correct decision slipped to a new low of 39 percent, and two-thirds said they had little or no confidence that Mr. Bush could successfully end the war. In the same poll, only 19 percenttrust the Republicans to improve the [US] health care system, which grows more insanely inequitable and costly every year. In April the US Government Accountability Officean independent arm of Congressissued a report seriously critiquing PEPFAR and the ABC approach. According to the GAO, separation between the three parts of the program has created confusion in many PEPFAR recipient countries, and the perceived emphasis on abstinence has riskedor costcountless lives. This is a major rebuke from within Washington to Bushs and Rices claims to be empowering the fight against HIV/AIDS.
The strongest resistance, however, comes from those societies where the reach of empire and militarism has its most deadly effects. In the past decade or so, one ofthe most exciting counter-currents of globalization has been the eruption of a wide array of new political actors on the global stage. Organized around rights of the body to health, pleasure, and freedom from violence, this proliferation of new voices includes groups never before named or selfidentified in arenas of global dissent: transsexual and transgender people, intersexed people, youth coalitions for sexual and reproductive rights, Dalit and indigenous people resisting old but often unrecognized racisms, and People Living with HIV&AIDS. Noi, an activist with the network of People Living with HIV/AIDS in Thailanditself connected to PWA networks across the globeis speaking out to educate people about the negative effects of the FTA: I strongly disagree with the current US-Thailand FTA deal, she says. I want the Thai government to call off the deal . . . [whose] outcome is that medicine will be a lot more expensive for all. (Oxfam, p.16) SANGRAM and VAMP, the latter a collective of women in prostitution in Delhi, not only refused to sign the US prostitution pledge but also sent out a message all over the Internet to protest vociferously when they were falsely accused of trafficking. And the Brazilian Health Ministry refused an AIDS grant of$40 million from USAID rather than sign the pledge.
Meanwhile, sex worker organizations, particularly in South Asia, have been an increasingly vocal presence. In Kerala in 2003 the National Network of Sex Worker Organizations held a Festival of Pleasure where they demanded the decriminalization of sex work, acceptance of sex workers rights, and the right to safe and pleasurable sex. In Calcuttas red light district, the Sonagachi project is an HIV program for sex workers that not only provides bank loans, schooling for children, literacy training for adults, reproductive health care and cheap condoms but also lets the sex workers run the program themselves. The result is 60,000 members who have pledged to use condoms regularly and an HIV prevalence rate of only 5 percent. (Mukerjee 2006) In South Africa, according to researchers Ida Susser and Zena Stein, contrary to the view of African women as helpless victims and the prevailing patriarchal culture, grassroots women they interviewed are demanding woman- controlled methods of protection such as the female condom. In Johannesburg in April a gathering of HIV positive women, womens rights activists, feminists, scholars, professionals, community workers and policy makers from the African continent convened the African Womens Regional Consultation on Womens and Girls Rights and HIV/AIDS in Africa, in preparation for the upcoming UNGASS on AIDS to be held in New York the end of this month. Their statement is a brilliant distillation of all we have learned in the past decades about the social, economic and cultural contextsand especially the conditions of female subordination and male dominancethat put women and girls at risk of contracting AIDS, not only in Africa but also in New York and Toronto. It calls on government heads to take concrete actions to end these conditions.
A confluence of factors has given such groups greater visibility and greater courage to speak out: the epidemic itself and the way it forces sexuality into discourse; the Internet and other vehicles of electronic communication; United Nations forums as a gathering place for NGOs as well as a site for producing new norms; and not least, the common language of human rights as a political and rhetorical structure for asserting social justice claims. Of course, no one owns the rhetoric of human rights and liberation; we see them co-opted all the time, as in
the example of the US Secretary of State touting PEPFAR or the anti-feminist, homophobic groups that invoke the human rights of fetuses and traditional families.
Theres no escaping politics. In each case, we have to ask, who is speaking, on whose behalf, and in the name of what kind of world? Or, as Judith Butler has framed it, what makes a life livable and whose lives count as lives in the speakers moral universe? Can we see beyond the terrorist and the helpless victim to recognize the humanity of the Other? There is a lot we all can do, and you can do here in Canada. I offer a few suggestions:
o As Canadian citizens, oppose your Conservative governments support of, or silence about, US government policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and get Prime Minister Harper to join the chorus even among conservatives calling for the shut-down of Guantnamo and an end to US torture and rendition; o As mothers, daughters, or sons, go to the Code Pink website (www.codepink.org) today, on Mothers Day, to tell Laura Bush to tell her husband not to invade Iran and to get US troops out of Iraq; o As health care providers and advocates, support the work of groups like Mdecins sans Frontires, International Womens Health Coalition, Oxfam International, Action Canada for Population and Development and ARC International, the dynamic LGBT group based in Ottowa; o As health researchers and activists, do research on the health needs of women in armed conflict zones and refugee camps. And come to the World AIDS Conference here in Toronto in August and attend the Global Village activities of groups like CHANGE (Center for Health & Gender Equity), the International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy (my group), the International Community of Women Living with AIDS, and others to learn and share more
To inspire you to do so, let me close by reading the powerful conclusion of the African Womens Consultation position paper I cited earlier:
We, African women, are profoundly concerned and aggrieved that it has taken so long for governments to fully appreciate the centrality of African womens rights and voices in dealing with HIV/AIDS, which is one of the greatest threats to our collective existence as a people and the continent. As African women, we demand meaningful participation and involvement in institutions and processes that shall guide the global responses to HIV and AIDS. As women of Africa, we fully commit ourselves to working with our heads of state and government and other stakeholders to mitigate the impact of HIV and AIDS on African women and girls, the continent and the world. Womens rights are not negotiable. The women and girls of Africa deserve more. The time to act is now! (April 7, 2006) Challenging the global gag rule also challenges the growing global fundamentalist movement that is trying to roll back gains across the world. U.S. foreign policy literally gags the movements which are needed to mount the political challenges for womens rights both at home and abroad. Our demand is a prerequisite for this global movement Ernst et al, Legislative Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, April 2004 [Julia L., Erica Smock & Laura Katzvie, Legislative Counsel & Legal Advisor at the CRP, The Global Pattern of U.S. Initiatives Curtailing Women?s Reproductive Rights: A Perspective on the Increasingly Anti-Choice Mosaic, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, volume 6, number 4, http://www.reproductiverights. org/pub_art_mosaic.html]
IV. VIEWING THE WHOLE PICTURE: REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS OF U.S. ANTI-CHOICE POLICIES Just as Roe v. Wade?s positive reverberations were felt worldwide in the decades that followed, U.S. backpedaling on reproductive choice has had negative implications around the world. The mounting assault on womens reproductive rights in other countries through explicit U.S. foreign policy directed at undermining those rights is painfully apparent. However, all too often the policy makers in Washington, D.C., do not make the connection between their actions and the significant impact those actions have upon the health, well-being, and, indeed, the very lives of women living in remote areas of the globe.
It is much easier for opponents of choice to convince U.S. lawmakers to impose restrictions on the reproductive rights of women in other countries than on the rights of women in the U.S. For one thing, the protections of abortion rights guaranteed to American women under the U.S. Constitution do not apply beyond the borders of the United States.172 Additionally, women in other countries have little influence over U.S. politics. As one writer observed: [G]iven that abortions are legal in the United States and are required to be medically sound, why would an American president seek to deny that standard of healthcare protection to the rest of the world? Here?s why: Women in other countries can?t vote in U.S. elections, but the members of the National Right to Life Committee not only vote but also donate to candidates and political action committees.173 U.S. policy makers can placate a conservative constituency by imposing severe abortion restrictions on women in other countries and, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the impact of those policies. Moreover, U.S. policy makers and the general public are also largely unaware of the significant impact that the domestic abortion debate within the U.S. has upon the issue of abortion in other countries. Foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations who depend upon U.S. assistance for survival have every incentive to implement policies within their own countries that will not offend the U.S. government and jeopardize their funding. When anti-choice rhetoric surrounding domestic politics in the United States increases, it has a ripple effect upon public response to abortion in other countries. This section briefly examines the impact that the anti-choice U.S. foreign and domestic policies have upon women?s access to abortion around the world. The U.S. foreign policy decisions made in Washington, D.C., based on anti-choice political considerations, have drastic consequences upon the lives of women throughout the world, especially in impoverished countries. An estimated forty to fifty million abortions take place annually, and at least twenty million are performed under unsafe, illegal conditions.174 Up to half of women undergoing unsafe abortions require post-abortion care for complications. Millions of women suffer permanent physical injuries, and at least 70,000 women die each year.175 Most of these deaths and injuries are preventable, and occur in countries where abortion is either illegal altogether or highly restricted.
Although the restrictions on women?s right to choose imposed upon women within the United States are considerable and growing, as discussed in the previous sections, the restrictions that the U.S. government imposes upon women in other countries have much more severe consequences. Within the United States, almost no deaths or injuries result from unsafe abortion, and the maternal mortality rate is relatively low at seven deaths per 100,000 live births.176 By way of contrast, in Kenya, where abortion is forbidden except to save the life of a pregnant woman, the maternal mortality rate is 590 deaths per 100,000 live births, and 35% are due to unsafe abortions. Between 30% and 60% of all admissions to gynecology wards in Kenya are women needing medical care for post-abortion complications. 177 Yet the United States is exporting policies that ensure that the legal status quo will remain in place in countries such as Kenya, and that women will not have access to safe abortion services. Where abortion is restricted, the legal constraints on women?s decisions will not end abortions, but will inevitably lead to higher health risks, especially for indigent women.
It is extremely difficult to determine the full extent of the harm to women caused by the global gag rule,178 in large part because the restriction "gags" organizations from discussing abortion. Nonetheless, some reports of its impact have emerged.179 The government of Bolivia has reportedly indicated that, as a direct result of the U.S. policy, it will no longer endorse life-saving care for women suffering complications from illegal, unsafe abortions.180 Bolivian organizations also report that because of the global gag rule, their government has suspended efforts to permit distribution of emergency contraception, which prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces abortions.181 In Zimbabwe, the director of a health care organization has privately indicated support for liberalization of Zimbabwe?s stringent abortion law to reduce the number of women dying from abortion. Since his organization is subject to the global gag rule, however, he stated in an interview for a newspaper article that his organization did not support the legalization of abortion.182 At the time President Bush reinstated the global gag rule in 2001, in Nepal over 500 women were dying from pregnancy-related complications for every 100,000 live births (compared with seven maternal deaths per 100,000 births in the United States)?half as a result of illegal, unsafe abortion.183 The global gag rule forced several organizations in Nepal to choose between giving up their desperately needed U.S. assistance or giving up their efforts to reform the abortion law (that allowed no exceptions, even if a woman would die as a result of a pregnancy) under which 20% of women in prison were incarcerated for the crime of abortion. 184 In Kenya, the global gag rule forced a vital health care organization to shut the doors of three of its health care clinics in rural areas of the country.185
The outcry against the global gag rule has resonated across the globe. In the days immediately following President Bushs announcement,
countries including Australia, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom ran television, radio, and newsprint stories about the severity of the restriction.186 Governments condemned the new U.S. directive as not only detrimental to womens health and lives, but also as an affront to international human rights standards protecting freedom of speech and the right of citizens to participate in their own democratic political processes. In direct response to this outcry, four representatives from European parliaments traveled to Washington, D.C., in June 2002 to try to convince their American counterparts to listen to the rest of the world?or at least to their closest allies?and repeal global gag rule. Representative Tony Worthington from the United Kingdom stressed that, "[m]y colleagues and I believe that if America gives into the domestic pressures that it faces, it will not cut the number of abortions?it will stimulate them, particularly unsafe abortions for the poorest women in the world. [The global gag rule] will kill large numbers of people."187
It is also difficult to measure the impact of the Helms Amendment upon women?s access to abortion around the world. As noted above, the Helms Amendment forbids U.S. funding of abortion services, as well as advocacy concerning abortion law reform. Because, like the global gag rule, its effect has been to petrify laws that criminalize abortion, law reform that may otherwise have taken place has not gone forward. Over the last three decades, such law reform might have prevented innumerable deaths resulting from unsafe, illegal abortions. The Helms Amendment?s chilling effect on discussion of the health impact of restrictive abortion laws is reflected in the "Guidelines for Authors" of the publication International Family Planning Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal serving, among others, policy makers and members of the public health community. The guidelines state: "Because the journal receives funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, it is prohibited under the Helms Amendment (P.L. 93-189) from publishing material that pro- 185 The Family Planning Association of Kenya ("FPAK") has closed three clinics. See THE GLOBAL GAG RULE IMPACT PROJECT, THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL motes abortion."188 The president of Ipas, an organization founded in 1973 to prevent unsafe abortion in impoverished countries, stated (partly in response to the Helms Amendment): U.S.-funded family-planning clinics in developing countries where abortion is legal have systematically denied poor women the basic rights to safe abortion care that most American women would come to take for granted. The Helms Amendment not only denied women services in U.S.- funded programs but effectively gave U.S. endorsement to unjust, restrictive policies that have endangered the lives and health of millions of women.189 Furthermore, the Bush administration?s decision to eliminate funding for UNFPA due to domestic abortion politics is severely restricting that agency?s ability to provide reproductive health care services in approximately 140 countries, compromising the health, wellbeing, and even lives of millions of women and their children.190 UNFPA provides women access to vital reproductive health care services such as emergency obstetric care, pre- and postnatal care, contraception, sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment, post-abortion care, and other desperately needed services. The thirtyfour million dollars in funding that was withdrawn by the United States in 2002 could have enabled UNFPA to prevent two million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 abortions, over 77,000 infant and child deaths, and 4,700 maternal deaths.191
By withholding funding for reproductive health services due to domestic abortion politics, and by imposing the global gag rule and Helms Amendment, which deny women access to safe and legal abortions, the United States government is complicit in the injuries and deaths of hundreds of thousands of women throughout the world each year.
B. U.S. Contribution to Hostility Toward Global Abortion Rights As discussed in previous sections, although the global trend
is a movement toward increasing human rights for women, including reproductive rights, there is a small but growing countertrend bent on dismantling these rights. This international countercurrent has been significantly strengthened by the reinvigorated anti-choice agenda espoused by the current U.S. governmentnot only through its foreign policy
agenda, but also through international exposure of the assaults on abortion rights in the U.S.192 Therefore, in addition to the direct impact of U.S. foreign policy restrictions, such as the global gag rule, the Bush administrations high profile condemnation of abortion in its domestic policy and positions taken at international fora may also be having an effect on national-level campaigns to liberalize abortion in countries where it is illegal. The United States government has given ammunition to conservative forces in other countries who couch opposition to abortion in moraland even misguided health-relatedterms, based upon their interpretation of U.S. abortion policies. For example, in Mali, a womens rights activist spoke of a common assumption that if the United States takes a position on an issue, it has done so following evaluation of concrete, scientific evidence.193 In addition, the United States willingness to withhold funding as punishment for supportor perceived supportof abortion has led to a fear in some countries that abortion law reform may result in a loss of U.S. financial assistance. For example, prior to the liberalization of abortion in Nepal, there were fears among those aware of the de-funding of UNFPA that abortion law reform would lead to a similar reprisal against the government of Nepal.194 While these fears ultimately did not prevent reform in that country, they may have a more significant chilling effect in other countries. The Bush administration and anti-choice members of Congress have ignored the fact that womens rights advocates in every nation where abortion remains restricted continue to fight for safe, legal abortion because they see itas the majority of women in the U.S. doas integral to their ability to control their fertility, preserve their health and well-being, and participate as equals in their societies. Women in these countries want what women in the U.S. have come to take for grantedaccess to safe abortion services as part of their reproductive health care. In response, the Bush administration is joining forces with its fundamentalist counterparts at the United Nations and in regional venues, thereby giving strength to emerging far right religious movements worldwide.195 The U.S. governments renewed fundamentalism raises questions about further consequences, especially when considered in the context of womens struggles to achieve fulfillment of their broader reproductive rights. For example, is the fundamentalism and traditionalism that the United
States exports to other countries helping to foster the climate in which the Vatican launches a campaign against life-saving condoms in the midst of a worldwide HIV/AIDS crisis?196 In which the government of Iran can contemplate promoting "temporary marriages" to
allow men to purchase the sexual services of women?who are often young and forced into prostitution by abusive families or husbands, a practice defended as permissible under the Shiite branch of Islam?197 In which pregnant women needing emergency obstetric care in Afghanistan are still inhibited from seeing a doctor by religious clerics stating that their situation is "Allah?s will"?198 According to a press release from the Alan Guttmacher Institute concerning the Bush administration?s string of anti-choice initiatives, "the Bush administration has sided with the Vatican, as well as ?axis of evil? countries Iran and Iraq and others not known for their support of women?s rights, including Libya, Sudan and Syria."199 The press release quoted Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women?s Health Coalition, as stating that "[t]his alliance shows the depths of perversity of the [U.S.] position. On the one hand we?re presumably blaming these countries for unspeakable acts of terrorism, and at the same time we are allying ourselves with them in the oppression of women."200 As noted in the conclusion,
prochoice policy makers must vocally oppose all forms of reproductive rights abuses against women, which are exacerbated globally by the United States through what has been described as President Bushs "war against women."201
Conclusion In 1973, Roe v. Wade contributed to an emerging global understanding of women?s reproductive autonomy as a basic human right. Today, in contrast, the global pro-choice movement is working to counter U.S. policies that deny women needed reproductive health care services. It should be increasingly clear to women in the U.S. that their own reproductive rights are not invulnerable. For this reason, and because pro-choice advocates overseas have little power to influence the decisions of American politicians, attacks on reproductive rights abroad should engender
resistance and protest at home. Likewise, pro-choice policy makers in the U.S. need to connect the dots among the assaults on choice by the Bush administration, Congress and the
federal judiciary. While each of these initiatives carries implications for the women directly affected by it, its threat to basic freedoms for the larger pro-choice public might not be immediately evident. This "divide-and-conquer" tactic incrementally takes away access to abortion from discrete groups in the U.S. and abroad, while seemingly leaving a skeleton of the "right to choose" in place. When regarded together, as a unified, coordinated plan to dismantle the protections afforded women by the U.S. Constitution and human rights instruments, these individual steps paint
a more ominous picture. Piecemeal attempts to slow these anti-choice assaults have met with uneven success. Pro-choice policy makers in the U.S. need to respond to their opponents in kind, by presenting an alternative, comprehensive, positive vision of womens reproductive rights and health, including not only access to safe and legal abortion, but also to comprehensive reproductive health care services, education, and information. History has shown that, for better or for worse, the U.S. can have tremendous influence on the reproductive rights, health, and well-being of millions of women across the globe. Now it is time for U.S. leaders to listen to voices of women worldwide who know far too well what it means to live without choice. The rights of all women may depend on it. The Global Gag Rule is on the frone line of this global struggle. Challenging it is a necessary first step, and our demand serves as a focus in one point of the movement that can connect struggles across the globe. Susskind, Communications director of MADRE, May 1st, 2007 [Yifat, MADRE is an international women's human rights organization, It's Not Just an Abortion Ban: The Christian Right's Global Agenda, www.madre.org/articles/usfp/christianright.5.07.html]
Today, Regent, the flagship university of the openly theocratic wing of the Christian Right, has 150 alumni working in the Bush Administration. Their alma mater's mission: to provide "Christian leadership to change the world." Overturning Roe v. Wade in the US has been their signature preoccupation, but as missionaries, the battlefield of the Christian Right is the whole world. Christian Right activists recognized years ago that
Compared with domestic politics, foreign policy was a feminist-free zone-so the Christian Right moved in. Since 2000-with one of their own finally in the White House-religious fundamentalists have turned their attention to US foreign policy like never before. They started where all religious fundamentalists start: with asserting control over women's bodies. For them, the subordination of women is both a microcosm and a precondition for the world they want to create. And everyone knows that a sure-fire way to subordinate women is to prevent them from controlling their fertility. After all, when you can't decide whether, how often, or even with whom to have children, what can you decide? That's why the Christian Right's first big payback from Bush was the reenactment of the "global gag rule," which bars organizations that receive US funds from counseling, referring, or providing information on abortion. Enacted on Bush's second day in office, the gag rule has forced not only abortion providers, but whole clinics to shut down-all of them in the world's poorest countries, where health services depend on international
they weren't winning any decisive battles in the domestic "culture war." But they also noticed that the mainstream women's movement was largely absent from foreign policy debates.
aid. The UN estimates that by denying women access to contraceptives and a range of health services, Bush's gag rule has led to an additional two million unwanted pregnancies and more than 75,000 infant and child deaths. Moreover, because there is a direct link between women's ability to control their fertility and their capacity to escape poverty, the gag rule violates a range of social and economic rights, in addition to women's reproductive rights.
Sanctifying the United Nations Religious fundamentalism was invented by US Protestants at the end of the 19th century, but now, there are powerful fundamentalist movements in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia all working to restrict women's rights in the name of religion. Many of them gained traction during the Cold War, when the US supported fundamentalist groups as an antidote to the influence of the Soviet Union and secular nationalists. The spread of religious fundamentalism has helped transform the United Nations from a "Godless institution" vilified by the Christian Right into an arena of potential allies, ripe for infiltration. Under Bush, religious fundamentalists have been appointed to represent the US at international health and human rights conferences. They have allied with the Vatican (which enjoys a quasi-governmental status in the UN), Iran, and others seeking to unravel and reshape the UN agenda. As Austin Ruse, president of the US-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, which "monitors UN activity" said, "without countries like Sudan, abortion would have been recognized as a universal human right in a UN document."
Where other countries' allegiance to fundamentalist values has been thin, US religious fundamentalists have relied on sheer bullying at the UN. These delegates have felt doubly empowered-as emissaries of the world's "only true faith" and its only superpower. Over the past six years, the unparalleled global economic, political, and military might of the United States has enabled Christian fundamentalists to push through international public health and human rights policies that have had grave repercussions for women worldwide. Under Bush,
they have succeeded in denying the morning-after pill to rape survivors in Kosovo and barred access to condoms and sexual education in AIDS-ravaged Africa. Bringing It All Back Home For the most part, policies such as these did not cost the Republican Party votes because they didn't impact women in the US-at least not at first. But the US attack on women's reproductive rights abroad followed by the recent Supreme Court ruling is a stark reminder that ideologically
speaking, there's no such thing as foreign policy. The Christian Right seeks to restrict women's rights domestically, just as they have internationally-as part of one coherent "vision" that includes much more than a world without abortion. We only need to look at countries where religious fundamentalists have gained the upper hand in policymaking to see where the US Christian Right would like to take us. Fundamentalists of different religions draw on different texts and operate in diverse cultures and contexts. But when it comes to their rigid and retrograde gender ideology, they show a lot more commonalities than differences. The Christian Right's agenda extends to restricting women's rights to work, equality before the law, education, and freedom from a range of gender-based human rights abuses, including domestic battery and marital rape. And the Christian Right's "vision" goes beyond attacks on any narrowly construed notion of "women's rights." They're angling for more of the kind of messianic militarism that characterized Bush's response to 9/11
(which he originally called a "crusade"), and more neoliberal economic policies that promise greater ruin to the world's poor people and ecology. Fighting Back So how do we counter a movement that now has millions of supporters, and has spent billions building think tanks, universities,
media outlets, and lobbying machines in pursuit of their agenda?
First, it's going to take more than single-issue politics based on a narrow reading of reproductive choice. In many parts of the world, coercive "family planning" policies that violate women's right to have children are as much a threat to their reproductive freedom as lack of abortion access. For people everywhere, reproductive rights must be linked to social and economic rights so that every baby has decent housing, enough food and clean water, a healthy, peaceful environment, and other rights enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Bush-for all his pandering about the "rights" of fetuses-is blocking unanimous global support for that Convention. (The only other country that refuses to ratify it is Somalia, which hasn't had a government in 16 years.)
Second, we need to expand our understanding of "women's issues." The attack on abortion rights is just one aspect of a religious fundamentalist agenda that is threatening not only women's freedom, but international peace and security, Indigenous cultural survival, and secular, democratic political traditions around the world. All of these are women's issues. Third, we need a new progressive dialogue that makes more room for religious people who are working to counter fundamentalist agendas, fueled by their own faith-based politics. In short, we need a strategy that recognizes the connections between women's reproductive rights and the full range of human rights,
and between women in the US and women around the world. It's not that we each need to be addressing every possible political issue simultaneously. But wherever our convictions move us to action, let's act with an awareness of how our piece of the puzzle fits into a bigger picture of the world we're working to create. Because while it may seem like last week's Supreme Court ruling is only about restricting access to abortion, those who worked for years to bring it about see the decision as one battle in a war to remake the whole world in Jerry Falwell's image.
1AC Wake Forest U.S. LAW PROHIBITS FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ANY NGO THAT ENGAGES IN THE PROVISION OR ADVOCACY OF ABORTION SERVICES
DRG/C1 Rachael E. Seevers, JD, BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2006, p. 906-8. However, in 1973, the Helms Amendment was enacted to prohibit the use of federal funding for abortion services in the United States--it also applied to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, thus restricting the use of federal funding in foreign development assistance as well. The extension of the Helms prohibition to foreign funding was a watershed moment in global-U.S. family planning activities and marked a novel attempt to affect policy worldwide. It was also perhaps a harbinger of things to come in the United States. The United States became increasingly committed to influencing foreign policies with the use of foreign aid conditionalities and began to more fully "explore the direct use of humanitarian assistance to achieve specific political ends." Policies became more ambitious, and in 1984 during Reagan's presidency, the Global Gag Rule was introduced by Executive Order. The Gag Rule went even further than the Helms Amendment and prohibited family planning centers and health care advocates from using their own, non-U.S. money to discuss the impact of abortions, educate women on the availability of abortions, or advocate to their own governments for changes in restrictive abortion laws. The Gag Rule remained in effect until 1993, when President Clinton revoked the order within two days of being sworn into office. However, this respite was short lived; beginning in 1995, the Republican-controlled Congress pledged to make reinstatement of the Gag Rule a priority and pushed to enact it legislatively every year following its suspension. Congress was finally able to reinstate the Gag Rule in 1999 by holding up a congressional bill that provided over one billion dollars in back dues to the UN in exchange for reenactment of the regulations. Threatened with the loss of the United States' General Assembly vote in 2000, President Clinton accepted reinstatement of the Gag Rule for one year. However, in an attempt to limit its effect, President Clinton instructed USAID, the main implementing agency of the Gag Rule, to interpret its requirements in the least invasive manner. When foreign NGOs were informed of the new U.S. policy, a vast majority of recipient organizations agreed to certify an agreement not to participate in abortion-related activities or advocacy in exchange for continued U.S. funding, but many clearly expressed that they were doing so "neither willingly nor easily." Clinton's liberal interpretation of the Gag Rule was abandoned by President Bush, who reenacted the Gag Rule in its strictest sense on his first business day in office. Ironically, this day was also the twenty-eighth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court decision upholding the right to an abortion in the United States. In reinstating the Gag Rule, Bush announced that it was his "conviction that taxpayer funds appropriated should not be given to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."
NGOS ADHERE TO GAG RULE FOR FEAR OF LOSING FUNDING

