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 women’s 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.

Notes

1. 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (establishing fundamental constitutional right to abortion).
2. The Supreme Court established a trimester framework for evaluating restrictions on abortion, balancing a woman’s right to privacy with the state’s interest in protecting potential life. It required states to demonstrate a "compelling interest" in imposing any restriction, and permitted previability restrictions only to promote the health of the pregnant woman. After viability, the state could take steps to promote its interest in protecting fetal life, including banning postviability abortions, but even postviability restrictions were required to respect a woman’s right to have an abortion in order to protect her life and health. In a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court clarified that the health exception requirement includes physical, emotional, psychological, and familial factors. 410 U.S. 179, 197 (1973).
3. Cf. BARBARA HINKSON CRAIG & DAVID M. O’BRIEN, ABORTION AND AMERICAN POLITICS 166 (1993) (presenting 1980 Republican Party platform).
4. See id. at 55 (discussing Senate’s refusal to consider the amendment).
5. See CTR. FOR REPROD. LAW & POLICY, TIPPING THE SCALES: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT’S LEGAL CRUSADE AGAINST CHOICE 1 (1998) (noting that anti-choice legal advocacy organizations, "[l]ike other sectors of the religious and secular right . . . are extraordinarily well-organized, focused, and vocal," and "perhaps their chief asset is the mantle of respectability and legitimacy conferred on them by the law"). See also CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll (Mar. 30–Apr. 10, 2000), http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr000410.asp, which found that 28% of the American public think that abortion should be legal under any circumstances and an additional 51% think it should be legal under certain circumstances.
6. Michele Landsberg, Bush Continues His Right-Wing War on Women, TORONTO STAR, Nov. 16, 2002, at L01.
7. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, ROE V. WADE AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY 54–58 (3d ed. 2003) (describing the reforms in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, and France), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/roeprivacy.pdf. In addition, during the years leading up to Roe, concerted efforts by medical, public health, religious, legal, and women’s organizations led to the liberalization of abortion laws in one-third of the states in the U.S. Id. at 10.
8. See U.N. DEP’T OF ECONOMIC & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, ABORTION POLICIES: A GLOBAL REVIEW, VOL. I: AFGHANISTAN TO FRANCE at 5, U.N. Doc. ST/ESA/SER.A/129, U.N. Sales No. E.92.XIII.8 (1992) (discussing the origins of abortion legislation).
9. See id. ("Except for a brief period in the mid-sixteenth century, when abortion could be punished by excommunication, the view that abortion was not a punishable act if it occurred in early pregnancy was held by the Christian Church until 1869, when the Pope decreed that quickening takes place at conception and for Roman Catholics, excommunication was once more the punishment for abortion." (citation omitted)); see also REBECCA J. COOK ET AL., REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS: INTEGRATING MEDICINE, ETHICS, AND LAW 102 (2003) (noting that the Roman Catholic Church encourages countries to pass laws recognizing conception as the moment when protected life begins).
10. See Colin Francome, United Kingdom, in INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK ON ABORTION 458, 458–59 (Paul Sachdev ed., 1988) (discussing history of United Kingdom’s policy toward abortion).
11. Rebecca J. Cook & Bernard M. Dickens, Abortion Laws in Commonwealth Countries, 30 INT’L DIG. HEALTH LEGIS. 396, 399–400 (1979).
12. BARTHA MARIA KNOPPERS & ISABEL BRAULT, LA LOI ET L’AVORTEMENT DANS LES PAYS FRANCOPHONES 14 (1989).
13. Id. at 13–14.
14. See U.N. DEP’T FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL INFORMATION & POLICY ANALYSIS, ABORTION POLICIES: A GLOBAL REVIEW, VOL. III: OMAN TO ZIMBABWE at 55, U.N. Doc. ST/ESA/SER.A/129/Add.2, U.N. Sales No.E.95.XIII.24 (1995) (discussing history of Soviet policy towards abortion).
15. Id.
16. Rex v. Bourne, 1 K.B. 687, 695 (1938) (Gr. Brit.).
17. Tao-tai Hsia & Constance A. Johnson, China, in LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, REPORT FOR CONGRESS: ABORTION LAWS AND POLICIES IN 19 JURISDICTIONS 43, 43–45 (1996).
18. See Mark Savage, The Law of Abortion in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China: Women’s Rights in Two Socialist Countries, 40 STAN. L. REV. 1027, 1029 & n.8 (1988) (noting that understanding the content of abortion rights in the Soviet Union or China requires "knowing what constitutes a right in those individual countries by studying the jurisprudence there from its own perspective" and recognizing that their "conceptions of rights are unlike the American conception").
