Why Nurses Should Oppose the Global Gag Rule on Abortion

Since you've written and posted this as an article, would you please provide some sources for the statements made here.

thehill.com/policy/healthcare/abortion/315652-trump-signs-executive-order-reinstating-global-gag-rule-on

An article on AN does not mean a peer reviewed article. It is simply a format that is different than a standard post.

True, but if people are making statements of (presumably) fact, it's nice for them to provide some evidence that those facts are true and they didn't just make it all up. Links to articles, that kind of thing. Many of us do that in our posts here that aren't even "articles."

Trump administration to revive Reagan-era abortion 'gag' rule | World news | The Guardian

Trump is trying hard to agitate his single issue voters for the November election.

What is the most effective way to prevent morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortions? Contraception and other family planning services.

When the United States has imposed the so-called Mexico City Policy, under the last three Republican presidents, rates of abortion INCREASED in countries receiving US health aid.

 

During the second Bush administration, the policy was associated with a doubling of abortion rates in sub-Saharan Africa. The Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, prohibits foreign organizations from promoting or providing abortions if they are to receive US aid for family planning (primarily contraceptive) services. Public health researchers believe that reduced financial support for family planning services under the gag rule resulted in women substituting abortion for contraception.

Hi and welcome to AN. I agree with other posters. If you start at thread and make claims, we'd all appreciate if you could also provide links which support your claims.

It also hope to see you participate in the thread beyond just starting it.

Making abortion illegal does not reduce number of women having terminations, study concludes | The Independent

In the above article you can read that the fact that abortions are illegal, don't mean that women have fewer abortions than in countries where they're legally available. It shows that abortion rates in countries where abortions are legal and abortion rates in countries where they are illegal, are similar. The rate is actually slightly higher in the countries where they are illegal.

That should not come as news to anyone with a nursing degree who's done their research. If we've done our research, we do know that the only thing making abortions illegal accomplishes, is endangering the health of women and increase women's morbidity and mortality.

Yes, women actually choose the risk of death over being forced to give birth against their wishes. This is something I wish those who support banning abortions would grasp once and for all and learn to deal with reality such as it actually presents, rather than the idealized unicorns and rainbows version they wish was real.

I have to believe that they aren't evil ***** who don't give two hoots if women suffer torturous pain, emotional anguish and potentially die, or control freaks who just want to keep women under their collective thumb, but that they are guided by a misguided notion that an abortion ban would actually accomplish something good.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/abstract

This above link is the study linked in the Independent article.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2961799-2/fulltext

The above was published in 2009. It describes how abortion rates have fallen significantly in parts of the world where abortion is legal, but much less so in parts where abortions are illegal.

It describes that worldwide maternal mortality due to abortions remains at a rate of 70 000 deaths per year. Most of these deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa and in south-central Asia. This mortality is caused by the prevalence of unsafe abortions:

14 per 1000 women of childbearing age, which at the time of the study translated to 20 million annually. And that meant that, somewhere in the world a woman died every 8 minutes because of an unsafe abortion.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsafe_abortion/article_unsafe_abortion.pdf

Making abortion legal, safe, and accessible does not appreciably increase demand. Instead, the principal effect is shifting previously clandestine, unsafe procedures to legal and safe ones.

In the above link you can find a list of methods women use instead of being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes.

Some of the more frightening and desperate p.o. "treatments" that women will ingest include turpentine, laundry bleach and acid. They might also opt for "placing" foreign objects into the uterus through the cervix. Some of these foreign objects include: wire, knitting needles, coat hangers and ballpoint pens. Some try to induce a miscarriage through voluntarily subjecting themselves to forceful abdominal blunt trauma.

Thousands and thousands of women either suffer permanent injuries or die each and every year because they are denied access to safe abortions. Women in childbearing ages die tragic, PREVENTABLE deaths.

How can anyone with in good conscience argue for policies that we KNOW will cost many women their lifes? How can this be okay?

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44529/9789241501118_eng.pdf;sequence=1

When induced abortion is performed by qualified persons using correct techniques and in sanitary conditions, it is a safe surgical procedure. In the United States, for example, the death rate from induced abortion is 0.6 per 100 000 procedures, making it as safe as an injection of penicillin

In developing countries, however, the risk of death following unsafe abortion may be several hundred times higher.

Abortion attempts may involve: insertion of a solid object (root, twig or catheter) into the uterus; a dilatation and curettage procedure performed improperly by an unskilled provider; ingestion of harmful substances; and exertion of external force. In many settings, traditional practitioners vigorously pummel the woman's lower abdomen to disrupt the pregnancy which can cause the uterus to rupture, killing the woman. There are some signs that increased illicit, and often incorrect, use of medical abortion over other methods nevertheless may lower both the number of severe complications and maternal deaths.

One recent study estimates that every year in developing countries 5 million women are admitted to hospital as a result of unsafe abortion, this would mean that therefore some 3 million of the estimated 8.5 million who need care for subsequent health complications following unsafe abortion do not receive it.

WHO | United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa

Results

Overall, the induced abortion rate increased significantly from 10.4 per 10 000 woman-years for the period from 1994 to 2001 to 14.5 per 10 000 woman-years for the period from 2001 to 2008 (P = 0.01). Although the trend changed gradually, the timing of the rise is consistent with the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy in early 2001.

Discussion

Some American presidential administrations care deeply about curtailing access to abortion, whereas others seek to promote it. Regardless of one's views, an understanding of the relationship between the Mexico City Policy and abortion rates in developing countries is important for foreign policy decisions. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first quantitative analysis of the policy's possible implications for women living in countries that depend heavily on development assistance for family planning and reproductive health services.

Our study found robust empirical patterns suggesting that the Mexico City Policy is associated with increases in abortion rates in sub-Saharan African countries.

(I only included a part of the result and discussion, follow the link to read the entire thing).

"How can anyone with in good conscience argue for policies that we KNOW will cost many women their lifes?"

They argue from a religious conviction where the life of a fetus is more important than the woman.

Hmm ... OP seems to have seagulled. Now why would she do that?

I would submit that for most the belief that the babies life is equally imporant to the mothers. A life is a life in the eyes of the detractor.

Others would argue that the monetary costs of supporting these services to the world population is offering nothing to the healthcare of the US itself. Most often heard in the form of, "Why should I pay for another countries healthcare?".

The scope of expanding the Rule just placed more pressure on the systems to stop abortion practice to keep the funding. If the concern is the loss of that funding to other services, then the one responsible for the services should step in to fill the gap. If they believe that they need the other services more than the abortion services, than they can stop the practice and continue to receive funding.

Conservative health professionals won't be happy until poor women are dying from black market reproductive health services again.