Crane, Dusenberry, Executive Vice President of Ipas Chapel Hill, Research Assistant for Population Action International Washington, DC, 2004 (Barbra, Jennifer, Power and Politics in International Funding for Reproductive Health: the US Global Gag Rule, ScienceDirect, Volume:12, November) 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.
USAID VALUES POPULATION INTEREST OVER WOMENS HEALTH

Barry, Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, 2002 (Tom, Foreign Policy in Focus, The Progressive Response Volume 6, Number 25 http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n25.html), date accessed: July 4, 2007 To hasten fertility declines, donor nations invested heavily in family planning programs. The U.S. Congress, for example, concluded that "population control" was necessary to preserve order and stability in developing countries-and thus protect U.S. interests. Annual appropriations grew rapidly and the United States quickly became the leading donor in this area. U.S. influence in some programs grew markedly. Over a 25-year period ending in the mid-nineties, for example, the U.S. contributed one-fourth of all funds for Mexico's family planning program. As investments increased, governments simultaneously put increasing pressure on these programs to show results. The U.S. Congress developed stringent reporting requirements for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), requiring USAID to demonstrate how funding translated into increasing contraceptive use, numbers of births averted, and lower birth rates overall. As a result of the pressure to perform, "choice" became a relative concept in many programs. In the 1980s, for example, providers in Indonesia were initially trained to insert Norplant, but not to remove it, leaving women who suffered side effects or changed their minds without recourse, and eventually tainting the method itself.
During the 80s and 90s in Mexico, large numbers of women delivering babies in government maternity hospitals were sterilized without consent, a practice that continues in at least some states today. In Bangladesh, India, Mexico, Peru, and elsewhere, women were encouraged to "choose" sterilization and IUDs over other "less effective" methods. Food, money, and other incentives were used along with disincentives in a carrot and stick approach, especially in marginalized communities. Pressure was put on health care providers, whose salaries and even jobs sometimes depended on the numbers of new users recruited. The historical tension between individual needs and demographic goals created a striking paradox that persists today. Family planning services were and are desperately needed by women seeking to control their fertility safely and effectively. Indeed, increased access to a wide range of reproductive health services is quite literally a life and death issue in places where complications from pregnancy and delivery, unsafe abortion, and HIV are the leading causes of illness and death among women in the prime of their lives. Yet from their inception, these services became the conduit for a political agenda that had less to do with women's needs than it did with the achievement of demographic goals.
MILLIONS OF POOR WOMEN IN AFRICA LACK ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Population Action International, 2007 (Why population assistance matters http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Fact_Sheets/FS27/Summary.shtml), date accessed: July 5, 2007. More than 200 million women still have an unmet need for effective contraceptive methods, and the need continues to grow as the number of women and men in their childbearing years increases, and as more of them want to plan their families. Unmet need is highest in sub-Saharan Africa, where 46 percent of women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using no method of contraception. The demand for contraception is projected to increase by 40 percent by 2025. The gap between demand and donor support for contraceptives, condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention, and other reproductive health supplies is growing. If all the male condoms in sub-Saharan Africa made available by donors were evenly distributed, each man would have just three or four per year. Yet donor funding for supplies and supply systems continues to fall. The combined cost of contraceptives and condoms for disease prevention is expected to nearly double over the next decadefrom US$1.0 billion in 2003 to $1.8 billion in 2015while delivery and related costs will rise to $9 billion. In 2002, donors funded just 30 percent of the costs of needed supplies, down from 41 percent in the early to mid-1990s. To return to 41 percent, donors would have to contribute $739 million for contraceptives and condoms in 2015.Hundreds of millions of women still lack access to basic care in pregnancy and childbirth. While women in developed countries have almost universal access to care, one-third of pregnant women in developing countries receive no medical care whatsoever. Only half of all deliveries are attended by skilled personnel, a proportion that falls to less than one-third in the least developed countries. And the number of women of reproductive age in developing countries is increasing by more than 20 million annually. THE PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL REPEAL THE GLOBAL GAG RULE BY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING ITS FUNDING OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.
The affirmative reserves the right to clarify intent.
Advantage: HIV/AIDS
IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE FOR HIV/AIDS WITHOUT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Germain, President of International Womens Health Organization, Woods, Senior Advisor of International Womens Health Organization, 2005 (Adrienne, Zonibel, Society for International Development, Womens Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: A key to ending HIV/AIDS, January 24, http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/docs/Womens_Sexual_and_Reproductive_Health_and_Rights.pdf), date accessed: July 5, 2007. Sexual and reproductive rights are essential to address all three of these factors driving the Feminization of the epidemic. Without sexual and reproductive rights women and girls cannot possibly insist on safe sex practices or make informed choices about prevention and treatment options. And without womens full engagement at all levels of the response to HIV/AIDS, the epidemic will continue to grow. Consequently, there needs to be a major shift in current prevention approaches to stop new infections among women and girls.
PRE AND ANTI-NATAL CARE WILL REDUCE HIV TRANSMISSION

DRG/C443 Shereen El Feki, healthcare correspondent, The Economist magazine, THE BIRTH OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: A DIFFICULT DELIVERY, 2004, p. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=523831. This is a pity because it means that HIV/AIDS programmes are not making use of valuable infrastructure and expertise already on the ground in places where AIDS hits hardest. Given that 57% of HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa are among women, and that, for many of them, family planning clinics are their sole contact with the formal health care system, it seems odd not to integrate such services into the wider battle against HIV. Such centres can offer not only HIV testing and counselling, as well as condoms (against the double whammy of unwanted pregnancy and HIV infection), but also a broad-based message of good sexual health that can help protect against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, pre- and ante-natal care provide an opportunity to stop mother-to-child transmission of HIV in its tracks.
HIV TRANSMISSION CAN BE PREVENTED THROUGH PRENATAL CARE

Together Against Malaria, 2005 (OVERCOMING the burden of MALARIA: Perspectives from the frontline, March 25, http://www.tamtamafrica.org/TAMTAMadvocates%2003.2005.pdf), date accessed: July 6, 2007 Evidence from a pilot program conducted by Together Against Malaria (TAM TAM) in Kenya suggests that, in areas of high malaria and HIV prevalence, delivering fully subsidized ITNs through prenatal clinics is a highly cost-effective way to achieve the much needed increase in coverage among pregnant women and children. Such a distribution strategy improves maternal and child health beyond the immediate reduction in the risk of malaria. It gives pregnant women further incentive to go to the prenatal clinic early and so enables them to take advantage of available services, including those aimed at preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. To improve maternal and child health in poor countries, governments and international organizations must allocate more funds towards fully subsidizing the delivery of ITNs through prenatal clinics at a larger scale.
HIV/AIDS CONTINUES TO SPREAD, RISKING GLOBAL EXTINCTION

THE DAY, April 3, 2007, http://allafrica.com/stories/200704040039.html
Despite various efforts being made by different groups including governments and non-governmental agencies to checkmate the spread of the Human Immune Deficiency Virus (HIV), emerging statistics of the pandemic is frightening as it keeps increasing by the day. For instance, by the end of 2005, according to WHO reports, there were estimated 2.9 million people living with HIV and Aids in the country. This is the largest number in the world, after India and South Africa. From the first case discovered in 1986, the prevalence level rose from 1.8 per cent in 1988 to 5.8 per cent in 2001. By 2003, there were 3.3 million adults living with the virus in the country and 1.9 million or 57 per cent of that figure were women. The report further showed that over 13 of Nigeria's 36 states had an HIV prevalence of over five per cent and at 5.6 per cent; HIV prevalence is highest among young people between ages 20 and 24 compared with other age groups. Surprisingly, at the outbreak of the pandemic in 1982, the initial argument was about the source, whether it was from African monkeys or some mentally debased scientist somewhere in the western world. However, the issue of where it emerged from is no longer the issue, as various bodies have come to agreement that HIV as a health issue is not only real but is determined to wipe off the human race. Increasing number of people worldwide is infected and is falling sick, being exposed to physical, emotional and spiritual crisis. It has not been discreet in its impact. Men, women, young people, children, professionals, politicians, are infected and are down with illness and dying, families, churches, businesses, communities, especially in poverty stricken situations are severely impoverished and incapacitated. The effects of HIV/Aids is breaking people's hearts and spirits, all these point out to the fact that HIV/Aids is real and humanity are strongly feeling its presence in all aspects of our daily lives.
FAILURE TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF AIDS WILL RESULT IN MUTATIONS THAT WILL KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET
Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, Professors of Population studies at Stanford University, THE POPULATION EXPLOSION, 1990, p. 147-8 Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV can be slowed through public education and other measures, on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments, and to a large extent on luck. The virus has already shown itself to be highly mutable, and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug, AZT, that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts, in this case
people, might evolve new transmission characteristics. To do so, however, would almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. If, for instance, the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily), the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. Unlike the current version of AIDS, which can take ten years or more to kill its victims, the new strain might cause death in days or weeks. Infected individuals then would have less time to spread the virus to others, and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in the case of myxopatomis). What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear, but it could temporarily increase the transmission rate and reduce life expectancy of infected persons until the system once again equilibrated. If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the membranes of the mouth, the lungs, or the intestines were increased, the virus might be spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. But it is likely, as Temin points out, that acquiring those abilities would so change the virus that it no longer efficiently infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. In effect it would produce an entirely different disease. We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate, Joshua Lederberg, is worried that a relatively minor mutation could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. If so, it might be transmissible through coughs.
Advantage: Free Speech
THE GAG RULE HINDERS GLOBAL FREE SPEECH

