Trump's expansion of Global Gag Rule sows chaos in global health

One of Donald Trump’s first acts as U.S. president was the re-imposition of the Global Gag Rule (GGR), also called the Mexico City Policy, a policy that denies healthy options to women and girls, not just safe abortion and contraception but potentially all areas of global health. 

Trump changed its name to “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance,” but most global health advocates call it the Global Gag Rule because it silences health providers from providing comprehensive reproductive health options to women and girls.

The global gag rule is a failed, outdated and deadly policy,” writes Serra Sippel, the president of the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), in the comprehensive new report Prescribing Chaos in Global Health: The Global Gag Rule from 1984 to 2018.

“Throughout this report, CHANGE seeks to document the breadth of the GGR’s impacts on civil society and health systems. For example, CHANGE provides evidence that the GGR under President George W. Bush had consequences outside family planning programs, and that it adversely impacted a wider range of health services provided by foreign NGOs. Some of these impacts were mitigated when President Barack Obama rescinded the policy, but the harmful effects have been shown to linger, particularly as each iteration has become more oppressive, culminating now with the Trump GGR.” 

The policy is having exactly the effect the Trump Administration intended it to have – women are losing health services, programs are being down-sized or closed and advocacy work disrupted. Because of poor communication and miscommunication coming from the U.S. government and prime partners, the CHANGE report says, many organizations are over-interpreting the policy, and going further than they really need to go, out of fear of losing funding and alienating an important donor (the U.S. government).

Brazil struggles to contain damage of mosquito that transmits Zika virus

Dr. Sylvia Lordello of Saúde Criança speaks to a group of parents about Zika.

This was originally published by Global Health TV on March 31, 2016.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil — A group of about 20 poor parents (mostly women) from the slums gathered this month in the offices of Saúde Criança (“child health” in Portuguese), a social enterprise that works with impoverished children and their families in a holistic way. After a meditation, they got down to the main point of the meeting — the Zika virus and how to avoid it.

These poor young mothers are prime candidates for Zika. Aedes aegypti, the mosquito that transmits Zika, will suck anyone’s blood — rich or poor. But they thrive in the densely populated favelas of Rio and other Brazilian cities where few people have screened windows and where even mosquito repellant may be a luxury. Many people have water cisterns on their roofs, usually not covered, which makes an ideal breeding ground for Aedes aegypti.

Dr. Sylvia Lordello, a medical doctor on staff at Saúde Criança, told the parents that prevention starts at home and reviewed a series of steps that could be taken to make their homes less hospitable to mosquitoes, such as covering their cisterns and not leaving water in the plates under house plants.

“If the whole country fights Zika, the mosquito cannot win,” Dr. Lordello told the parents. “Zika is not stronger than the country.”

How does global health fare in the Sustainability Development Goals?

This originally appeared on Global Health TV on Sept. 28, 2015.

Last weekend in New York City, world leaders formally approved the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs), which will guide development efforts over the next 15 years. They replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were signed in 2000 and expire on Dec. 31, 2015.

The MDGs were terrific for global health, both in raising money, and raising its profile on the global agenda.

Eight goals made up the MDGs, and three of them were entirely focused on health. In addition, two other goals included health-related targets. Eight (38%) of the 21 total MDG targets were health-related, and seven of those targets were numerical (i.e. reduce maternal mortality by three quarters).

Between 2000 and 2014, $228 billion was allocated to address the three health-related MDGs, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) 

More importantly than how much was raised, serious progress was made on many of these health fronts. For example, two weeks ago, the World Health Organization announced that malaria death rates have plunged by 60% since 2000 and that the malaria target to have halted and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria by 2015 has been met “convincingly.” Most people think the Target 1A to halve the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 has been met.

But where is health in the SDGs? The answer to that question contains both good and bad news for global health advocates.

Kenyans struggle to come to terms with abortion and its impact on maternal health

This was originally published on The Huffington Post on Oct. 17, 2012.
 
NAIROBI, Kenya -- The abortion issue in Kenya is raucous, rancorous and highly emotional and political, just like in the U.S., but there is one major difference: In Kenya, abortion rights have been liberalized in certain cases in a Constitution approved in a public referendum two years ago.

I spent four weeks in Kenya this year working with the Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance, a coalition of six Kenyan organizations committed to improving maternal health, to communicate better to key groups the nature of those changes. I talked to some 40 doctors, gynecologists, nurses, lawyers, government bureaucrats and technocrats and non-governmental workers and journalists. And a few taxi drivers.

The issue of abortion is so sensitive and taboo in Kenya that it almost derailed the constitution-making process. I discovered that even though the debate was heavily covered by the Kenyan media leading up to the August 2010 referendum, there's still a lot of misinformation on what exactly the Constitution changed, or didn't change -- even among health providers. Some think the Constitution legalized abortion on demand. Others think it changed nothing and abortion remains virtually illegal. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.