'Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance'? Towards a framework for assessing the health systems impact of the expanded Global Gag Rule

U.S. global health aid policy and family planning in sub-Saharan Africa

The Trump administration reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy (MCP) in 2017 as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, forbidding international organizations receiving all U.S. health assistance from promoting abortion. Existing evidence suggests that abortion rates rise under the MCP, but the direct effect of U.S. funding restrictions on supply and use of family planning has received less attention. By studying PLGHA's impact on health service delivery providers and women in eight sub-Saharan African countries, we are able to fill this gap. We find that health facilities provide fewer family planning services, including emergency contraception, and that women are less likely to use contraception and more likely to have given birth recently under the policy. These findings suggest that PLGHA has important unintended consequences that are detrimental to reproductive health and the autonomous decision-making of health service providers and women.

Postabortion and safe abortion care coverage, capacity, and caseloads during the global gag rule policy period in Ethiopia and Uganda

BACKGROUND

Abortion-related complications contribute to preventable maternal mortality, accounting for 9.8% of maternal deaths globally, and 15.6% in sub-Saharan Africa. High-quality postabortion care (PAC) can mitigate the negative health outcomes associated with unsafe abortion. While the expanded Global Gag Rule policy did not prohibit the provision of PAC, other research has suggested that over-implementation of the policy has resulted in impacts on these services. The purpose of this study was to assess health facilities' capacity to provide PAC services in Uganda and PAC and safe abortion care (SAC) in Ethiopia during the time in which the policy was in effect.

METHODS

We collected abortion care data between 2018 and 2020 from public health facilities in Ethiopia (N = 282) and Uganda (N = 223). We adapted a signal functions approach to create composite indicators of health facilities' capacity to provide basic and comprehensive PAC and SAC and present descriptive statistics documenting the state of service provision both before and after the GGR went into effect. We also investigate trends in caseloads over the time-period.

RESULTS

In both countries, service coverage was high and improved over time, but facilities' capacity to provide basic PAC services was low in Uganda (17.8% in 2019) and Ethiopia (15.0% in 2020). The number of PAC cases increased by 15.5% over time in Uganda and decreased by 7% in Ethiopia. Basic SAC capacity increased substantially in Ethiopia from 66.7 to 82.8% overall, due in part to an increase in the provision of medication abortion, and the number of safe abortions increased in Ethiopia by 9.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this analysis suggest that public health systems in both Ethiopia and Uganda were able to maintain essential PAC/SAC services during the GGR period. In Ethiopia, there were improvements in the availability of safe abortion services and an overall improvement in the safety of abortion during this time-period. Despite loss of partnerships and potential disruptions in referral chains, lower-level facilities were able to expand their capacity to provide PAC services. However, PAC caseloads increased in Uganda which could indicate that, as hypothesized, abortion became more stigmatized, less accessible and less safe.

Beyond abortion: impacts of the expanded global gag rule in Kenya, Madagascar and Nepal

Since 1984, Republican administrations in the US have enacted the global gag rule (GGR), which prohibits non-US-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from providing, referring for, or counselling on abortion as a method of family planning, or advocating for the liberalisation of abortion laws, as a condition for receiving certain categories of US Global Health Assistance. Versions of the GGR implemented before 2017 applied to US Family Planning Assistance only, but the Trump administration expanded the policy’s reach by applying it to nearly all types of Global Health Assistance. Documentation of the policy’s harms in the peer-reviewed and grey literature has grown considerably in recent years, however few cross-country analyses exist. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of the GGR’s impacts across three countries with distinct abortion laws: Kenya, Madagascar and Nepal. We conducted 479 in-depth qualitative interviews between August 2018 and March 2020. Participants included representatives of Ministries of Health and NGOs that did and did not certify the GGR, providers of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services at public and private facilities, community health workers, and contraceptive clients. We observed greater breakdown of NGO coordination and chilling effects in countries where abortion is legal and there is a sizeable community of non-US-based NGOs working on SRH. However, we found that the GGR fractured SRH service delivery in all countries, irrespective of the legal status of abortion. Contraceptive service availability, accessibility and training for providers were particularly damaged. Further, this analysis makes clear that the GGR has substantial and deleterious effects on public sector infrastructure for SRH in addition to NGOs.