DRG/C20 Patty Skuster, JD, MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW, 2004, p. 121-2. The Global Gag Rule Hinders Speech that Is Not Subject to the Restriction. Speech of the types allowed under the provisions of the GGR has been hindered because of the reinstatement of the rule. The GGR's requirements do not restrict the speech of U.S.based organizations as they enjoy the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Speech on unsafe abortion not used in the context of liberalization is permitted. Nevertheless, these types of speech have been stifled. Because of the GGR, providers and advocates avoid discussing abortion. NGOs are afraid to associate themselves with the issue. NGOs that receive USAID funding consider the agency to be "wincing at the A-word" and the USAID mission to be to harbor "discomfort" with regard to abortion. A professional medical association is able to work only with the few non-USAID funded NGOs in generating information on unsafe abortion. NGOs aware of the loss of USAID funding to one of Ethiopia's major reproductive health providers will not speak about abortion due to fear of their own funding loss. Speech on unsafe abortion outside the context of law reform by a U.S.-based NGO - exempt from the restriction on two grounds - is hindered by the GGR. Because of the GGR and former USAID abortion-related restrictions, NGO staff members constantly avoid using the word abortion, even in the context of post-abortion care. With the reinstatement, the NGO decided not to publish information about its successful post-abortion care program. Other U.S.-based NGOs, in Uganda, Ethiopia, though aware that they are not subject to the restriction, would not speak on the need to liberalize for fear of losing funding. The GGR prevents U.S.-based NGOs from taking a position on the issue of abortion and HIV-positive women. The issue is currently being debated in Ethiopia, yet one staff member of a U.S.-based NGO stated his organization is unable to take a position due to the restriction. Another U.S.-based NGO working on the issue of HIV/AIDS will not discuss exceptions to the abortion law for HIV-positive women. A staff member of a U.S.-based NGO stated he and his colleagues would attend workshops on unsafe abortion as silent observers and refrain from speaking. U.S.-based Cooperating Agencies (CAs), through which USAID channels its funds to local organizations, do not speak about liberalization due to the GGR. and Kenya believe that by speaking they risk losing funding and thereby would sacrifice their reproductive health programs..
GAG RULE SUPPRESSES FREE SPEECH

Osuna, Freelance writer, 2003 (Collette, Womens Health Information, Bushs Rule Continues to Globally Gag, January 22, http://www.fwhc.org/health/index.htm) Date accessed: July 5, 2007 Through the Global Gag Rule, the US government not only suppresses free speech, but affirmatively discriminates against a particular position it does not like, setting a dangerous precedent. It imperils womens reproductive health, undercuts US Foreign Policy, and is an unambiguous censorship of free speech. All Americans are entitled to these rights under the Laws of our Constitution, not merely those who live on US soil. If we believe in these rights for Americans, why not for all the citizens of the world? In June, 2001 the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy announced it was filing suit against President Bush and The Global Gag Rule for censoring the free speech of American citizens. President Bush took away my right to speak because I support a position with which he disagrees: that access to safe and legal abortion is a human right of women worldwide. Yet groups that oppose abortion rights are not censored. The Global Gag Rule violates fairness, freedom, and democracy said Janet Benshoof, President of CRLP
THE GAG RULE THREATENS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND HUMAN RIGHTS GLOBALLY
DRG/C18 Patty Skuster, JD, MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW, 2004, p. 125. Free speech and free association are instrumental to informed lawmaking. Accordingly, these freedoms are retained against government infringement through constitutional protections. Such freedoms in the United States are enshrined within the First Amendment. However, these rights do not extend beyond our borders. The people of poorer nations find no protection against human rights violations by the global superpower. The United States controls a great proportion of the resources available for reproductive health care, giving rise to an even greater need to fortify human rights in the face of its power. Developing world governments are unable to fulfill the health needs of their citizens, leaving women dependent on USAID and susceptible to the impact of the GGR. Under the Global Gag Rule, human rights protection depends on whether a citizen's own country can (and is willing to) fulfill her health needs. Without the protection of human rights against infringement by all governments, the most vulnerable members of humanity will suffer. In this case, it is the poorest women of developing nations whose health and lives are jeopardized by the United States Government.
FOREIGN AID SHOULD GO TO HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT ABORTION TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH AND WOMENS RIGHTS
U.S. Newswire, 2001 (U.S. Newswire, Swift Repeal of the Gag Rule Urged, May 2nd, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-73973360.html) accessed July 6, 2007 Reversal of President Bushs executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule is imperative. Passage of the Lee Amendment will remedy the serious mistake made by the Bush Administration to resurrect the failed Reagan-Bush era policy that denies women around the world access to vital family planning services and dictates to non-governmental organizations what type of legal activities and speech they choose to engage in with their own funds, said Judith M. DeSarno, president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. I have just returned from South Africa, a country suffering from extreme poverty and ravaged by HIV/AIDS. It is hypocrisy at its worst to deny women and their families access to basic reproductive health care services that prevent unintended pregnancy, reduce maternal mortality, reduce infant mortality, and provide protection against STDs and HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, this policy limits free speech in emerging democracies and put at risk the health and lives of tens of thousands of women worldwide. A similar policy in the United States would be considered an outrageous violation of medical ethics and health care practice and an intolerable intrusion between a doctor and his or her patient, DeSarno continued. Family planning clinics save womens lives, and if they must close for lack of U.S. funding, women and children will die. Each year, nearly 600,000 women worldwide die of pregnancy-related causes; 78,000 from unsafe abortions. UNICEF estimates that one out of every four lives could be saved through access to family planning. Women are dying because they are having too many children, too early and too close together. Very often their children die too. Further, 34 million cases of HIV/AIDS are now ravaging the developing world. Half of new infections are among people under age 25. AIDS orphans in the worst-hit 19 African nations will number 40 million by 2010. Family planning clinics are often the best, if not the only, places where women can obtain services to protect themselves and their loved ones from this disease. DeSarno continued, Most developing countries have few health care providers for women. The Global Gag Rule forces U.S.-funded clinics choose between the ethical practice of medicine within the laws of their own countries and the demands of the President of the United States. How can President Bush claim to be compassionate if he cuts off funding to a lifeline for millions of women in the developing world? The supporters of this amendment understand something fundamental that President Bush clearly does notdenying women access to family planning service will only increase abortion and endanger the lives of thousand of women.
FREE SPEECH CRITICAL TO POLITICAL ADVOCACY AND DEMOCRACY

DRG/C22 Rachael E. Seevers, JD, BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2006, p. 919-20. NGOs were recognized by USAID as essential actors in democracy promotion, however much of an NGO's ability to foster democratic participation hinges on its ability to speak openly and advocate to local and national government actors. The importance of this freedom to disseminate information was also noted by Natsios, who insists that the most significant way that NGOs affect foreign policy is by facilitating the free flow of information and by speaking out on behalf of the population they represent. This sentiment is echoed by reproductive rights advocates. "Development of human rights throughout the world is dependent on the efforts of NGOs to gather, process, and disseminate information with their domestic constituencies as well as with world organizations like the UN and nation state governments." A routine part of USAID's analysis of the success of local NGOs in the political process is an examination of the percentage of the populace that is aware of the NGO's chosen issue or advocacy goal. USAID has determined that this is a relevant measure of NGO success because "knowledge is a pre-requisite to support and informed support is more useful than uninformed support . . . getting an issue on the public screen is an important contribution." Although there is a general push within USAID to promote democracy and develop civil society networks within Peru, the stated policy of the U.S. government demands that advocacy for particular political reforms or legislation must be
brought by the people of the region rather than by U.S. actors. Because women are often at the forefront of democratizing movements, much of USAID's activity in foreign political reforms has been driven by local women's advocacy groups. This is certainly the case in Peru. "The inclusion of women's rights in a new constitution . . . and the establishment of links by women's advocacy organizations, both with elected officials and with the population at large" was noted as encouraging evidence of increasing democratic participation. This political involvement of women's organizations is reflected by the tremendous policy success of feminist NGOs in UN conferences and global summits where major advances were made in the international law protecting human rights and women's rights. In response to this success, the number of foreign NGOs focusing on women's rights has risen exponentially in the last few decades, and in the last forty years, the number of agencies directly involved with women's rights has grown to six times its previous number. In some arenas, the participation of NGO agencies rivals that of government agents. It would appear then, that although there is local "demand driven" advocacy for overall increases in women's rights in countries receiving USAID, it has been a challenge for these organizations to translate their policy achievements in international conferences into improved policies and programs in their home countries. While there is demand and support for women's advancement and involvement in civil society, actual change is slow in coming. Through this analysis, it is clear that there is a consensus from within USAID, as well as among NGOs and government agencies, that NGOs are imperative to the development of civil society and major players in the political activity of emerging democracies. NGOs draw on their ability to reach a diverse group of citizens, and their inclusion of marginalized segments of society represents an essential voice in any national policy debate. It is also clear that one of the essential goals of any NGO, and a measurement of success used by USAID itself, is the ability of NGOs to disseminate information to an informed populace. However, because of the Global Gag Rule, these agencies are denied democratic political participation, and it is this free flow of information that is specifically prevented by the Rule's restriction on advocacy. Moreover, the agency providing the gagged U.S. funding and enforcing the Rule's prohibitions is also promoting the democratic involvement and political advocacy of these gagged NGOs. This contradiction between USAID's democracy goals and the Gag Rule limitations on speech is not missed by NGOs working in reproductive rights. "It is hard to see how the stifling of free debate ... is helpful for the ideals of democracy and freedom that the U.S. government purports to support through its development work." This conflict of goals is clear and presents a difficult situation for foreign NGOs who receive gagged USAID family planning funding but are also charged with the promotion of democracy by USAID funded projects.
Advantage: Democracy
THE GAG RULE UNDERMINES CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION

DRG/C23 Heather Boonstra & Susan A. Cohen, Senior Public Policy Associate, Guttmacher Institute, Director of Government Affairs, Guttmacher Institute, U.C. DAVIS JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLICY, Fall 2006, p. 4-5. Fundamentally, the gag rule is also antidemocratic. Even as the Bush Administration is promoting the role of civil society organizations overseas and the importance of free speech and democratic participation, it is conditioning U.S. family planning assistance on the sacrifice of these very values and activities - at least where improving access to safe abortion is the issue. The policy implicates not only the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship but also freedom of speech, respect for national sovereignty and democratic participation. "Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, women's health and rights organizations have blossomed, gaining a powerful voice both at home and in the United Nations," noted Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition, in recent correspondence. She added, "they are outraged about the Bush Administration's impingement on the basic right to free speech in their countries, as a matter of principle and also because they see the horrifying consequences of restricting access to safe abortion."
GAG RULE PREVENTS UNBIASED DEMOCRATIC DEBATE

Center for Reproductive Rights, 2003 (Breaking the Silence: The Global Gag Rules Impact on Unsafe Abortion, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, pg. 15) accessed July 4, 2007 The gag rules silencing of reproductive rights advocates has been particularly damaging when highly restrictive abortion laws are under consideration and actively supported by opponents of womens 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 womens rights and sidelined gagged NGOs too intimidated to speak up about the ban.
DEMOCRACY SOLVES NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, GENOCIDE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION
DRG/C25 Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990s, December 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html. 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. 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 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.
Advantage: Womens Rights
THE GAG RULE COMPROMISES THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WELL BEING OF WOMEN
Melissa Upreti, legal adviser with the Center for Reproductive Rights' International Legal Program, WOMENS RIGHTS LAW REPORTER, Summer/Fall 2003, p. 201 (PDAF0490) The Global Gag Rule not only violates freedom of speech and women's right to safe and legal abortion, but it also violates international commitments to women's reproductive rights. It is discriminatory and a source of violence against women in so far as it compromises their physical and mental well being. The Rule violates the commitments made at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action in Cairo and the 1995 Women's Conference Platform for Action in Beijing, commitments made to ensure post-abortion counseling, education and family planning services that help prevent repeat abortions. It violates the international commitment to reduce recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family planning services, leading to more unwanted pregnancies.
THE GAG RULE THREATENS WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Danielle Nierenberg is a research associate at Worldwatch, WORLD WATCH; Sep/Oct2004, Vol. 17 Issue 5, p14-17The Population Story...So Far (PDAF0491) Even in the United States, women's reproductive rights are increasingly constrained by the growing number of restrictions and conditions on choice imposed by state and federal laws. Like the U.S. lifestyle, the current Administration's blinkered view of sexuality has gone global. The United States has withheld $34 million from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) every year of the Bush Administration due to a dispute over abortion. And the "global gag rule," a relic of the Reagan presidency reimposed by President Bush, binds U.S. population assistance by making taboo any discussion of abortion in reproductive health clinics, even in countries where it is legal.
TO DENY ABORTION TO WOMEN IS TO SAY THAT ONLY MEN HAVE POLITICAL RIGHTS
John SwomleyM graduate of Dickinson CollegeM Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Colorado, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY PUBLIC LAW REVIEW, 1993, p. 416-7 (PDAF0496) Women, whose lives and freedom have been largely at the mercy of men for centuries, must make or be involved in decisions that affect their lives, their futures, their families. To refuse on principle to permit a woman to consider her life or welfare when it seems threatened by pregnancy is to say that only men are the recipients of political freedom and responsibility. It is also to say that the primacy of the right to bodily life of the fetus places all other considerations, including the health, worth, and dignity of women, on a lower level.
DENYING ABORTION RIGHTS IS A FORM OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Center for Reproductive Rights, SAFE & LEGAL ABORTION IS A WOMANS HUMAN RIGHT, September 2004, http://www.crlp.org/pdf/pub_bp_safeandlegal.pdf (PDAF0497) The right to gender equality is a fundamental principle of human rights law. Freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of protected human rights is ensured in every major human rights instrument. Denying women access to abortion is a form of gender discrimination. According to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, "discrimination against women" includes laws that have either the "effect" or the "purpose" of preventing a woman from exercising any of her human rights or fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.15 Laws that ban abortion have just that effect and that purpose. Restricting abortion has the effect of denying women access to of denying women access to a procedure that may be necessary for their enjoyment of their right to health. Only women must live with the physical and emotional consequences of unwanted pregnancy. Some women suffer maternity-related injuries, such as hemorrhage or obstructed labor. Denying women access to medical services that enable them to regulate their fertility or terminate a dangerous pregnancy amounts to a refusal to provide health care that only women need.16 Women are consequently exposed to health risks not experienced by men. Laws that deny access to abortion, whatever their stated objectives, have the discriminatory purpose of both denigrating and undermining womens capacity to make responsible decisions about their bodies and their lives. Indeed, governments may find the potential consequences of allowing women to make such decisions threatening in some circumstances. Recognizing womens sexual and reproductive autonomy contradicts long-standing social norms that render women subordinate to men in their families and communities. It is not surprising that unwillingness to allow women to make decisions about their own bodies often coincides with the tendency to deny women decision-making roles in the areas of political, economic, social, and cultural affairs.
ANTI-ABORTION LAWS ARE THE FOUNDATION OF SEX DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

Andrew Kopplemen, University of Chicago, M.A., Political Science, Yale University,; J.D., Yale University, 1989; Ph.D. expected, Political Science, Yale University, Legal Theory, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERITY LAW REVIEW, Winter 1990, p. 506-7 (PDAF0495) If indeed "[t]here can be no doubt that our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination," this discrimination has consisted primarily of the systematic use of motherhood to define and limit women's social, economic, and political capacities. Anti-abortion laws would continue and ratify that practice even if they could somehow be restricted to the women who really have consented to the compulsion -- that small (indeed, probably nonexistent) subset of women seeking abortions who had entered into surrogacy contracts which forbade it. The issue here is analogous to that of "badges of slavery." Because the subordination of women, like that of blacks, has traditionally been reinforced by a complex pattern of symbols and practices, the amendment's prohibition extends to those symbols and practices. While the Court reversed Bailey's conviction "[w]ithout imputing any actual motive to oppress," and invidious intent is thus not a part of the burden a thirteenth amendment challenge to a statute must carry, the pervasive presence of such intent strengthens a thirteenth amendment challenge by reinforcing the suspicion that the statute would ratify systematic oppression. Sexism is as pervasive in the anti-abortion world view as racism was in the Southern peonage system. Just as Southern Whites typically assumed that blacks were lazy and irresponsible, the anti-abortion world view typically belittles women's capacity for moral agency, often supposing that women who abort simply do not and cannot understand what they are doing. (George Bush seems to have reflected that idea in his hastily drafted campaign proposal to impose criminal penalties, not on women who abort, but on the doctors who help them.) Again, the reliance on specious "consent" implies that it really does not matter whether this servitude is voluntary or not. Just as the white landowners tended to think that agricultural labor, whether forced or willing, was a suitable role for blacks, so opponents of abortion tend to think that motherhood, whether forced or willing, is a suitable role for women. The "right to life" position, which dismisses a woman's desire to control the course of her life as arising from "convenience, whim, or caprice," is intimately linked to the traditional view that it is ridiculous and inappropriate for women to have or pursue such desires, and that the capacities of women, but not of men, are properly exercised "not for self-development, but for self-renunciation." Laws against abortion place the state's imprimatur on that view by imposing criminal punishment on those who deviate from it. In both cases, the insult is the same: to the extent that either blacks or women are regarded as instruments for satisfying the needs of others rather than as autonomous agents, their dignity as free persons is violated.
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM IS A FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHT

Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood, WAR ON CHOICE, 2004, p. 18 (PDAF0501) Because once a woman has the ability to determine her reproductive destiny, she can aspire to control her destiny in every other area as well. Reproductive self-determination is the most fundamental civil and human right a woman can have. Its the key to enjoying full equality, liberty, and justice. And thats the very right that the rightwing extremists are fighting so hard to take away.
HEALTH CARE KEY TO WOMENS RIGHTS

Saratoga Foundation for Women Worldwide, 2004 (Women's Health Care and Reproductive Rights Program, February 10, http://www.saratogafoundation.org/programs/health.htm) date accessed: July 6, 2007. Health care embraces every aspect of our lives. Without adequate, quality and affordable health care, women cannot work, obtain an education or raise families. A universal health care system which incorporates cultural and gender related data into the health care delivery network is crucial in every country. A significant portion of the health care services which women obtain and require pertain to family planning services. In the U.S. alone, women spend 10% or more of their income on out-of-pocket health care costs, 68% more than men. Contraceptive expense represents a high percentage of this additional cost. Contraception, pregnancy termination and tubal ligations are options for women in some countries. However, in nations where it is legal to obtain these services, religious crusades labor to establish roadblocks to the delivery of this care with the ultimate goal of eliminating a womens right to make her personal reproductive decisions. In nations where these rights do not exist at all, culture and local custom deny women human rights afforded to men in the same society. In the U.S. and in countries facing similar health care crises, comprehensive, affordable, quality health care which includes access to pregnancy prevention and termination, a patients bill of rights and remedies, access to alternative health services, prevention of insurance or employer mandated genetic testing and discrimination based on such tests, are key components to ensure that women, and their families, live healthy lives. International research is conducted on womens access to quality health care and the impediments to obtaining health care in countries around the globe. The Saratoga Foundation for Women Worldwide works to empower women to more effectively participate in the
formulation of policy to guide new technology, including applications in medicine, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, artificial reproduction, and genetic engineering.
GENDER EQUALITY ENSURED BY ADDRESSING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Cook, Dickens, Professors of Bioethics at the University of Toronto, 1997 (Rebecca, Bernard, WHO, Considerations for formulating reproductive health laws, May 31, http://www.who.int/reproductiveHealth/publications/rhr_00_1/considerations_for_formulating_reproductive_health_laws.pdf), date accessed: July 6, 2007 Laws or clinic policies that require women, but not men, to obtain the authorization of their partners before provision of reproductive health services illustrate gender discrimination. Society has characterized reproductive decisions as suitable to be made only by men. Similarly, to distinguish "women doctors" from doctors, and "male nurses" from nurses characterizes doctoring as naturally male-gendered, and nursing as naturally female-gendered. Higher legal minimum ages of marriage for males than for females are gendered, reflecting males' social need of longer preparation to be family bread winners and protectors. The need to eliminate all forms of sex and gender discrimination against women is a unifying and pervasive theme in the Cairo and Beijing texts. Particular contributions of these texts to sexual equality are that they urge states "to eliminate all forms of discrimination against the girl child and the root causes of son preference, which results in harmful and unethical practices regarding female infanticide and prenatal sex selection" (Cairo para. 4.16, Beijing para. 277(c)), and "to encourage and enable men to take responsibility for their sexual and reproductive behaviour and their social and family roles" (Cairo para. 4.25, Beijing para. 97). Discrimination against women is so widespread in many national, institutional, religious, cultural and other practices that many who exercise leadership roles cannot perceive its breadth, or how affairs could be organized according to equality of the sexes. Their resistance to change, and vested interests in the male-dominated status quo, blind them to the injustices they perpetuate. The empowerment of women afforded by their claims to equal respect of their human rights, including to reproductive and sexual health, fundamentally challenges reactionary political, social, religious, professional and other institutions confident of their own virtue and unaccustomed to contradiction and legal accountability. They react to women's reproductive choice and autonomy with frustration, hostility and condemnation, sometimes invoking moral values that male-dominated, often exclusively male, institutions have established.
STRENGTHENING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IS CRITICAL TO CHALLENGE PATRIARCHY

DRG/C438 Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UNFPA Executive Director, DEMOGRAPHICS, HIV/AIDS AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE MGDS, 2005, p. http://www.unfpa.org/news/news.cfm?ID=558. The links between reproductive health and rights and gender equality and the empowerment of women are also strong and well established. The ability of women to control their own fertility is absolutely fundamental to womens empowerment and equality. When a woman can plan her family, she can plan the rest of her life. When she is healthy, she can be more productive. And when her reproductive rightsincluding the right to plan her family in terms of birth timing and spacing, and to make decisions regarding reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violenceare promoted and protected, she has freedom to participate more fully and equally in society.
PATRIARCHY IS THE ROOT OF THE WAR SYSTEM

DRG/C433 Betty A. Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College Columbia University, WOMEN AND PEACE: FEMINIST VISIONS OF GLOBAL SECURITY, 1993, p. 30-2. In an article entitled Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War (1983), Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies. Since a major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions, why are discussions in our national forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is badly needed . . . A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance, not parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to strut their stuff as we watch with increasing horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and control, to distance ones character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bayall of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living things, all the air, all the soil, all the water. If we believe that war is a necessary evil, that patriarchal assumptions are simply human nature, then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust.
Advantage: Maternal/Infant Mortality
ALL HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE BLOCKED NOW BECAUSE MOST NGOS CONSULT WOMEN ON ABORTION
Weaver, senior political science and history of public policy major, 2006, (Courtney, Daily Nexus: University of California, Global Gag Rule Restricts Countries Healthcare, April 14, http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=11393,) accessed July 4th 2007; Most of us have long forgotten about the first days of President Bushs first term. Weve been so distracted by his abysmal record on foreign affairs from Afghanistan to Iraq to North Korea, that we now need to be reminded about one of his very first actions with international implications - the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule in 2001. The Global Gag Rule simply states that any non-governmental organizations receiving funding from the United States government and applying it to family planning services cannot provide, suggest, discuss or lobby for reform efforts regarding abortion in the countries in which they work. Participation in any of these activities is prohibited even if they do so with funds separate from those received from the United States. The effects of the policy have been devastating for women and children in developing countries. Purportedly instated to reduce the number of abortions throughout the world, the Global Gag Rule was first instituted by President Reagan during the rise of social conservatism and the anti-choice movement in the 1980s. The Global Gag Rule stayed in effect through the presidency of George H. W. Bush, and was overturned by President Clinton in 1992, only to be reinstated in the first days of the second Bush reign. The impact of the policy reaches far beyond abortion, however, and is taking a toll on the quality and accessibility of reproductive healthcare abroad. First, these restrictions put healthcare providers abroad in a difficult position. Those NGOs that accept U.S. funds must agree to terms that may endanger their patients health. By limiting what a doctor can say to a patient, the rule compromises the integrity of the healthcare he or she provides. On the other hand, NGOs that reject the terms are deprived of desperately needed funding. Those organizations are forced into cutting programs - leading to a whole host of problems, including reduced access to birth control services and HIV/AIDS education. In 2005, Ethiopia alone lost $56,000 worth of contraceptive supplies. In Ghana, 647,000 patients lost access to reproductive healthcare services. And in Cameroon, a youth center that provided HIV/AIDS prevention education and responsible parenthood education, was forced to shut down. President Bushs Gag Rule is intimately tied to his HIV/AIDS policy. While the Bush administration can be credited with the first comprehensive policy toward HIV/AIDS in Africa, the administrations prevention education policy is based primarily on abstinence and monogamy, not safer sex. Often, however, monogamy doesnt necessarily equate to less risk for exposure to HIV, as 60 to 80 percent of women in Sub-Saharan Africa living with the virus have been infected by their husbands - their sole partners. Meanwhile, condoms in some nations have become a precious commodity - hard to come by and expensive even when readily available. Some members of Congress are outraged by the damaging impact of the Global Gag Rule, including our own Congresswoman Lois Capps. Capps co-sponsored the Global Democracy Promotion Act, which was written to overturn the Global Gag Rule and first introduced by Representative Nita Lowey of New York. As of yet, an anti-choice Congress has blocked the bill from passage.
NGOS ARE FORCED TO CUT OFF ESSENTIAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES BECAUSE OF THE GAG RULE
Meehan and Feldt, writers for the Boston Globe, 2004 (Mary and Gloria, Boston Globe, Lift The Family Planning Gag, August 12th, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/081213.htm) accessed July 5, 2007 Under Bush's policy, organizations that play a vital role in women's health are forced to make an impossible choice. If they refuse to be "gagged," they lose the funding that enables them to help women and families who are cut off from basic health care and family planning. But if they accept funding, they must accept restrictions that jeopardize the health of the women they serve. The most tragic ramifications have been felt in the developing world. In Kenya, for example, two of the leading family planning organizations have been forced to shut down five clinics dispensing aid from prenatal care and vaccinations to malaria screening and AIDS prevention. Kenya's experience is common, according to "Access Denied," a report on the impact of the global gag rule on developing nations. Researchers found that programs for rural communities and urban slums have been scaled back by as much as 50 percent. As a result more women are turning to unsafe abortion -- a leading cause of death for young women in much of Africa -- because they lack access to family planning information and essential contraceptive supplies.
UNSAFE ABORTIONS INCREASED BY GAG RULE

IPS, 2006 (IPS, HEALTH: U.S. Gag Rule Killing Women, Experts Say, December 7, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35764 ) date accessed: July 6, 2007 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 dollars 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 in Kenya were forced to close as a result," Sinding told IPS. The direct consequences of those closures was "a dramatic rise in unsafe abortions and substantial increase in unwanted pregnancies", he said. "The U.S. stands embarrassingly alone on this," agreed Stan Bernstein, senior policy advisor at the U.N. Millennium Project. "No other country supports denying access to sexual and reproductive health services over issues around abortion," Bernstein said in an interview. But because it is the world's wealthiest nation and donor, U.S. policy has a major impact on the delivery of those services. What is often forgotten in debates over policy and ideology is the fact that unwanted births and the subsequent health consequences are a major impediment to development. Low-income countries cannot keep pace with the present health needs of their young and cannot improve without family planning, Bernstein said. Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of women using modern contraception globally increased from less than 10 percent to 60 percent, and the average number of births per woman fell from six to about three. However, in half of the low- and lower-middle income countries, fertility, population growth and unmet family planning needs remain high while contraceptive use continues to be low. As a result, more than 120 million couples have an unmet need for modern contraception and an estimated 80 million women have unintended or unwanted pregnancies, with 45 million ending in abortion annually, the Lancet Sexual and Reproductive Health Series reported. Pregnancy-related complications kill more than half a million women every year, and leave approximately 210 million women with disabilities. In Africa, less than 10 percent of the population has access to contraceptives, said Bernstein. "Only the wealthy in Africa have the family size they want," he said. As for the White House's preferential strategy of promoting abstinence, most women have no control over their lives and cannot refuse to have sex, says Shaw. "Fifty percent of sexual assaults are on girls under the age of 15. That is the reality in many low-income countries," she said. Family planning is a powerful tool for boosting development, but funding has dropped by 30 percent in recent years and is "desperately underfunded", said Sinding. Current funding levels are less than half what the 179 countries committed to at the 1994 Cairo conference on Population and Development. As a result there has been no progress in 20 years, he said: "It's still 500,000 women dying every year just as it was in 1994."
THE GAG RULE FACILITATES ILLEGAL ABORTIONS

GUARDIAN, November 14, 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1955725,00.html (PDAF0447) We have the US preaching abstinence from sex as the answer to Aids in Africa and refusing funds to any family-planning clinics across the world that provide abortions or even counsel women about them. This head-in-the-sand attitude towards abortion leads directly to women's deaths. Every year nearly 20 million unsafe abortions are carried out on desperate women in ill-lit rooms and illegal clinics. You don't stop that happening by refusing to talk about it.
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA HAS HIGHEST WORLD-WIDE MATERNAL MORTALITY RATE

The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, 2003 (Columbia Center for New Media Teaching & Learning, Maternal Mortality Introduction, June 23, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/modules/reproductiveHealth/mortality.html) date accessed: July 4, 2007. Complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading causes of morbidity (illness) and mortality (death) among women of reproductive age in developing countries. There are approximately 529,000 pregnancy-related deaths worldwide each year (equivalent to about three jumbo-jet crashes each day). There is a direct relationship between maternal death and infant and child survival. Approximately 7 million babies die each year before their first birthday (infant mortality), and about 50% of these deaths (3.4 million) occur at the time of delivery or during the first week of life. Maternal death also leaves over one million children motherless, which increases the risk of death for these children 3-10 times during the first two years. The highest incidence of pregnancy-related death occurs in the poorest countries in the world (countries in Africa and Asia), with sub-Sahara African having the highest rates. It is estimated that the life-time risk of maternal death there is one in 16, compared to one in 2,800 in developed countries.
250,000 MOTHERS DIE EVERY YEAR FROM PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS

AllAfrica.com, 2007 (Uganda: Uganda's Big Challenge of Reducing Maternal Deaths, May 29, http://allafrica.com/stories/200705290029.html) date accessed: July 6, 2007. The WHO estimates that about 250,000 mothers die every year in Africa from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Some of the major causes of maternal mortality are hemorrhage, obstructed labour, unsafe abortion, infections, HIV/Aids, malaria and anemia. In 2000, world leaders agreed through the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) to slash the number of maternal deaths in their respective countries by 75 per cent by 2015. Uganda is among the countries that agreed to these targets. Seven years
after the targets were set, maternal mortality has remained high. In fact in the last 15 years, there has not been any significant decline in maternal deaths. Only a slight reduction of 435 from 505 deaths per every 100,000 live births has been registered, according to preliminary results of the 2006 Uganda Demographic Health Survey conducted by the Uganda National Bureau of Statistics (UNBS). Maternal mortality ratio measures the number of deaths to women per 100,000 live births due to pregnancyrelated complications. At the current mortality ratio of about 435 deaths per 100,000 live births, this translates into 6,000 women dying every year due to pregnancy related causes in Uganda alone. The World Health Organization estimates that about 250,000 mothers die every year in Africa from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN INFANT MORTALITY IS HIGH

DRG/C435 Agency for International Development, AFRICA, 2007, p. http://www.usaid.gov/locations/subsaharan_africa/sectors/health/index.html. A healthy population is critical to Africas efforts to reduce poverty and improve living standards. Continent-wide, a womans risk of dying from maternal causes is 1 in 15. For every 1,000 children born in Africa in 2003, 175 will die before their fifth birthday. Unlike any other part of the world, malnutrition rates are actually increasing in Africa. Some 90 percent of the 600 million malaria cases per year occur in Africa and the incidence of tuberculosis is the highest in the world. Immunization rates for children under one year of age continue to increase but they are still below 80 percent, leaving significant numbers exposed to vaccine preventable illness and death.
HIGH INFANT MORTALITY DUE TO LACK OF PRENATAL CARE

Fogarty International Center National Institutes of Health, 2005 (FIC FY2005 Congressional Justification, http://www.fic.nih.gov/about/testimony/2005cj.htm),: date accessed July 5, 2007. While overall maternal and infant morbidity and mortality rates are low in the United States , in many countries and even in some communities in the United States , these rates remain unacceptably high. Risk factors include the lack of access to prenatal care, poor nutrition and frequent pregnancies, leading to high rates of stillborn and low birth-weight babies and high maternal and perinatal mortality. Birth defects remain a major cause of infant deaths, and are responsible for significant mental and physical abnormalities among the survivors that live into adulthood. To improve maternal and infant health, FIC, in collaboration with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, supports the International Maternal and Child Health Research and Training program. Developing country research trainees within this collaborative program, and other FIC programs, are studying a broad range of diseases in pregnancy and infancy, with the goal of preventing complications of pregnancy and protecting infants from infectious diseases and perinatal transmission of HIV/AIDS. For example, scientists at the University of North Carolina and the University of Malawi have identified a new and effective means to minimize mother-to-child transmission of HIV after birth. This is important because low-income women in sub-Saharan Africa typically do not obtain medical attention during pregnancy and are usually uninformed of their HIV status until delivery. Research has shown that prepartum or intrapartum medical intervention to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV is effective. Still, for many mothers the only chance to intervene is post-partum.
INVESTMENT IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES MUST BE INCREASED

DRG/C441 UNFPA, MATERNAL DEATH IS TIP OF THE ICEBERG, April 2, 2007, p. http://www.unfpa.org/news/news.cfm?ID=951. Today on World Health Day, UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, joins the World Health Organization in calling for greater health security and stronger action to promote and protect every individuals right to health, including reproductive health. With this year marking the 20th anniversary of the Safe Motherhood Initiative, there is no better time than now to focus on the health security of women and mothers. Protecting the health of mothers goes a long way in protecting the health of their children and families. Yet, the tragic reality is that one woman dies every minute during pregnancy and childbirth, leaving more than half a million women dead each year and one million children without their mothers love and care. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For every woman who dies, there are 20 to 30 others who survive childbirth but suffer debilitating injuries. Today, complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death among young women aged 15 to 19 in developing countries. By any measure, this state of affairs is unacceptable and constitutes a public health crisis. The vast majority of these lives could be saved with cost effective interventions that have been proven to work in several countries. In Egypt and Honduras, the maternal mortality ratio was reduced by half in only seven years. In other countries, maternal health has improved significantly. Key to success is government leadership. World leaders agree on the priority to reduce needless deaths during pregnancy and childbirth as reflected in Millennium Development Goal 5 to improve maternal health. To make greater progress, every woman needs access to a basic package of reproductive health services.
A MAJORITY OF INFANT DEATHS ARE PREVENTABLE