19. Abortion Act, 1967, c. 87 (Eng.).
20. See Kersi B. Shroff, Great Britain, in LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, REPORT FOR CONGRESS: ABORTION LAWS AND POLICIES IN 19 JURISDICTIONS 67, 68–69 (1996) (noting that this interpretation was based on surveys of medical practioners).
21. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, No. 34 of 1971 (1971), in GOV’T OF INDIA, ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, 1971 WITH A TABLE SHOWING THE EFFECT OF LEGISLATION AND AN INDEX 179 (1973).
22. Id. at § 3.
23. Id.
24. LESLIE J. REAGAN, WHEN ABORTION WAS A CRIME: WOMEN, MEDICINE, AND LAW IN THE UNITED STATES, 1867–1973, at 140–41 (1997).
25. See JAMES C. MOHR, ABORTION IN AMERICA: THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL POLICY 252 (1978) (noting that Finkbine’s "odyssey in search of the abortion she wanted became an international news item").
26. See id. at 253.
27. See CHRISTOPHER TIETZE & STANLEY K. HENSHAW, INDUCED ABORTION: A WORLD REVIEW 14–15 (6th ed. 1986) (noting that over the past twenty years many countries have liberalized their abortion laws).
28. Lovitidende for Kongeriget Danmark, Part A, 6 July 1973, No. 32, pp. 993–95 [Law No. 350 of 13 June 1973 on the interruption of pregnancy] (Den.), translated in 24 INT’L DIG. OF HEALTH LEGIS. 773–74 (1973).
29. Abortlag [Abortion Law of 14 June 1974], 1974:595 (Swed.), summarized in U.N. DEP’T OF ECONOMIC & SOCIAL AFFAIRS, ABORTION POLICIES: A GLOBAL REVIEW, VOL. III: OMAN TO ZIMBABWE at 114, U.N. Doc. ST/ESA/SER.A/196, U.N. Sales No.E.02.XIII.5 (2002).
30. Law No. 75-17 of Jan. 17, 1975, J.O., Jan. 18, 1975, p. 739; D.S.L. 1975, p. 48 (Fr.).
31. Law No. 79-1204 of Dec. 31, 1979, J.O., Jan. 1, 1980, p. 3; D.S.L. 1980, p. 71 (Fr.).
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. See Verfassungsgerichshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Decision of the Constitutional Court of 11 October 1974, VfSlg 39, summarized in 1974 ANNUAL REVIEW OF POPULATION LAW 49 (1974) (holding that decriminalizing abortion during the first trimester does not violate the Austrian Constitution or the European Convention, which has the status of constitutional law in Austria).
35. See Conseil constitutionnel [Cons. const.] [Constitutional Court], Jan. 15, 1975, D. 1975, 529, note L. Hamon (Fr.) (holding that the provisions of the law relating to termination of pregnancy are not contrary to the constitution), available at http://www.conseilconstitutionnel. fr/decision/1974/7454dc.htm.
36. See Corte Costituzionale [Corte cost.] [Constitutional Court], 18 feb. 1975, n.27, Racc. uff. corte cost., Giur. It. 1975, I, 1, 1716 (It.) (holding that in a conflict between protecting the life of an embryo or the health of the mother, the latter must prevail), cited in Giovanni Salvo, Italy, in LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, REPORT FOR CONGRESS: ABORTION LAWS AND POLICIES IN 19 JURISDICTIONS 91, 94 (1996).
37. See Anika Rahman et al., A Global Review of Laws on Induced Abortion, 1985–1997, 24 INT’L FAMILY PLANNING PERSP. 56–64 (1998) (concluding that the liberalization of abortion laws observed before 1985 has continued through 1997).
38. Morgentaler v. The Queen, [1988] S.C.R. 30 (Can.).
39. Id. at 45.
40. Id. at 56–57.
41. Id. at 171.
42. Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996, § 2(1)(a) (S. Afr.).
43. S. AFR. CONST., ch. 2, § 12.
44. Christian Lawyers Ass’n v. Minister of Health, 1998 (50) BMLR 241 (T) (S. Afr.).
45. Id. at 252 (citation omitted).
46. See Liam Hamilton, Matters of Life and Death, 65 FORDHAM L. REV. 543, 548–51 (1996)
47. PHIL. CONST., art. II, § 12 (1986).
48. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL FACTSHEET, THE WORLD’S ABORTION LAWS (Sept. 2003) (listing countries that permit abortions without restriction as to reason and countries that permit abortions on socioeconomic grounds or to preserve mental or physical health), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html.