The U.S. Global Gag Rule in Ethiopia: a foreign policy challenging domestic sexual and reproductive health and rights gains

BACKGROUND

Ethiopia's government and civil society have driven crosscutting initiatives in the last 15 years to improve sexual and reproductive health outcomes, including passing a 2005 abortion law that facilitated reduced rates of maternal death due to unsafe abortion. However, both the government and nongovernmental organizations have relied on external funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights, particularly from the U.S. government, which has been Ethiopia's largest global health donor. This article explores how the implementation and expansion of the 2017-2021 U.S. foreign policy "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance," also known as the Global Gag Rule-which attached itself to a nongovernmental organization's funding-impacted sexual and reproductive health and rights, including safe abortion care, in Ethiopia.

METHODS

This article is based on research conducted by PAI staff in Ethiopia in 2018 with follow-up in 2019. PAI held in-depth semistructured interviews with representatives of 30 organizations in Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa. Among these groups were U.S.-based and non-U.S. nongovernmental organizations, including community-based organizations, non-U.S. government donors, and Ethiopian government officials.

RESULTS

Nongovernmental organizations have been essential to sexual and reproductive health service provision and advocacy in Ethiopia. Because of the sector's reliance on U.S. global health assistance, these organizations; their activities; and, consequently, the wider health system were negatively impacted by the Global Gag Rule. Certain vulnerable groups, particularly adolescents and youth, have traditionally relied on the private sector for sexual and reproductive health services. PAI's research demonstrates that U.S. policy disrupted activities and service delivery, threatened the closure of private clinics, stalled mobile outreach, and impacted safe abortion training of health personnel. Additionally, the Global Gag Rule dismantled partnerships, affected non-U.S. government donors' investments, and caused confusion that limited activities permissible under the policy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Trump administration's Global Gag Rule forced non-U.S. organizations to choose between providing comprehensive care or losing U.S. global health assistance, ultimately impacting populations in need of services. Ethiopia provides a clear example of how the Global Gag Rule can threaten a country's domestic health agenda by targeting nongovernmental organizations that are vital to health service delivery and safe abortion care.

US foreign aid restrictions and maternal and children's health: Evidence from the "Mexico City Policy"

Although family planning services are crucial for global health and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, their funding remains controversial. We document the health consequences of the “Mexico City Policy” (MCP), which restricts US funding for abortion-related activities worldwide. Since its enactment in 1985, the MCP has been enforced only under Republican administrations and quickly rescinded when a Democrat wins the presidency. Our analysis shows that the MCP makes it harder for women to get information on and support for reproductive health and is associated with higher maternal and child mortality rates and HIV rates worldwide. We estimate that reinstating the MCP between 2017 and 2021 resulted in approximately 108,000 maternal and child deaths and 360,000 new HIV infections.

This paper analyzes the link between foreign aid for family planning services and a broad set of health outcomes. More specifically, it documents the harmful effects of the so-called “Mexico City Policy” (MCP), which restricts US funding for nongovernmental organizations that provide abortion-related services abroad. First enacted in 1985, the MCP is implemented along partisan lines; it is enforced only when a Republican administration is in office and quickly rescinded when a Democrat wins the presidency. Although previous research has shown that MCP causes significant disruption to family planning programs worldwide, its consequences for health outcomes, such as mortality and HIV rates, remain underexplored. The independence of the MCP’s implementation from the situation in recipient countries allows us to systematically study its impact. Using country-level data from 134 countries between 1990 and 2015, we first show that the MCP is associated with higher maternal and child mortality and HIV incidence rates. These effects are magnified by dependence on US aid while mitigated by funds from non-US donors. Next, we complement these results using individual-level data from 30 low- and middle-income countries and show that, under the MCP, women have less access to modern contraception and are less exposed to information on family planning and AIDS via in-person channels. Moreover, pregnant women are more likely to report that their pregnancy is not desired. Our findings highlight the importance of mitigating the harmful effects of MCP by redesigning or counteracting this policy.

Slowing progress: the US Global Gag Rule undermines access to contraception in Madagascar

Madagascar's health system is highly dependent on donor funding, especially from the United States (US), and relies on a few nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) to provide contraceptive services in remote areas of the country. The Trump administration reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule (GGR) in 2017; this policy requires non-US NGOs receiving US global health funding to certify that neither they nor their sub-grantees will provide, counsel or refer for abortion as a method of family planning. Evidence of the impact of the GGR in a country with restrictive abortion laws, like Madagascar - which has no explicit exception to save the woman's life - is limited. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 259 representatives of the Ministry of Health and NGOs, public and private health providers, community health workers and contraceptive clients in Antananarivo and eight districts between May 2019 and March 2020. Interviews highlighted the impact of the GGR on NGOs that did not certify the policy and lost their US funding. This reduction in funding led to fewer contraceptive service delivery points, including mobile outreach services, a critical component of care in rural areas. Public and private health providers reported increased contraceptive stockouts and fees charged to clients. Although the GGR is ostensibly about abortion, it has reduced access to contraception for the Malagasy population. This is one of few studies to directly document the impact on women who themselves described their increased difficulties obtaining contraception ultimately resulting in discontinuation of contraceptive use, unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.