UNICEF, 2005
(UNICEF, 5,500 children die in Eastern and Southern Africa every day, July 15, http://www.unicef.org/media/media_27680.html), date accessed: July 4, 2007 A disproportionately heavy burden of child deaths weighs on families in eastern and southern Africa. Every day 5,500 children under the age of five die across the 21 countries of the region and the majority of the deaths are largely preventable. That means that in the space of just two months more childrens lives are lost in the region than were lost in the tsunami. This toll is followed by 330,000 more in the next two months, and every two months. More, much more must be done, and luckily can be done, to prevent these deaths, said Per Engebak, UNICEF Regional Director for Eastern and Southern Africa. What we need now is for countries to make sure that life-saving health interventions get to the children who need them. These interventions arent complicated, they arent expensive and they work. We know what treated mosquito nets, immunization and vitamin A supplements, for instance, can do. With these and other simple measures in place, children just do not have to die.
MILLIONS OF LIVES CAN BE SAVED THROUGH COST-EFFECTIVE INVESTMENTS

UN News, 2004 (UN News Service, Reproductive health investment could save millions of lives - UN report, February 5, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=9672&Cr=UNFPA&Cr1=), date accessed: July 6, 2007 Millions of lives could be saved with highly cost-effective investments to close gaps in sexual and reproductive health care that account for nearly a third of illnesses and deaths among women of reproductive age, according to a new United Nations report. The report, Adding it Up: The Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health Care, released by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the non-profit Alan Guttmacher Institute, stresses the severe global shortage of contraceptive services and the need for far greater aid from donor countries to address the scarcity, which accounts for as much as a fifth of the worldwide burden of illness and premature death. In one striking indication of potential benefits, the report notes that programmes providing contraceptives to 500 million women in poor countries already prevent each year 187 million unintended pregnancies, 60 million unplanned births, 105 million abortions, 22 million miscarriages, 2.7 million infant deaths and 215,000 pregnancy-related deaths. Those measures also protect 685,000 children from losing their mothers.
HIGH INFANT MORALITY THREATENS THE COMMUNITY AND THE FOUNDATION OF GOVERNANCE
DRG/C436 Dr. Robert Rothberg, Harvard Medical School, AFRICA: PROGRESS & PROBLEMS -- AIDS & HEALTH ISSUES, 2007, p. 22. The toll that AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases has taken on Africa is enormous. A great proportion of the victims are children. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers the highest child mortality rate in the world: one out of every five children there dies before reaching age five. And for every 1,000 infants born alive, 188 do not live to see their first birthday. In many cases, these children die from health problems that can be treated, including malnutrition, diarrheal diseases, and vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles and tetanus. The loss of these children means the loss of future workers, farmers, teachers, and community and government leaders for Africa.
INFANT MORTALITY CAUSES NATIONS TO FAIL

ABC.net, 2003 (Can Australia Save The World, December 21, http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/cribb/story.htm), date accessed: July 7, 2007. The US Central Intelligence Agency recently undertook a massive study on why nations fall apart. It found that the clearest and most unequivocal predictor of nation failure was high infant mortality. And high infant mortality is, of course, the most obvious face of poverty, malnutrition and disease. Yet paradoxically, poverty has another consequence: high birth rates. The desperate need to replace all those dying children. The only lasting antidote to high birthrates is prosperity, as experience around the world has shown. If people have enough money to live on and to save a little for their old age, the economic imperative to have children wanes. Children become a cost instead of a source of income. If we wish to curb population, we have to ensure rising prosperity for the broad mass of the people especially for those often forgotten inhabitants of rural areas.
1AC WFI (Wyoming) Policy Version

The Global Gag rule forces family planning centers in sub-Saharan Africa to close their doors this leaves people with no access to public health services
Jones, Note Editor for the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 2004 (Allegra, Boston Third World Law Journal Winter page lexis) Another practical effect of the Mexico City Policy has been the closure of family planning clinics due to USAID's withdrawal of funding, notably in sub-Saharan Africa. 73 Seventeen centers in Uganda, five centers in Kenya, one outreach program serving poor communities in Ethiopia, and several clinics in Tanzania have closed for this reason. 74 In Kenya alone, the five clinics that closed served tens of [*200] thousands of women. 75 They provided basic services that many poor women could not otherwise afford or access, including well-baby care, pre- and post-natal obstetric care, HIV testing and counseling, and contraception. 76 In order to
avoid closing seven more health posts and one maternal nursing home when President Bush imposed the global gag rule, health care provider Marie Stopes International of Kenya laid off one-fifth of its staff, cut the remaining employees' salaries, reorganized its clinic structure, and increased client fees. 77 The country's other leading reproductive health provider, the Family Planning Association of Kenya, laid off nearly onethird of its staff, raised patient fees, and cut salaries in order to keep its remaining clinics open and running without U.S. funding. 78 Similarly, the global gag rule has cost the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia--which runs 671 community-based reproductive health care sites, 24 youth centers, and 18 clinics--more than a half-million dollars. 79 The Association does not provide abortion services because abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. 80 Nevertheless, by communicating the fact that unsafe abortion was claiming the
lives of Ethiopian mothers to local policymakers, the group forfeited its U.S. funding, which resulted in a loss of services to 301,054 women and 229,947 men living in urban areas. 81 Clearly, the women and families who lost access to these resources and clinics were the true victims of the Mexico City Policy. 82 Therefore we present the following plan: The President of the United States should substantially increase the United States Federal Governments public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa by repealing the Mexico City Policy, collectively known as the Global Gag Rule, for all public health services provided in Sub-Saharan Africa.
NEG Global Gag Rule p. 269 of 290 ADVANTAGE 1: HIV/AIDS
THE GLOBAL GAG RULE FORCES FAMILY PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS THAT SOLVE FOR AIDS TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THEIR WORK BUT FAMILY PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS ARE CRITICAL TO WOMENS HEALTH.
JONES 2004 Allegra M Jones, Editor, Boston College Third World Law Review, HEALING THE WOUNDS OF SLAVERY: CAN PRESENT LEGAL REMEDIES CURE PAST WRONGS?: NOTE: The "Mexico City Policy" and Its Effects on HIV/AIDS Services in Subsaharan Africa Winter, 2004 lexis // wfi kh
On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive memorandum blocking U.S. family planning funding to any foreign nongovernmental organization (NGO) that supports abortion, even with its own non-U.S. funds. 5 Under this policy, in order to receive U.S. funding, NGOs that provide family planning services must cease to [*189] perform and "actively promote" abortion-related services. 6 Specifically, NGOs must not participate in public education campaigns about reproductive choice, provide patient referrals to facilities where abortion may be obtained, counsel on abortion as a medical option, or lobby for government reform regarding the liberalization of abortion laws. 7 Officially called the "Mexico City Policy," this condition on foreign assistance was first announced by Reagan administration officials at the United Nations (UN) International Conference on Population in Mexico City in 1984. 8 The Policy is also commonly called the "global gag rule" because it limits the advice medical professionals abroad may give their patients, should their organization accept U.S. funding. 9 In developing countries with poor health conditions and insufficient resources, family planning clinics are often the best, if not the only, places where individuals can obtain medical advice and resources for protecting themselves against STIs such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). 10 In 2002, more than 90% of the 42 million people living with [*190] HIV/AIDS globally lived in developing nations. 11 This proportion is expected to increase because the AIDS virus spreads rapidly in developing countries that have inadequate resources for prevention and treatment, as well as poor health-care systems. 12 Worldwide, the region most affected by AIDS is sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS is the leading cause of death and has killed more than 19.4 million people. 13 A news editor of The Namibian, a leading newspaper in Namibia, writes, "when it comes to implementation of [AIDS prevention] in the Third World, family planning centers literally offer a lifeline . . . . The challenge is nowhere greater than in sub-Saharan Africa--the epicenter of the AIDS pandemic." 14 In the fight against HIV/AIDS, family planning centers are particularly vital for women, who are at greater risk for contracting HIV or AIDS than men. 15 In sub-Saharan Africa, 58% of those living with HIV/AIDS are women. 16 Women and girls are particularly susceptible because HIV transmission to women is biologically more "efficient" than transmission to men and, in many circumstances, women lack power to negotiate safer sexual practices due to gender inequality. 17 Through education, counseling, and condom distribution, family [*191] planning centers can help women respond to high-risk situations and avoid contracting HIV. 18 As it stands, the Mexico City Policy forces the recipients of U.S. family planning funding to make value judgments about the services they provide. 19 Family planning organizations must decide whether to accept U.S. funding and cease their abortion-related services, or to reject U.S. funding and thus limit their potential services due to constrained budgets. 20 Moreover, regardless of whether these groups decide to assist individuals with abortion-related services, the global gag rule forces organizations to prioritize which communities they want to serve: women seeking abortions or all other women, children, and families. 21
The gag rules attempt to separate HIV/AIDS prevention and family planning assures both services fail
Hoobdhoy, Fellow with the Crowley Program in International Human Rights, Flaherty, Professor of law at Fordham Law School & Higgins, Professor of Law at Fordham Law School, 2005 (Mehlika, Martin & Tracy, Fordham International Law Journal, December page lexis) The AMKENI experience is just one example of the inefficiencies in the provision of health care caused by the Mexico City Policy. Another problem results from the artificial separation of family planning funds from a larger health policy agenda. Although from a medical perspective the advantages of combining information about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment with family planning seems obvious, the fact of separate funding streams for family planning (restricted) and HIV/AIDS (unrestricted) programs forces organizations to maintain distinct programs and information campaigns. Margaret W. Gatei, Project Manager of Pathfinder PMCT Program expressed frustration with having to
maintain this division. She said: It is critical to tell women that even if they are on the pill they must still use condoms to avoid the transmission of HIV... . You cannot separate family planning from HIV. You must encourage women to take the test before having more children. [*83] Counseling will be a big part of this service. Once the decision is made they will choose a method of family planning and that method must be maintained... . We give information and counseling and emphasize the importance of knowing one's HIV status. 502 Although the overall impact of the Mexico City Policy may defy precise quantification, these examples confirm its direct impact on some of Kenya's most vulnerable people. More broadly, the policy has created significant inefficiencies in the delivery of care in a country that has not a single
health care dollar to waste.
AIDS leads to extinction

Africa News, July 15, 2000 page lexis Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim.
The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable
demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned.

Last year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy. From the 35,000 Aids orphans of Homa Bay to the abandoned infants of Nyumbani Children's Home, the Aids calamity is a cloud whose silver lining, if it exists, is well concealed.
ADVANTAGE 2: DEMOCRACY The gag rule destroys democratic principles that are developing in Africa it restrains dissent and hampers free speech
Boonstra, Senior Policy Associate Guttmacher Institute, & Cohen, Director of Government Affairs Guttmacher Institute, 2006 (Heather & Susan, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall, page lexis)
Fundamentally, the gag rule is also antidemocratic. Even as the Bush Administration is promoting the role of civil society
organizations overseas and the importance of free speech and democratic participation, 22 it is conditioning U.S. family planning assistance on the sacrifice of these very values and activities - at least where improving access to safe abortion is the issue. The policy implicates not only the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship but also freedom of speech, respect for national sovereignty and democratic participation. "Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, women's health and rights organizations have blossomed, gaining a powerful voice both at home and in the United Nations," noted Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition, in recent correspondence. 23 [*5] She added, "they are outraged about the Bush Administration's impingement on the basic right to free speech in their countries, as a matter of principle and also because they see the horrifying consequences of restricting access to safe abortion." 24
Furthermore the Gag rule undermines the crucial emerging right to democratic government that is blossoming in Africa
Gathii, Professor of International Commercial Law, Albany Law School, 2006 (James, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall page lexis) The gag rule undermines the emerging right to democratic governance. 149 This right recognizes the rights of individuals and groups such as NGOs to participate in the affairs of their governments without inhibitions. International treaties, as well as principles of customary law, provide for freedoms of expression and association as aspects of democratic governance. 150 The global gag rule's threat of withdrawal of funding to NGOs if they lobby governments for policy changes relating to abortion or if they counsel women as to their reproductive choices violates these principles. Further, by interfering with the exercise of the right to democratic governance, the global gag rule is a non-forcible intervention into matters [*91] that are exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of foreign countries, inconsistent with the provisions of article 2(7)
of the Charter of the United Nations. 151 The International Court of Justice affirmed this right of nonintervention in the Nicaragua case, holding that there existed "established and substantial" practice in support of the principle of nonintervention. 152
The global gag rule is also inconsistent with accepted international health care rights and standards. In particular, the gag rule conflicts with the World Health Organization's standard goal of providing "holistic' health care. 153 Holistic health care addresses the
obstacles women confront in gaining access to health care generally, and reproductive health specifically, as a result of cultural and economic forces, such as poverty and cultural taboos. 154 In fact, the many problems of poverty require "a focus upon the human person as well as upon the economic and physical environment." 155 By disabling NGOs from helping women to address or overcome those obstacles, the global
by limiting the reach of their laws into foreign jurisdictions. 156 The U.S. Supreme Court has described the doctrine as such: "Comity is not just a vague political concern favoring international cooperation when it is in our interest to do so. Rather it is a principle... [*92] which... reflects the systemic value of reciprocal tolerance and good will." 157 Therefore, not only will "policies and programs conceived without consideration for local context and place... have limited impact," 158 but they will also interfere with and sometimes reverse efforts to reform conditions where they are most needed. Unfortunately, most, if not all, recipients of USAID funding live in poor countries that often have little or no choice other than to accept the harsh conditions of USAID funding. The moral impact of 179 countries acceding to the Programme of Action produced by the International Conference on Population and Development should not be underestimated. The commitments of the international community
gag rule leaves them to fend for themselves without the kind of support necessary to change their circumstances. The gag rule is also an extraterritorial projection of U.S. legislation to foreign jurisdictions. By requiring foreign NGOs to refrain from engaging in advocacy directed at changing abortion laws in their own countries and with their own money, and not simply with USAID funds, the gag rule is inconsistent with international comity. International comity is the respect sovereigns give each other
to pursue population goals and the commitment of reliance on the contributions of NGOs to achieve such ends will remain unfulfilled if "the comity of nations in varying degrees of shamefacedness looks the other way or impotently down at its collective shoes." 159
Continuing the rise of democracy in Africa is key to regional stability

Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, 1998, Hoover Digest, http://www.hooverdigest.org /983/diamond.html The common root cause of economic decay, state collapse, ethnic violence, civil war, and humanitarian disaster in Africa is bad, abusive governance. Because most states lack any semblance of a rule of law and norms of accountability that bind the conduct of those in government, their societies have fallen prey to massive corruption, nepotism, and the personal whims of a tiny ruling elite. In such circumstances, every political clique and ethnic group struggles for control of a stagnant or diminishing stock of wealth. There are no institutions to facilitate trust, cooperation, or confidence in the future. Every competing faction tries to grab what it can for the moment while excluding other groups.
THE SOLUTION
The only real antidote to this decay is a constitutional framework that facilitates the limitation, separation, devolution, and sharing of power so that each group can have a stake in the system while checking the ruling elite and one another. In essence, this means a democratic political system, to one degree or another.
Given Africas authoritarian history, many changes in beliefs and institutions will be necessary for democracy to emerge. A growing segment of African elites and the public realize that every type of dictatorship on the continent has been a disaster. Thus, there is increasing hunger for economic and political
freedom and the predictability of a democratic constitution.

As Hoover Institution senior fellow Barry Weingast pointed out in the American Political Science Review, ethnic
groups will not trust and tolerate one another and cooperate for a larger national good unless there are credible limits on the state. Democracy cannot be stable unless rulers see that it is in their interest to abide by the rules. What makes it in their interest is the overriding commitment of all major ethnic groups, parties, and interest organizations to a constitution.
The War on Terror, Oil importation and competition with China guarantee that the US will intervene into African conflicts
Letitia Lawson, Senior Lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, where she has been teaching African studies since 1996. U.S. Africa Policy Since the Cold War, Strategic Insights, Volume VI, Issue 1 (January 2007) http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si /2007/Jan/lawsonJan07.asp Longer-term U.S. engagement with Africa is likely to be defined in terms of the perceived increase in U.S. interests in the region as a result of international terrorism, increased dependence on African oil, and the dramatic engagement of China with the continent in recent years. Although the September 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) asserts that " America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones," the implications of this for Africa appear relatively modest.[43] With respect to the threat of international terrorism, the NSS pledges to work with European allies to "help strengthen Africa's fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists."[44]
This escalates to nuclear war