49. Country Code [Eleventh Amendment] (2002) (Nepal), translated in FORUM FOR WOMEN, LAW & DEVELOPMENT, COUNTRY CODE [ELEVENTH AMENDMENT] BILL AND WOMAN’S RIGHT 1–6 (1995); Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch, Code pénal suisse, Codice penale svizzero [STGB, CP, CP] [Swiss Penal Code] art. 119(2).
50. See Rahman et al., supra note 37, at 60 (noting that Chile bans abortion "on all grounds" and El Salvador removed "all exceptions to its prohibition on abortion").
51. See CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE LA REPÚBLICA DE EL SALVADOR tit. I, ch. I, art. 1 (recognizing that human life begins at "the moment of conception"); CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA tit. II, ch. I, art. 3 ("The State guarantees and protects human life from the time of conception, as well as the integrity and security of the person.").
52. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, WOMEN OF THE WORLD: LAWS AND POLICIES AFFECTING THEIR REPRODUCTIVE LIVES, EAST CENTRAL EUROPE 185 (2000) ("[P]olitics surrounding abortion have reflected growing Catholic and nationalist trends."), available at http://www.crlp.org/pub_bo_wowece.html (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
53. Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, Egypt, 5–13 Sept. 1994, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1, U.N. Sales No. 95.XIII.18 (1995) [hereinafter Cairo Programme of Action].
54. Id. at ¶ 7.3.
55. Id. at ¶ 8.25
56. Id.
57. See The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, China, 4–15 Sept. 1995, ¶¶ 106(k), 109(i), U.N. Doc. DPI/1766/Wom (1996) [hereinafter Beijing Platform for Action] (arguing that laws authorizing punitive measures against women who undergo illegal abortions should be reviewed).
58. See Further Actions and Initiatives to Implement the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, U.N. GAOR, 23d Special Sess., Annex, Agenda item 10, ¶ 72(o), U.N. Doc. A/Res/S-23/3 (2000) (reaffirming The Beijing Declaration and the Platform of Action); Key Actions for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.N. GAOR, 21st Special Sess. ¶ 63(i)–(iii), U.N. Doc. A/S-21/5/Add.1 (1999) (reaffirming the Cairo Programme of Action).
59. See CRAIG & O’BRIEN, supra note 3, at 35–73 (discussing interest groups’ attacks on Roe v. Wade).
60. See id. at 43 (describing conservative backlash in wake of Roe decision).
61. See id. at 39, 42 (describing pro-life interest groups’ reaction to Roe).
62. See id. at 47, 77 (describing efforts to cut abortion funding).
63. See id. at 44 (citing press report naming Hyde as author of ban on federal funding of abortion).
64. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396 (2000).
65. Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 2673, 108th Cong. § 63(d) (2004) (enacted).
66. See Heather Boonstra & Adam Sonfield, Rights Without Access: Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women, 3 GUTTMACHER REP. ON PUB. POL’Y 8 (2000) (discussing the effect of the Hyde Amendment and its progeny on abortion funding), http://www.agi-usa.org/ pubs/journals/gr030208.pdf (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
67. Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).
68. Id. at 474.
69. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).
70. Id. at 303.
71. Id. at 316.
72. Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 511 (1989).
73. Poelker v. Doe, 432 U.S. 519, 521 (1977).
74 Title X was established under the Public Health Service Act, Family Planning Services & Population Research Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-572, 84 Stat. 1504 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300 to 300a-41 (2000)), in order to provide public family planning and preventive health screening services to low-income women by providing direct grants to both private and public entities, such as family planning clinics and state health departments. Title X money was not made available for abortions, but recipient organizations could provide limited counseling on patients’ options, including pregnancy termination.
75. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, DOMESTIC FACTSHEET NO. F051, TITLE X FAMILY PLANNING: AMERICA MUST CONTINUE ITS COMMITMENT TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (Jan. 2003) [hereinafter TITLE X FAMILY PLANNING] (discussing restrictions on use of Title X funds), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_titlex2.html.
76. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (upholding the domestic gag rule’s requirement of physical and financial separation of abortion-related activities from Title X funded services).