Impacts of the Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the Global South: A scoping review

The Global Gag Rule is a United States policy that blocks global health funding to foreign non-governmental organisations if they engage in abortion-related activities. It has been implemented by every Republican administration since 1984 and remains in operation at the time of writing in its most stringent and extensive form. It has been criticised for its implications for women's bodily autonomy, its censorship of non-governmental organisations and health professionals, and for its impact on the health of populations in affected countries. To capture the effects of the policy to date, we conducted a scoping review in April 2020. Forty-eight articles met our eligibility criteria, and were analysed thematically, noting the effects on: the operations of non-governmental organisations; maternal health; sexually transmitted infections; marginalised groups; reproductive rights. We found that the policy increased the abortion rate and had a negative impact on maternal health, STIs, and the health of marginalised groups. We conclude that the policy amounts to the neocolonial co-optation of sexual and reproductive health in the Global South to advance an ideological agenda in the Global North. We urge that the policy be repealed as part of the broader project of protecting and decolonising sexual and reproductive health globally.

Foreign ideology vs. national priority: impacts of the US Global Gag Rule on Nepal's sexual and reproductive healthcare system

In recent decades, bold steps taken by the government of Nepal to liberalise its abortion law and increase the affordability and accessibility of safe abortion and family planning have contributed to significant improvements in maternal mortality and other sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes. The Trump administration’s Global Gag Rule (GGR) – which prohibits foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from receiving US global health assistance unless they certify that they will not use funding from any source to engage in service delivery, counselling, referral, or advocacy related to abortion – threatens this progress. This paper examines the impact of the GGR on civil society, NGOs, and SRH service delivery in Nepal. We conducted 205 semi-structured in-depth interviews in 2 phases (August–September 2018, and June–September 2019), and across 22 districts. Interview participants included NGO programme managers, government employees, facility managers and service providers in the NGO and private sectors, and service providers in public sector facilities. This large, two-phased study complements existing anecdotal research by capturing impacts of the GGR as they evolved over the course of a year, and by surfacing pathways through which this policy affects SRH outcomes. We found that low policy awareness and a considerable chilling effect cut across levels of the Nepali health system and exacerbated impacts caused by routine implementation of the GGR, undermining the ecology of SRH service delivery in Nepal as well as national sovereignty.

Foreign assistance or attack? Impact of the expanded Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health and rights in Kenya

In 2017, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule (GGR). This policy requires non-governmental organisations (NGOs) not based in the US to certify that they will not provide, counsel, refer, or advocate for abortion as a method of family planning in order to receive most categories of US global health assistance. Robust empirical evidence demonstrating the policy’s impacts is acutely lacking. This paper describes the effects of the expanded GGR policy in Kenya eighteen months after its reinstatement. We conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively selected representatives of US- and non-US-based NGOs, as well as managers and health providers at public and private health facilities, between September 2018 and March 2019. Organisations reported critical funding loss as they were forced to choose between US government-funded projects and projects supporting safe abortion. This resulted in the fragmentation of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services, and closure of some service delivery programmes. At public and private health facilities, participants reported staffing shortages and increased stock-outs of family planning and safe abortion commodities. The expanded GGR’s effects transcended abortion care by also disrupting collaboration and health promotion activities, strengthening opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights in some segments of Kenyan civil society and government. Our findings indicate that the GGR exposes and exacerbates the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the Kenyan health system, and illuminates the need for action to mitigate these harms.

The Global Gag Rule: The death trap for comprehensive sexual and reproductive healthcare and way to overcome the US gag rule

The United States of America (USA) is one of the largest bilateral donors in the field of global health assistance. There are beneficiaries in 70 countries around the world. In 2015, the USA released US$638 million for the improvement of global health status by promoting family planning services. Unfortunately, in 2017, Trump administration reinstated Mexico City Policy/Global Gag Rule (GGR). This policy prevents non-US nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from receiving US health financial assistance if they have any relationship with abortion-related services. This restriction pushed millions of lives into great danger due to the lack of comprehensive family planning services, especially lack of abortion-related services. This article has attempted to let the readers know about the impacts of GGR around the world and how global leaders are trying to overcome the harmful effects of this rule. Finally, it proposes some solutions to the impacts of the extension of Mexico City Policy.