Dr. Jeffrey Deutsch, founder of the Rabid Tiger Project, a political risk consulting and related research firm, 11-18-02, http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn /newsletterv2n9.html
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside
involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.
ADVANTAGE 3: TERRORISM CONTINUANCE OF THE GLOBAL GAG RULE ONLY PROLONGS AMERICAN UNILATERALISM AND POSES A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY, ALIENATING POTENTIAL ALLIES IN THE WAR ON TERROR.
Tobey E. Goldfarb. Abstinence Breeds Contempt: Why the U.S. Policy on Foreign Assistance for Family Planning is Cause for Concern. California Western International Law Journal. Spring, 2003. Accessed July 16, 2007. l/n. //WFI-KEC. The Bush Administration's insistence on unilateralism undercuts U.S. sincerity and credibility in the eyes of the international community.n217 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. n218 If the problem is with allegedly coercive practices employed in China, there are ways in which the leverage of U.S. funding could be wielded less derisively. The U.S. should continue to support multilateral programs, and inundate the successful ones, such as UNFPA, with funding. The United States is an active member of the UNFPA Executive Board.n219 If the daily involvement of the UNFPA in China was troublesome, the U.S. delegation could have called for a revision of program certification requirements, or other such in-house accountability provisions. n220 The fact that the U.S. opted to act unilaterally, choosing instead to call into question the credibility of the UNFPA, seems inappropriate, and indicative of an ulterior agenda. The U.S. is the only country to ever deny funding to the UNFPA for non-financial reasons.n221 In light of the ICPD Programme of Action, the International Law concept of an obligation ergo omnes may, in theory, provide a possible challenge to the funding decision. n222 When the U.S. agreed to pursue the goals in the Programme of Action, it may have undertaken an obligation owed to all of the other governments who participated at the ICPD not to withdraw funding for non-financial reasons, because doing so would undermine the principal goals which all parties agreed to pursue. If such an obligation exists, then any other party to the agreement may take action against the United States, in order to enforce the obligation. n223 In practice, there are two significant challenges to this proposal. First, the Programme of Action is not itself a binding treaty. n224 Rather, the goals set forth are meant to clarify the policy and commitment of the international community. n225 This challenge may be overcome if the obligation not to deny funding for non- [*368] financial reasons can be framed as a customary norm of international law.n226 The Programme of Action set forth goals to strengthen and implement other international agreements. n227 The concept of pacta sunt servanda requires that once a State is a party to an agreement, such a state may not act contrary to the object and purpose of that agreement. n228 The United States is a party to several of the agreements that the ICPD is meant to strengthen. n229 Since the denial of funding for non-financial reasons is contrary to the object and purpose of the Programme of Action, it follows that the denial of funding for non-financial reasons is also contrary to the object and purpose of the agreements that the Programme of Action is meant to implement. Second, even if such an obligation was recognized, one of the fundamental weaknesses of the United Nations is the lack of any effective centralized enforcement mechanisms.n230 This does not mean, however, that the obligation ceases to exist. The legitimacy of International Law does not depend on strict adherence to the processes of traditional and familiar institutional forms. n231 Rather, the international community may deem the United States' denial of UNFPA funding for non-financial reasons, moralistic and politically suspicious. This may then result in heightened resistance to cooperation with the United States on other issues that the Bush Administration has deemed more strategically important. n23
Terrorism threatens survival

Alexander, Professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 2003 (Yonah, The Washington Times August 28, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030827-084256-8999r.htm) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself.
Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements (hudna). Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and
unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism (e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber) with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
ADVANTAGE 4: MATERNAL MORTALITY The lifetime risk of maternal death is highest in sub-Saharan Africa. 1 in 16 women face the risk in their lifetime; FAR greater than in developed regions W.H.O., 04 (World Health Organization, Maternal Mortality in 2000, http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/executive_summary.html)
The maternal mortality ratio is a measure of the risk of death once a woman has become pregnant. A more dramatic assessment of risk that takes into account both the probability of becoming pregnant and the probability of dying as a result of that pregnancy cumulated across a womans reproductive years is the lifetime risk of maternal death. The table shows that the lifetime risk of death is highest in sub-Saharan Africa, with as many as 1 woman in 16 facing the risk of maternal death in the course of her lifetime, compared with 1 in 2,800 in developed regions.
Family Planning is Banned Under The Global Gag Rule Is Essential to Saving Lives
Population Action International 06 (This organization works to improve individual well-being and preserve global resources by mobilizing political and financial support for population family planning and reproductive health policies, How the Global Gag Rule Undermines U.S. Foreign Policy and Harms Women's Health, http://66.39.133.128/resources/factsheets/factsheet_5.htm, 08/23/2006, accessed 7/16/07//EC)
Family planning is a basic health care service. Family planning is a vital part of basic health care services. Every minute, a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth. By preventing high-risk pregnancies, family planning could save at least 25 percent of these women's lives. Increasing the availability of prenatal care, trained birth attendants and family planning services is essential to making pregnancy and childbirth safer for women and their babies. Access to family planning helps reduce reliance on abortion and deaths caused by unsafe abortion. Regardless of whether abortions are legal, women in desperate situations still seek them out. As a result, abortions performed under unsafe conditions remain a major public health concern. About 70,000 women die each year from septic and incomplete abortion, many of them leaving young children behind. Many more suffer serious illness or injury. Improving access to family planning can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce such tragedies
RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH OF WOMEN.

Skuster 2004 Patty Skuster, J.D. 2004 University of Michigan Law School, ADVOCACY IN WHISPERS: THE IMPACT OF THE USAID GLOBAL GAG RULE UPON FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSOCIATION IN THE CONTEXT OF ABORTION LAW REFORM IN THREE EAST AFRICAN COUNTRIES Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 2004 lexis// wfi kh
A restrictive abortion law is detrimental to the health and lives of women. 37 The majority of deaths from unsafe abortion occur in countries where the procedure is restricted by law. 38 The World Health Organization draws a connection between restrictive abortion laws and high rates of unsafe abortion. 39 Information on maternal mortality and morbidity due to unsafe abortion is scarce. 40 However, a growing body of evidence in Uganda, Ethiopia, and Kenya is beginning to show that unsafe abortion is a neglected health issue in need of attention. The correlation between maternal death and injury and lack of access to safe abortion was stark when a regional health bureau closed a major provider of safe abortion in Ethiopia. Consequently, the number of cases of women needing care for complications from unsafe abortion reportedly rose at the public hospital. 41 According to the Prime Minister's Office in Ethiopia, fifty-three percent of the major health problems for women are obstetrical in nature, including those arising from abortion. 42 [*107] Studies show that between twenty-two and fifty-four percent of all maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion 43 and that fifty-two per cent of Ethiopia's hospital beds are occupied by women that were suffering from complications related to unsafe abortions.
Maternal mortality is shrouded in a conspiracy of silence. It is the most neglected tragedy of our times. Women in Sub Saharan Africa die by the thousands during routine procedures for the developed world. Many more sustain serious prolonged injuries.
Gendercide Watch 05
Gendercide watch is a project of the Gender Issues Education Foundation (GIEF), a registered charitable foundation. Last Mod. 4-17 2005 http://www.gendercide.org/case_maternal.html
is no exaggeration to say that the issue of maternal mortality and morbidity, fast in its conspiracy of silence, is in scale and severity the most neglected tragedy of our times." According to UNICEF, a staggering 585,000 women die annually from complications arising from pregnancy and childbirth. And "these are not deaths like other deaths," the organization noted: They die, these hundreds of thousands of women whose lives come to an end in their teens and twenties and thirties, in ways that set them apart from the normal run of human experience. Over 200,000 die of haemorrhaging, violently pumping blood onto the floor of bus or bullock cart or blood-soaked stretcher as their families and friends search in vain for help. About 75,000 more die from attempting to abort their pregnancy themselves. Some will take drugs or submit to violent massage. Alone or assisted, many choose to insert a sharp object -- a straightened coat-hanger, a knittingneedle, or a sharpened stick -- through the vagina into the uterus. Some 50,000 women and girls attempt such procedures every day. Most survive, though often with crippling discomfort, pelvic inflammatory disease, and a continuing foul discharge. And some do not survive: with punctured uterus and infected wound, they die in pain and alone, bleeding and frightened and ashamed. Perhaps 75,000 more die with brain and kidney damage in the convulsions of eclampsia, a dangerous condition that can arise in late pregnancy and has been described by a survivor as "the worst feeling in the world that can possibly be imagined." Another 100,000 die of sepsis, the bloodstream poisoned by a rising infection from an unhealed uterus or from retained pieces of placenta, bringing fever and hallucinations and appalling pain. Smaller but still significant numbers die of an anaemia so severe that the muscles of the heart fail. And as many as 40,000 a year die of obstructed labour -- days of futile contractions repeatedly grinding down the skull of an already asphyxiated baby onto the soft tissues of a pelvis that is just too small. In the 1990s so far, three million young women have died in one or more of these ways. And they continue to die at the rate of 1,600 every day, yesterday and today and tomorrow. For the most part, these are the deaths not of the ill or of the very old or of the very young, but of healthy women in the prime of their lives upon whom both young and old may depend. (Peter Adamson, article from the UNICEF Progress Report in New
Internationalist, January/February 1997.) Moreover, Adamson writes,
In a 1996 report, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) was blunt: "It
"The numbers of the dead alone do not reveal the full scale of this tragedy. For every woman who dies, approximately 30 more incur injuries, infections, and disabilities which are usually untreated and unspoken of, and which are often humiliating and painful, debilitating and lifelong ... At least 12 million women a year sustain the kind of damage in pregnancy and childbirth that will have a profound effect on their lives. And even allowing for the fact that some women will suffer such injuries more than once during their child-bearing years, the cumulative total of those affected can be conservatively estimated at some 300 million, or more than a quarter of the adult women now alive in the developing wold." The worst offenders are in sub-Saharan Africa, where women die in childbirth at rates 160 times those of Canada -- approximately one fatality in every one hundred pregnancies. The overall
chance of dying during pregnancy in Canada is 1 in 7,700; in Africa as a whole, 1 in 21.
The ten countries with the highest annual rates of death in childbirth are: Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Guinea, Somalia, Angola, Chad, Mozambique, Nepal, and Yemen
No one is paying attention to maternal mortality. Women are ignored because we as individuals and the government as a whole choose to ignore them. Even feminism has largely ignored the plight of these women who life in constant pain in fear of death. Taking health care workers out of Africa away from women who need help is an endorsement of the patriarchal system that perpetuates maternal mortality.
Gendercide Watch 05
Gendercide watch is a project of the Gender Issues Education Foundation (GIEF), a registered charitable foundation. Last Mod. 4-17 2005 http://www.gendercide.org/case_maternal.html
To make every pregnancy a spin of fortune's wheel is to consign women during their prime reproductive years to profound insecurity, and to the ever-present threat of excruciating death or debilitating injury. As one midwife stated: "If hundreds of thousands of men were suffering and dying every year, alone and in fear and in agony, or if millions upon millions of men were being injured and disabled and humiliated, sustaining massive and untreated injuries and wounds to their genitalia, leaving them in constant pain, infertile and incontinent, and in dread of having sex, then we would all have heard about this issue long ago, and something would have been done."
Those primarily responsible, therefore, are the governments and ruling elites who can always find money for weapons, but only rarely for hospitals and clinics and midwives; who systematically deny other resources (educational, legal, contraceptive) to women; and who thereby deny them rights that every human being should have to control their bodies and their destinies.
The failure of the developed world to contribute meaningfully to the development of the poorer countries is obviously an important factor. But the Cuban example (see
below) demonstrates that even poor countries, by humanely allocating the limited resources they control, can reduce maternal mortality to levels approximating those of the wealthiest countries in the world. "Even in the largest and poorest nations," notes UNICEF, there are usually health units and district hospitals with the doctors, midwives, nurses, drugs, and equipment that can provide obstetric care when needed. If they cannot, then this usually reflects a lack of priority, or a lack of relatively small amounts of funds for basic training and equipment, rather than the inherent impossibility of the task. ... Action on this issue has been paralysed for too long by the idea that only the building of hundreds more hospitals and the training of thousands more expensive obstetricians can make the right kind of care available to [those] who need it. But the fact is that properly trained health workers and midwives, working in modern health units with inexpensive equipment and reliable supplies of relatively cheap drugs, can usually cope -- and know when to call in obstetricians if a caesarean section is necessary. ... Reducing maternal deaths and injuries is therefore not a matter of possibilities but of priorities. The strategies that work have been identified. And the resources will follow if priority lights the way.
On an individual level, those who accept and help to entrench the patriarchal frameworks that deny women adequate nutrition, education, and health care must shoulder a large portion of the blame for perpetuating this gendercide against women. Jenifer Joseph gives a good sense of
how patriarchal cultural values translate directly into maternal death: Pregnant women in Benin would rather suffer days of obstructed labor than ask for help during childbirth and risk being seen as weak. In parts of Ghana, troubled labor is seen as a sign of infidelity, so women stall in calling for emergency care while they try to appease the gods to help with their delivery. In southern Papua New Guinea, women are expected to give birth by themselves, a tradition stemming from a belief that female blood is contaminated and could sicken or even kill a birth attendant. "Why
is it that a woman dies every minute?" asks World Bank President James Wolfensohn. "The answer is that people don't care. We assume that women are there. We have never taken enough concern about the rights of women."
Resistance sometimes comes from unexpected quarters. Adamson writes: "It might have been expected that the voice of the women's movement would have been raised on behalf of the millions of women who suffer for reasons that are related solely to the fact of being a woman. But with honourable exceptions, this is an issue on which the women's movement in the industrialized nations has raised scarcely more than a murmur. When asked, many of the women who
work with maternal death and injuries in the developing world will offer the same explanation: for most Western women, feminism is in large part a fight against the circumscribing of a woman's opportunities by her reproductive role; many who are engaged in that struggle have therefore been reluctant to take on an issue which seems to centre on women as mothers rather than women as women."
1AC WFI (Wyoming) Imperialism version

Observation One: Culture Wars On his first day in office President George W. Bush re-instated the Mexico City Policy, or Global Gag Rule, originally established by the Regan administration this policy represents a global culture war advanced by the New Right it treats women from sub-Saharan Africa as powerless and in need of Western benevolence The Gag Rule supports a basic denial of choice to women and represents the acceptance of an ideology which assumes these women are not capable of choice in the first place this policy assures a constant re-inscription of patriarchy and a dangerous ideology which projects the degradation of women onto the international sphere
Gathii, Professor of International Commercial Law, Albany Law School, 2006 (James, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall page lexis)
the global gag rule from critical perspectives including post-postmodern 93 and post-colonial feminist critiques. 94 One critical pragmatist states that [*80] "patriarchy operates within and across [other realms of differentiation, such as race, class, and ethnicity] to disadvantage women further." 95 Such critical theorists show that in addition to the cultural traditions and histories that foster inequalities, other forces of
The New Right's ideologies, as imposed by the global gag rule, implicate more than a domestic culture war. In this section, I examine
influence, from legal institutions and from other dominant state actors, interact with culture to create and maintain disparities. 96 The global gag rule does more than reflect the patriarchal discourses of the New Right. By exporting its conservative views of family and sex, it presupposes that women in developing countries are powerless victims 97 in need of the West's benevolence. 98 From this perspective, the goals and policies of the global gag rule are both paternalistic and condescending. It presumes the inability of women in developing countries to pursue choices and opportunities consistent with their own goals and values.
The New Right's discourse on sexuality also overlaps with the U.S.'s global economic agenda. After all, "the production and disciplining of sexuality is central to the economics of (re)production at the level of the "family' (in all its variations), and at the level of the nation-state" 99
[*81] The global gag rule seeks to universalize a culturally-specific view of women. As such, the gag rule departs from the liberal agenda of international human rights which "aspires to be a set of universalist norms defined in contrast to culturally specific norms," 100 that are supposedly found in non-western societies. In other words, while the U.S. asserts a commitment to universal human rights, the global gag rule exports programs inconsistent with sorely needed reproductive health services for women who cannot afford them. Contrary to the benevolent pretensions of U.S. aid programs, the global gag rule legitimizes and encourages practices harmful to women. Ultimately, through the global gag rule "gender identities [are] being continually reconstituted through social processes," 101 that reinforce and compound the patriarchy.
Furthermore The intersection of the far right in America with the conservative practices in Sub Saharan Africa is dangerous both assure the continuation of gender inequality. The Gag Rules refusal of funding for organizations which promote decriminalization of abortion fentrenches sexual violence
Gathii, Professor of International Commercial Law, Albany Law School, 2006 (James, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall page lexis) The underlying moral basis of the global gag rule overlaps with the criminalization of abortion and the patriarchal customary and religious norms and practices in sub-Saharan African countries. This overlap serves to deter access to safe and affordable reproductive health care services, as well as to encourage and maintain gender inequalities. 107 [*83] In most sub-Saharan African countries, abortion is a criminal offense, 108 although a majority of countries now have an exception if the abortion is required to save a woman's life. 109 Most of these laws are the product of colonial influence or enactment. 110 Ethiopia,
Ghana, and Zimbabwe, recently amended their abortion laws to allow more liberal applications, so that when women seek and receive abortions, they are conducted in a safe manner. 111 South Africa has legalized the practice during the first trimester [*84] of the pregnancy. 112
Traditional norms in many sub-Saharan African countries exacerbate problems relating to unsafe abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV including: the unequal social, cultural, and religious status of women as compared to men and women's lack of empowerment; and more specifically, practices such as early marriages, multiple partners, polygamy, wife sharing, wife inheritance, widowhood practices and lack of inheritance rights, violence against women, as well as practices such as female circumcision. 113 While some of these traditions are more extreme in their expression than others, they largely coincide with male dominance particularly in the private and economic spheres of the market and the family. Further, to the extent that these practices are inimical to the equal rights of woman, in many ways they parallel the values promoted by the new right. In particular, these practices and
the values of the New Right reject sexual and labor equality between men and women while placing a high value on the traditional male headed family. 114 Within the African countries, [*85] such practices intersect with the sheer lack or denial of reproductive rights. The that a husband may forbid a woman from receiving such services. 116 The practice of female circumcision has been the target of the Bush administration's vociferous condemnation. 117 While such condemnation of the practice is certainly welcome, the global gag rule endorses
pre-colonial value placed on reproductive labor of women in Africa, was ""controlled and exploited by men through customs such as brideprice and polygamous marriages.'" 115 Further complicating women's access to reproductive services in these countries is the reality de-funding reproductive health care programs thereby undermining the objective of consistently promoting the goals of freedom of individual choice and equality of opportunity for women. 118
The State has created an epistemology of male violence. The Global Gag Rule structures social relations by exporting a patriarchal ideology to Sub-Saharan Africa
Gathii, Professor of International Commercial Law, Albany Law School, 2006 (James, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall page lexis )
The state "participatess in the sexual politics of male dominance by enforcing its epistemology through law." 76 When the U.S. exports and imposes policies reflecting its culture wars on developing countries, this amounts to a form of "cultural imperialism." 77 This assertion proceeds from the view that international relations are composed of the "relations between people ("women' and "men'), between people and states, and between organizations and economies," and not simply relations between states. 78 A. A Critical View of Exporting the U.S.'s Culture Wars In this section, I analyze the global gag rule in part through the lens of liberal feminism whose contemporary roots are sometimes traced to the publication of Betty Freidan's book, The Feminist Mystique 79 as well as through critical perspectives that do not assume that western feminism should necessarily assume a "master discourse' outside the West without acknowledging that is relatively well "supported by a high level of material well-being, intellectual freedom and personal mobility." 80 From these disparate perspectives, the politics of the New Right are a reflection of the patriarchal underpinnings of a male dominated system, as well as the private order of market relations that structures patriarchy. 81 [*78] Thus, the New Right misleadingly argues that love and devotion govern traditional family relations. Further, the movement's assault on the welfare state reproduces hierarchical sexual and economic relations between men and women. 82 The New Right agenda does this, in part, by rejecting sexual and labor equality between men and women and instead seeking to reassert patriarchal authority, both within the traditional family as well as in sexual relations between men and women. 83 The New Right's traditional family agenda regards sexual inequality as the necessary outcome of biological differences. 84 Sexual freedom and equality would, according to the New Right, erode and endanger procreation, thereby threatening the future of the traditional family. 85 Thus, the New Right's central mission considers "how sexuality is managed, sublimated, expressed, denied and propagated." 86 Indeed, the very sexual constitution of patriarchy is a key insight underpinning of the New Right ideology. In effect, the New Right embraces the idea that ending patriarchy would undermine the privileged status and authority of men and that the best way to avoid this is the control of women's bodies. To this end, the New Right seeks to legislate issues of sexuality by drawing boundaries between sex and love and by outlawing sexual choice and freedom with a view to curbing the excesses of liberal feminism and sexual egalitarianism. 87 The New Right emphasizes that sexual differences between men and women somehow justify unequal economic and social circumstances between individuals. 88 Therefore, the New Right considers interference with [*79] open competition through programs like affirmative action and aid to the poor - particularly to women of color on welfare - to be illegitimate. 89 The effect of the programs that are supported by the New Right is to promote the economic dependence of women. 90 That is also true of the World Bank's vision of market-centered equality. 91 The global gag rule encompasses these ideologies both explicitly as well as through its practical effect - that is to make reproductive rights less accessible to women, and thereby impacting women's opportunities. Access to reproductive rights, including access to family planning methods, health care, and where legal, access to abortion, increases women's access to equal opportunities with men. 92
The larger attempt to put restrictions on the information necessary to make the decisions about abortion is indicative of an attempt to deny women access to the symbolic order only providing a space for disclosure can allow women access to personhood and justice
Murphy, professor at NYU, 1998 (Sarah, On Drucilla Cornell, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/Cornell.html)
The short answer in this case is at the moment that one can no longer be "left alone" with an unwanted pregnancy. And since to varying degrees no woman is or can be left alone with any pregnancy, desired or not, the real question under Roe [7], becomes one of access to services and information: the poor woman relying on public clinics, the teenager who needs correct information and ethical guidance but cannot inform her parents of her pregnancy, the woman who finds herself in the tragic circumstance of contemplating late-term abortion all see their right to privacy evaporate. But if we understand abortion rights in terms of the imaginary domain, argues Cornell, the question becomes one of assuring the space in which each of these women can over time work through, clarify,
struggle with her own experience of pregnancy, the deeply personal implications of deciding the fate of that pregnancy, and how this decision will shape and be shaped by her future life experiences. How each woman will do this is left to them and nothing about that process is guaranteed. But if the deciding factor in the legal understanding of abortion is the protection of the imaginary domain, with its founding conditions of possibility bodily integrity and access to symbolic forms, then in no case, the hypothetical ones above included, can legislation that selectively or generally bars women from access to abortion or information about it be considered justice.
The Far Rights attempt to define the female body is a strategy of denying individuation for women this is a form of violence against the self which denies access to personhood
Cornell, professor of law, women's studies and political science at Rutgers University, 2002 (Drucilla, Dismembered Selves, page 343) The Lacanian account allows us to understand just how fragile the achievement of individuation is, and how easily it can be
undermined, if not altogether destroyed, by either a physical or symbolic assault on the projection of bodily integrity. The denial of
the right to abortion should be understood as a serious symbolic assault on a woman's sense of self precisely because it thwarts the projection of bodily integration and places the woman's body in the hands and imaginings of others who would deny her coherence by separating her womb from her self.9 But before we can fully understand why the denial of the right to abortion can and should be
understood as a symbolic dismemberment of a woman's body, we need to explore Lacan's explanation of the constitution of selfhood.
This patriarchal structure necessitate domination and violence the New Rights deployment of masculine dominance is the root of all oppression refusal to question this social system assures the continuation of all violence
hooks, professor of English at City College, 2004 (bell, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love. P 26-27) Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy. I often tell audiences that if we were to go door-to-door asking if we should end male
violence against women, most people would give their unequivocal support. Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the many gains of contemporary feminist movement-greater equality for women in the workforce, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles-
patriarchy as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species. This belief seems ironic, given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations, especially the insistence on violence as a means of social control, has actually led to the slaughter of millions of people on the planet.
Therefore we advocate the following plan: The United State Federal Government should substantially increase its public health assistance to subSaharan Africa by repealing the Mexico City Policy (or Global Gag Rule) in regards to public health services provided in Sub-Saharan Africa.
OBSERVATION 2: A NEW BEGINNING The 1AC acts to restrain the power of the Far Right to define freedom for the women of Sub-Saharan Africa. Repealing the Global Gag Rule is a necessary step to divorce the material conditions of women around the world from the ideology of American politics
Aguilar, JD Candidate St. Mary's University School of Law, 2002 (Yvette, The Scholar: St. Marys Law Review on Minority Issues, Fall, page lexis) The Executive has too much power to dramatically affect the family planning options of women in developing countries from one day to the next. This problem is evident in the history of the Mexico City Policy, [*77] created and maintained by Republican Presidents, repealed by a Democrat President, then reinstated by a Republican President. 289 The rights of women in developing countries should not hang in the balance of the religious beliefs of one man which are in conflict with the legal rights enjoyed by American women. Further, a repeal of the Mexico City Policy would effectively make the United States foreign policy similar to our domestic policy and case law regarding the use of government funds for family planning services. 290
The doom saying of the negative is a knee jerk reaction meant to make you feel good about ignoring the 1AC harms vote affirmative to align yourself with social justice not propaganda
Martin, associate prof in Science, Technology and Society at the University of Wollongong, 1982 (Brian, Critique of nuclear extinction, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1982, pp. 287-300) http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82jpr.html
(e) Exaggeration to justify concern (I). People involved with any issue or activity tend to exaggerate its importance so as to justify and sustain their concern and involvement. Nuclear war is only one problem among many pressing problems in the world, which include starvation, poverty, exploitation, racial and sexual inequality and repressive governments. By concentrating on peace issues, one must by necessity give less attention to other pressing issues. An unconscious tendency to exaggerate the effects of nuclear war has the effect of reducing conscious or
unconscious guilt at not doing more on other issues.

Guilt of this sort is undoubtedly common, especially among those who are active on social issues and who become familiar with the wide range of social problems needing attention. The irony is that those who feel guilt for this reason tend to be those who have least cause to feel so. One politically effective way to
overcome this guilt may be to strengthen and expand links between anti-war struggles and struggles for justice, equality and the like.
The impact to the 1AC outweighs nuclear war social inequality is consequentially more important to counter
(g) White, western orientation. Most of the continuing large-scale suffering in the world - caused by poverty, starvation, disease and torture - is borne by the poor, non-white peoples of the third world. A global nuclear war might well kill fewer people than have died of starvation and hunger-related disease in the past 50 or 100 years.[22] Smaller nuclear wars would make this sort of contrast greater.[23] Nuclear war is the one source of possible deaths of millions of people that would affect mainly white, rich, western societies (China and Japan are the prime possible exceptions). By comparison, the direct effect of global nuclear war on nonwhite, poor, third world populations would be relatively small. White westerners may tend to identify their own plight with that of the rest of the world, and hence exaggerate the threat of destruction wreaked on their own societies into one for all of humanity. White westerners may also tend to see the rest of the world as vitally dependent on themselves for survival, and hence see catastrophe for all as a result of a nuclear war which destroys 'civilisation'. In practice, poor non-white populations arguably would be better off without the attentions of white, western 'civilisation' - although nuclear war is hardly the way to achieve this.
1AC WFI (Wyoming) Chill Factor version

OBSERVATION 1: THE BIG CHILL The Global Gage Rule creates a deterrent effect on non-governmental organizations who provide family planning rather then learn the exemptions most organizations simply abandon all services relating to abortion
Aguilar, JD Candidate St. Mary's University School of Law, 2002 (Yvette, The Scholar: St. Marys Law Review on Minority Issues, Fall, page lexis) Immediately after the Mexico City Policy was implemented, many foreign NGOs began to distance themselves from any abortion activity for fear they may lose funding from USAID. 96 Due to translation and interpretation difficulties, many foreign NGOs have halted all abortion related activities, even those the Mexico City Policy allows. 97 An example of the chilling effect is evident from an
interview published in 1988. 98 The Population Crisis Committee questioned a Bangladesh clinic worker regarding the treatment or referral of women suffering from complications of a clandestine abortion. 99 In the interview, the clinic worker responded by stating "we can [not] do anything ... she just has to go away." 100This misinterpretation is compounded because the population crisis is largely concentrated in the Third World. 101 While clinics funded by USAID have been successful in helping women create smaller families, it is feared this success will be hindered by the enforcement of the Mexico City Policy, as many clinics will no longer receive funding from USAID. 102 While many foreign NGOs have chosen to accept USAID and to comply with the restrictions of the Global Gag Rule, at least ten foreign NGOs, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), have been denied funding. 103 The Global Gag Rule has a "chilling
effect" on NGOs who research, promote, or monitor abortion-related activities and their effects on women, thus hindering the information sharing process. 104 Restricting the speech of NGOs is detrimental to advances in human rights worldwide. 105 This is especially true in the context of the women affected by the Mexico City Policy. The majority of women affected by [*52] this rule are poor women in the poorest countries whose strongest advocate in the global arena is the NGO. This is the same NGO whose voice is silenced by the Global Gag Rule.
The Global Gag Rule dis-empowers women in poor areas by entrenching another hyper masculine policy of dominance and control of Womens biology. This atrocity falls in line with rape, sexual violence and the cultures pervasive attitudes regarding womens sexual rights.
The Center for Reproductive rights 2003 Breaking the Silence: The Global Gag Rules Impact on Unsafe Abortion pg. 29
Cultural practices that are harmful to women and girls, domestic and sexual violence against women, and womens low socioeconomic status in each of the four countries under study also contribute to high rates of unwanted pregnancy. In Ethiopia and Uganda, for example, early marriages 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 womens 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 survey 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 universities, 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 widespread poverty, mean that unsafe abortion is often the only alternative for women faced with unwanted pregnancies in each of the four surveyed countries. Due to an increasing recognition 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 countrys currently restrictive abortion laws.81 In Kenya and Uganda, public discussion about unsafe abortion and the need for abortion law reform is beginning to take place.82 In contrast, despite efforts by womens rights organizations, the government in Peru has recently considered adopting a constitutional clause further restricting abortion.
The deterrent effect from the gag rule discourages clinics from helping women
Jones, Note Editor for the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 2004 (Allegra, Boston Third World Law Journal Winter page lexis) Because the conditions satisfying this scenario are so limited, USAID-funded clinics fear risking their budgets by providing any responses whatsoever and are often forced to turn women away. 53 USAID representatives [*197] strictly enforce the Policy, and organizations such as International Planned Parenthood Federation have lost up to $ 12 million in USAID grants for noncompliance. 54 These exceptions are virtually meaningless in practice: the Policy has a chilling effect that deters USAID-funded clinics from treating women even in emergency situations for fear of losing funding. 55 At a congressional hearing in 2001, New York Congresswoman Nita
Lowey recounted the story of a nurse in Egypt who was afraid to treat or refer a woman bleeding from a botched abortion due to the possible negative consequences from the Mexico City Policy. 56 As the accessibility of a family planning clinic can mean the difference between
life and death for a woman suffering from an unsafe abortion, it is important to evaluate the practical effects of U.S. policy on family planning clinics and their services. 57
Finally the Gag Rules restriction on the promotion of abortion assures that abortions remain criminalized in countries who currently have bans on abortion NGOs cannot lobby or advocate for reform of the system without fear of losing funding
Upreti, legal adviser with the Center for Reproductive Rights' International Legal Program, 2003 (Melissa, Womens Rights Law Reporter, Summer/Fall page lexis) The Global Gag Rule also affects the ability of U.S.-based NGOs to advocate for safer abortion services and the decriminalization of abortion where it is illegal by making it impossible for overseas NGOs to collaborate with them. The Global Gag Rule undermines the sovereignty of foreign governments because foreign governments are not able to collaborate on abortion-related projects with NGOs receiving U.S. government funding in their country. The Global Gag Rule prevents NGOs from carrying out their governments' public policy decisions in countries where abortions are legal, safe, and accessible.
Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by repealing the Mexico City Policy for all countries in sub-Saharan Africa that currently ban abortions. We can clarify. OUR ONLY ADVANTAGE IS THAT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE GOOD Decriminalization of abortion is essential to protect the lives of women
Aguilar, JD Candidate St. Mary's University School of Law, 2002 (Yvette, The Scholar: St. Marys Law Review on Minority Issues, Fall, page lexis) Women make up seventy percent of the world's one billion poorest people. 2 On a daily basis, an average of 1,440 women around the world die due to pregnancy complications, defective abortions, miscarriage, or while giving birth. 3 A woman living in the United States has a one in [*39] 3,500 chance of dying as a result of her pregnancy. 4 In contrast, a woman living in a developing country, such as Ethiopia, has a one in seven chance of dying from pregnancy complications. 5 One factor contributing to the difference between mortality rates of women in developing countries versus women in developed countries is access to family planning services. 6 As
we continue into the millennium, women in developing countries are about to face more hardships when trying to access family planning services. 7 On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy, 8 also known as the Global Gag Rule. 9
The debate about abortion is ultimately one that should be left to pregnant women access to safe abortions should be promoted in order to allow women to make the difficult choice to have an abortion
Hanigsberg, Associate in Law at Columbia University School of Law, 1995 (Julia, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, November, page lexis)
Women define pregnancy and intrauterine life in myriad ways, 117 and most individual women seeking abortions are not unaware of or indifferent to a consideration of the meaning of intrauterine life, contrary to the heavy-handed stereotypes much anti-abortion rhetoric perpetuates. 118 It is for this reason that most women do not equate having an abortion with having a tooth or a bunion removed, even if the
woman is entirely sure of her decision. 119 Women do distinguish between children and intrauterine life, but they also distinguish between intrauterine life and mere parts of their own bodies. 120 This distinction helps to explain why, at least for many women, abortion can be expressed as a mothering decision. 121 [*399]
The Bush administration introduction of morality into the question of abortion ignores material reality. Their moral absolutism should be rejected because it is based in a utopian vision of reproduction which ignores questions of consent and social location. The Global Gag Rule is too deeply engrained with a fundamental disrespect for women to provide an adequate answer to the questions of abortion Reilly, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law, 1996
(Elizabeth, The American University Journal of Gender & the Law, Fall page lexis)
The full-scale battle for the hearts and minds of the American public continues at a fever pitch. Fought in homes, outside clinics, in the media, in academic writings, in the halls of administrative agencies, in legislatures, and in the courts, the war has created a lot [*154] of debris. n31 A great deal of the debris is attributable to the legal framework from which abortion rights arose and in which procreative choice and state control are analyzed. This legal framework is riddled with too much disrespect for women to form a promising foundation for legal solutions. n32
We need a new paradigm. That paradigm must repudiate the vision of women n33 that society has constructed and the law has internalized. It must be a model for decisionmaking reflective of the human truths of procreation and respectful of the moral dimensions of the decision to transmit life to another.
There are a few positive effects of this conflagration. This fury has made us aware; it has made us think; it has made us care. Emotion as well as reason has a necessary place in human decisionmaking, and thus, by definition, in moral judgment. n34 I am optimistic that if we clear out the debris, accord each other the human decency of trusting the good faith and moral integrity of those with whom we disagree, n35 and become willing to accept the burdens and rewards of mutual social responsibility for supporting the moral life of individuals and the physical life of all of us, we can address the social problem this debate has become with reason as well as with concern. [*155] Our disagreements about the nature of fetal life and the moral consequences of its termination are inescapable. n36 Those who believe that fetal life is the moral and physical equivalent of born life and that abortion is murder will probably never convince those who believe that fetal life differs fundamentally both morally and physically from the life of a born person. But my sense is that the vast majority of us share a reverence for life n37 and a belief that we are moral agents with a profound moral responsibility for life. I think most of us believe procreation should be engaged in with love and moral seriousness. And I believe that most of us see a profound difference between government edict and love and morality.
It is both primary and inescapable that procreation requires moral decisionmaking. n38 My sense is that the vast majority of us want people to make the most moral and best decisions they can about begetting, bearing, and raising our children. We want every child to be loved, cared for and raised to be a happy, good human being and productive citizen. n39 I daresay that most of us would believe we lived [*156] in a reproductive utopia if every sex act were truly mutually consensual and engaged in with mature respect for self and partner, every pregnancy were a blessing, abortion could be rare or nonexistent, and every child had a happy, loving home with emotional, physical, spiritual and financial nurturance and security. But this is not the world in which we live, and it cannot be the world for which our legal, social, political and moral solutions are designed. Furthermore - Legal regulation of abortion is steeped in ideological interpretations of motherhood which replicate domination the epistemology of the Global Gag Rule is rooted in a hatred of bad mothering which is founded in a homogenization of women and mothering
Hanigsberg, Associate in Law at Columbia University School of Law, 1995 (Julia, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, November, page lexis)
By envisioning abortion as a mothering decision I explore three interconnecting theses. First I make explicit that at least part of the reason why the regulation of abortion has proven so intractable legally and politically is because as a cultural phenomenon it has not been separated from mothering and relationships between mother and child - and perhaps it cannot be, given the social and political context it occupies. Thus, legal
regulation of abortion has been steeped in ideological interpretations of motherhood that result in women's subordination. 85
Second, I reveal that homologizing pregnancy and motherhood has been possible because the notion of abortion as part of a spectrum of mothering activities resonates with many women's experiences. 86 Third, by putting abortion in the frame of mothering decisions I include intrauterine life in the feminist discussion of abortion and salvage that side of the discourse from anti-abortion rhetoric. 87 [*391]
Although the abortion question has a fundamental connection to issues of body and self, the decision whether to have an abortion is also one that generates conflict because it is simultaneously about mothering - about connections between the woman making the choice and the intrauterine life she carries. 88 Like many other choices made during pregnancy, abortion generates moral outrage because it is conceptualized as bad mothering 89 and selfish behavior. 90 From the moment a woman becomes pregnant, other
persons treat her decisions, ranging from whether to ingest alcohol or drugs (from aspirin to cocaine), smoke, abide passive ingestion of smoke,
what to eat, whether to have sex, travel, own a cat, and so on, as [*392] mothering choices. 91 Suppositions about the special
that the social [*393] meaning of motherhood is women's experience of mothering, 94 however, this ideology does influence individual women's experiences of motherhood. 95 Contrary to the "ideal," motherhood is just as much about fear and danger as it is about self-sacrifice. Mothering is work for women and can produce both ecstasy and rage; it can be debilitating and intrusive and a great joy 96 - it can be done well or badly. Pregnancy brings with it the same range of responses. Likewise, while some mothering decisions reflect the qualities of the idealized mother, such as self-sacrifice and generosity, at other times decisions stem from the mother's desires and aspirations alone totally apart from the child's needs. 97 Most of the time, mothering decisions fall somewhere in between these two extremes. I argue that, like other mothering decisions, the abortion decision is not exclusively a "selfish" or "irresponsible" choice. 98 [*394]
responsibilities that women assume as mothers may produce legal responses that single out the conduct of pregnant women, thus homologizing the states of pregnancy and motherhood. 92 It is in these ways that the ideology of motherhood - inter alia, the simultaneous idealization and demonization of mothers in our culture - is imposed on abortion decisionmaking. 93 I do not mean to suggest
The Bush administrations interpretation of abortion via the global gag rule is based on a misogynistic conception of motherhood their ideology of life is not about the mother it instead forces the woman to die for the fetus, this assures the continued domination of women.
Hanigsberg, Associate in Law at Columbia University School of Law, 1995 (Julia, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, November, page lexis) The legal and political tendency to homologize pregnancy and motherhood that I have described is problematic because it produces legal consequences that hold women to a certain standard of motherhood before they have even given birth. When lawmakers and courts conceptualize pregnant women as mothers, they will be mired in antifeminist, even sometimes misogynistic, conceptions of maternity and the ideology of motherhood while making decisions about abortion. In other words, the problem is not viewing pregnant women as women making mothering decisions per se, but ascribing to pregnant women the ideological baggage associated with mothering in this culture. This danger can be seen in the words of Catholic theologian Bernard Haring:
If it were to become an accepted principle of moral teaching on motherhood to permit a mother whose life was endangered simply to "sacrifice" the life of her child in order to save her own, motherhood would no longer mean absolute dedication to each and every child. 111 It is the particular idea of a mother that is superimposed on the pregnant woman that makes this statement especially disturbing. In describing the contest over the meaning of being a woman, which she sees as central to the debate over abortion, Petchesky touches on what I have identified as homologizing pregnancy and motherhood:
idea of [*397] woman as Mother, and of the fetus as the tie that binds her to ... selflessness, that takes precedence over anything else. 112
Because the pregnant woman is Mother, she must be ready to die for the fetus. More than the survival of the individual fetus, what is ultimately at stake in the abortion struggle, in this view, is the "moral teaching" of motherhood as "absolute dedication." It is the Prohibition of abortion therefore functions as the mechanism for assuring women's subordination because it implies that a woman's preeminent purpose and essential nature is to be a mother. Homologizing pregnancy with motherhood defined as an absolute moral and social duty is thus clearly detrimental to women. 113
RETHINKING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IS CRITICAL TO FREEDOM FROM VIOLENCE AND COERCION THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.
Rahman 2003 Anita Rahman, attorney Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Women's Rights: Reframing the Issues for the Future October 19 2002 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law Lexis // WFI kh
I propose thinking of reproductive rights in two fundamentally different ways. First, the term reproductive rights should be understood to [*345] cover the full range of reproductive decision-making, particularly the decision about if and when to have a child, as well as whether or not to have a child. This conception of reproductive rights includes not only the right to decide when to become pregnant and to terminate a pregnancy, but also the right to carry a healthy child to term. It is crucial to maintain the neutrality of reproductive rights to include the ability to have and to not have a child. The second element of my proposed redefinition would be to ensure that reproductive rights addresses the full range of reproductive health concerns that women and men actually face. As I said, this starts with sexuality education and includes contraception, sexually transmissible infections (including HIV/AIDS), and issues of sexual violence. So I would propose a redefinition of reproductive rights to refer to the constellation of rights that enable individuals, particularly women, to control their bodies and to go through childbearing safely. What follows from this redefinition of reproductive rights is that such a right has two fundamental components. The first is the right to reproductive health care. I think the promise of reproductive self-determination rings hollow if you cannot access services. What does it mean to have the right to abortion or HIV counseling if you don't
have the services that enable you to exercise that right? I propose that reproductive health care be defined to include family planning, abortion, safe motherhood, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmissible infections, infertility, and issues relating to gender violence and sexuality. An equally fundamental component of reproductive rights is the right to reproductive self-determination. This is a term that I think many people are familiar with, and that can be used to encapsulate the principle that individuals must control their reproductive and sexual life. It translates into a right to plan one's family, the right to freedom from interference in reproductive decision-making, and the right to be free from all forms of violence and coercion. I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I am told that I need to wrap up, so I will wrap up and I look forward to questions. The 1AC establishes a criticism of the cultural motivation behind the global gag rule this form of curiosity is essential to uncover patriarchy in its most destructive forms uncover the violence of male dominance is crucial to transforming the super structure of patriarchy
Enloe, Professor of Womens Studies at Clark University, 2004 (Cynthia, The Curious Feminist, P 1-4)
Military spouses, child soldiers, factory managers, sweatshop workers, humanitarian aid workers, rape survivors, peace activists, warlords, occupation authorities. Each of these conventional ungendered terms serves to hide the political workings of masculinity
and femininity. Each dampens our curiosity about where women are and where men are, about who put women there and men here, about who benefits from women being there and not someplace else, about what women themselves think about being there and what they do with those thoughts when they try to relate to men and to other women. Any time we dont pursue these questions, we are likely to miss patriarchy. It will glide right by us like an oil tanker on a foggy night. The fog is uncuriosity. Yet if we miss patriarchy when it is in fact operating as a major structure of power, then our explanations about how the world works will be unreliable. Patriarchy patriarchy is the structural and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of masculinity. All kids of social systems and institutions can become patriarchal. Whole cultures can become patriarchal. That is a reality that has inspired feminist
movements to become national in scope, mobilizing energies on so many levels simultaneously. Families, town halls, militaries, banks, and police departments are among those sites of ordinary life perhaps especially notorious for their inclinations toward patriarchal values, structures, and practices. Scores of hospitals schools, factories, legislatures, political parties, museums, newspapers, theater companies, television networks, religious organizations, corporations, and courts no matter how modern their outward trappings have developed ways of looking and acting toward their own members and clients and toward the world around them that derive from the presumption that what is masculine is most deserving of reward, promotion, admiration, emulation, agenda prioritization, and budgetary line. Patriarchal inclinations can also be found in peace and justice movements, as well as in the offices of progressive magazines, enlightened foundations, and globally sensitive nongovernmental organizations - each of them can be, and have become, patriarchal. Patriarchal systems are notable for marginalizing the feminine. That is, insofar as any society or group is patriarchal, it is there that it is
comfortable unquestioned to infantilize, ignore, trivialize, or even actively cast scorn upon what is thought to be feminized.
That is why a feminist curiosity is always directed not only at the official or public discourses and behaviors of people in groups or institutions, but also at their informal, private, casual conversations, at the shared jokes, gestures, and rituals all of which help to glue relationships together. The feminist investigator always arrives before the meeting begins to hear the before-the-meeting offhand banter and is still wide awake and curious when the meeting-after-the-meeting continues among a select few down the corridor and into the pub. No patriarchy is made up just of men or just of the masculine. Far from it. Patriarchal systems have been so enduring, so adaptable,
precisely because they make many women overlook their own marginal positions and feel instead secure, protected, valued.
Patriarchies in militias, in labor unions, in nationalist movements, in political parties, in whole states and entire international institutions may privilege masculinity, but they need the complex idea of femininity and enough womens acceptance or complicity to operate. To sustain their gendered hierarchies, patriarchal law firms, for example, need not only feminized secretaries and feminized cleaners, but also feminized law associates and feminized paralegals. Patriarchal militaries need feminized law associates and feminized paralegals. Patriarchal militaries need feminized military wives and feminized military prostitutes. Patriarchal corporations need feminized clerical workers and feminized assemblyline workers. Every person who is pressed or lured into playing a feminized role must do so in order to make the masculinized people seem to be (to themselves as well as everyone else) the most wise, the most intellectual, the most rational, the most tough-minded, the most hard-headed.
One of the reasons that feminists have been so astute in exposing patriarchy as a principal cause for so many of the worlds processes empire-building, globalization, modernization is that feminists have been curious about women. By taking women seriously in their myriad locations, feminists have been able to see patriarchy when everyone else has seen only capitalism or militarism or racism or imperialism. It will be clear in the chapters that follow, I think, that I have become more and more convinced as I have been tutored by others that patriarchy must always be on the analytical couch. Patriarchy is not old hat. And it is not fixed. The structures and beliefs that combine to privilege masculinity are continuously being modernized. Nowadays there are so many feminists and other womens advocates internationally sharing information, insights, and strategies
that the enterprise of updating patriarchy is perhaps less assured of success than it has ever been. Still, every new constitution drafting, every new economic planning, every new treaty negotiation provides at least the opportunity for those who benefit from the privileging of masculinity to equip patriarchy with a deceptive new look. Patriarchy, consequently, can be as fashionable as hiring Bechtel, Lockheed, and other private military contractors to carry on the tasks of foreign occupation. That is, as the U.S. governments strategists seek to give their postwar reconstruction steps in Iraq and Afghanistan the look of something that is the opposite of old-fashioned dictatorships and imperialism, in practice
they are paying some of the most profoundly masculinity-privileging organizations to carry out this imperial agenda. What is allegedly new thus may be reproducing something that is all too familiar. Patriarchy can be as ubiquitous as nationalism, patriotism, and postwar reconstruction.
This patriarchal structure necessitate domination and violence refusal to uncover the hidden chains of patriarchy make violence inevitable
hooks, professor of English at City College, 2004 (bell, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love. P 26-27) Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy. I often tell audiences that if we were to go door-to-door asking if we should end male
violence against women, most people would give their unequivocal support. Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the many gains of contemporary feminist movement-greater equality for women in the workforce, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles-
patriarchy as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species. This belief seems ironic, given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations, especially the insistence on violence as a means of social control, has actually led to the slaughter of millions of people on the planet.
Repealing the totality of the Gag Rule isnt necessary removing the restriction to promote abortion from countries who have criminalized abortion solves the advantage and removes American politics from the lives of women in Sub-Saharan Africa
Aguilar, JD Candidate St. Mary's University School of Law, 2002 (Yvette, The Scholar: St. Marys Law Review on Minority Issues, Fall, page lexis) The Executive has too much power to dramatically affect the family planning options of women in developing countries from one day to the next. This problem is evident in the history of the Mexico City Policy, [*77] created and maintained by Republican Presidents, repealed by a Democrat President, then reinstated by a Republican President. 289 The rights of women in developing countries should not hang in the balance of the religious beliefs of one man which are in conflict with the legal rights enjoyed by American women. Further, a repeal of the Mexico City Policy would effectively make the United States foreign policy similar to our domestic policy and case law regarding the use of government funds for family planning services. 290
Due to the nature of our legislative process and the struggle between the Democrat and the Republican parties to get legislation passed which meets favorably with both parties, it is unrealistic the complete repeal of the Mexico City Policy will pass. Therefore, this comment proposes a compromise - the partial repeal of the Mexico City Policy with the harshest effect.
The Mexico City Policy most harms those countries which have anti-abortion laws that either completely forbid abortion under any circumstances or allow it in very limited circumstances. According to the PAI [*78] study, these countries tend to have
the highest maternal mortality rates, highest incidence of HIV/AIDS in both men and women, and the highest occurrence of anemia in pregnant women worldwide. 291 Further, the women living in these countries have the lowest percentage of contraceptive use, lowest rate of prenatal care, and the lowest amounts of births attended by skilled personnel worldwide. 292 These are the women of the world who
are most in need of family planning services; however, the Mexico City Policy endangers their access to these services, because these countries are also the most in need of abortion reform which the Global Gag Rule prohibits. The NGOs in these countries are the voice for these women by utilizing research to lobby the United Nations and their own governments in an effort to decriminalize abortion. The NGOs are the voice for the women like those found in Nepal, who are
imprisoned, in some cases with their children, for the crime of abortion. If it were not for the assistance of NGOs lobbying the government of Nepal to release these women from prison, most of them would be serving their full sentence. The voice of the poorest women in the world should not be silenced.
This comment proposes the removal of the section in the Mexico City Policy which includes lobbying in the definition of "promotion of abortion." 293 The list of activities which constitute promotion of abortion activities forbidden under the Mexico City Policy is non-exhaustive, thus it is too broad and open for wide interpretation. The definition of "promotion of abortion" should be a narrow construction so as not to hinder the human rights efforts of women in developing countries. Under my proposal, lobbying for the decriminalization of abortion could be done by recipient organizations with the provision they use their own, non-USAID funds. This would enable NGOs to lobby for abortion reform in their countries, while still providing vital family planning services in their countries.
NGOs are key to assuring womens rights

Aguilar, JD Candidate St. Mary's University School of Law, 2002 (Yvette, The Scholar: St. Marys Law Review on Minority Issues, Fall, page lexis)
SDI 2007 5 Week
290 NEG Global Gag Rule
Non-governmental organizations have been and continue to be essential in advancing the rights of women worldwide. 55 The remarkable development of women's rights as an international issue can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of NGOs working closely in the United Nations' system. 56 NGOs have been largely responsible for lobbying their governments and the United
Nations on such issues as violence against women in times of conflict, domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment, health issues, violent cultural practices, violent religious practices, trafficking [*46] and forced prostitution. 57 The role of NGOs in lobbying the United Nations is vital in establishing women's rights as human rights in the international arena. 58 This would include establishing a
woman's right to reproductive health, including abortion, as a human right. 59
Donor programs, including USAID, utilize varying methods to distribute funds to developing countries for population control. 60 Traditionally, the funds have been dispersed evenly through three major avenues; however, the current trend shows more funds are
being dispersed to developing countries through NGOs than any other method. 61 This suggests NGOs play a vital role in providing women in developing countries with access to family planning services.
The doom saying of the negative is a knee jerk reaction meant to make you feel good about ignoring the 1AC harms vote affirmative to align yourself with social justice not propaganda
(e) Exaggeration to justify concern (I). People involved with any issue or activity tend to exaggerate its importance so as to justify and sustain their concern and involvement. Nuclear war is only one problem among many pressing problems in the world, which include starvation, poverty, exploitation, racial and sexual inequality and repressive governments. By concentrating on peace issues, one must by necessity give less attention to other pressing issues. An unconscious tendency to exaggerate the effects of nuclear war has the effect of reducing
conscious or unconscious guilt at not doing more on other issues.

Guilt of this sort is undoubtedly common, especially among those who are active on social issues and who become familiar with the wide range of social problems needing attention. The irony is that those who feel guilt for this reason tend to be those who have least cause to feel so. One politically
effective way to overcome this guilt may be to strengthen and expand links between anti-war struggles and struggles for justice, equality and the like.
The impact to the 1AC outweighs nuclear war social inequality is consequentially more important to counter
(g) White, western orientation. Most of the continuing large-scale suffering in the world - caused by poverty, starvation, disease and torture - is borne by the poor, non-white peoples of the third world. A global nuclear war might well kill fewer people than have died of starvation and hunger-related disease in the past 50 or 100 years.[22] Smaller nuclear wars would make this sort of contrast greater.[23] Nuclear war is the one source of possible deaths of millions of people that would affect mainly white, rich, western societies (China and Japan are the prime possible exceptions). By comparison, the direct effect of global nuclear war on nonwhite, poor, third world populations would be relatively small. White westerners may tend to identify their own plight with that of the rest of the world, and hence exaggerate the threat of destruction wreaked on their own societies into one for all of humanity. White westerners may also tend to see the rest of the world as vitally dependent on themselves for survival, and hence see catastrophe for all as a result of a nuclear war which destroys 'civilisation'. In practice, poor non-white populations arguably would be better off without the attentions of white, western 'civilisation' although nuclear war is hardly the way to achieve this.

Gag Rule Neg - 5th Week

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gag Rule Neg - 5th Week

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NEG Global Gag Rule p.

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 2 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 3 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 4 of 290 ARGUMENT POSSIBILITIES Counterplans

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 6 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 7 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 8 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 9 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

AT ADV Carrying Capacity

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 10 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 11 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

AT ADV Civil society

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 12 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 13 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

The root cause is diamond conflict not overpopulation.

Diamonds fuel conflict. PAC, 01 (Partnership Africa Canada, http://www.pacweb.org/e/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=67, DY)

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 14 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 15 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 17 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 18 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 20 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 21 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

Too many causes of food insecurity. They cant solve

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 22 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

AT ADV First Amendment

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 23 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

AT ADV Global Warming

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 24 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 25 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 26 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

AT ADV Human Rights

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 27 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 28 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 29 of 290

SDI Strategy Forum 07 Mahoney

NEG Global Gag Rule p. 30 of 290