77. TITLE X FAMILY PLANNING, supra note 75.
78. See Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 95-457, § 863, 92 Stat. 1254 (1978).
79. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, DOMESTIC FACTSHEET NO. F056, PENALIZED FOR SERVING THEIR COUNTRY: THE BAN ON ABORTION FOR WOMEN IN THE MILITARY (June 2003), http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_military.html.
80. Id.
81. See Armed Forces Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1093(b) (2000) (prohibiting the use of DoD facilities to perform abortions unless mother’s life is endangered or pregnancy is result of rape or incest) (subsection(b) effective Feb. 10, 1996).
82. See CRAIG & O’BRIEN, supra note 3, at 89 (describing changes in state law after Roe).
83. See id. (describing challenge to Massachusetts’s parental consent requirement).
84. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979).
85. Id. at 649. The Court justified this intrusion into a minor’s rights by claiming that parents serve a role in protecting the minor from her own immaturity and in determining their daughter’s best interests. Id. at 637. The Court did require, however, that the state law include a judicial bypass option whereby minors could assert their privacy rights by requesting a hearing before a state judge on whether they were "mature" or an abortion was in their best interests. Id. at 643–44. The Court’s ruling upheld an earlier decision in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), which held that a state could not lawfully authorize an absolute parental veto over a minor with regard to the abortion decision.
86. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 899 (1992) (upholding parental consent provision); Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 497 U.S. 502, 510 (1990) (upholding parental notification law); Planned Parenthood Ass’n v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 493 (1983) (upholding parental consent provision); H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 413 (1981) (upholding parental notification provision). But see City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 439–42 (1983) (striking down parental consent provision), overruled in part by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). To date, forty-four states have enacted parental consent or parental notification laws; thirty-five of these are currently being enforced, and the rest have been enjoined by a court or are not being enforced. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, FACTSHEET NO. F010, RESTRICTIONS ON YOUNG WOMEN’S ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES (Nov. 2003), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_restrictions.html.
87. See CRAIG & O’BRIEN, supra note 3, at 79–81, 88–89 (describing state abortion regulations).
88. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 194, 197, 199 (1973).
89. Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69, 79 (1976).
90. City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. at 437, 444, 450–51.
91. Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 762, 767, 771 (1986), overruled by Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
92. See supra notes 88–91 and accompanying text. But see Planned Parenthood Ass’n v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 486, 490 (1983) (upholding second physician requirement and pathology report requirement).
93. See CRAIG & O’BRIEN, supra note 3, at 63, 65 (describing the change in the Court’s composition since Thornburgh and the alarmed reaction of pro-choice groups to pro-life political successes).
94. 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
95. The Court stated: A logical reading of the central holding in Roe itself, and a necessary reconciliation of the liberty of the woman and the interest of the State in promoting prenatal life, require, in our view, that we abandon the trimester framework as a rigid prohibition on all previability regulation aimed at the protection of fetal life. The trimester framework suffers from these basic flaws: in its formulation it misconceives the nature of the pregnant woman’s interest; and in practice it undervalues the State’s interest in potential life, as recognized in Roe. Id. at 873.
96. The Court stated: The very notion that the State has a substantial interest in potential life leads to the conclusion that not all regulations must be deemed unwarranted. Not all burdens on the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy will be undue. In our view, the undue burden standard is the appropriate means of reconciling the State’s interest with the woman’s constitutionally protected liberty. Id. at 876.
97. Id. at 877.
98. See supra text accompanying notes 86–89 (describing the previously invalid restrictions on abortion).
99. Casey, 505 U.S. at 884–87.
100. To date, twenty-six states have enacted mandatory delay or biased information laws, most of which are being enforced. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, FACTSHEET NO. F037, MANDATORY DELAYS AND BIASED INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (July 2003) (listing state laws involving mandatory waiting periods and informed consent requirements), http://www.reproductiverights.org/ pub_fac_manddelay1.html. States have also enacted numerous stringent regulations of abortion providers, which have the effect of burdening providers and interfering with a woman’s right to choose. Currently thirty-three states and Puerto Rico have regulatory schemes that apply to abortion providers, imposing additional levels of government intrusion and oversight that are often not imposed on comparable medical practices. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, FACTSHEET NO. F006, TARGETED REGULATION OF ABORTION PROVIDERS (TRAP): AVOIDING THE TRAP (Aug. 2003) (arguing that such medical provider regulations operate to restrict women’s right to choose abortion), http://www.reproductive rights.org/pub_fac_trap.html. Several of these are currently being challenged in court. Similar laws in fourteen other states have been struck down pursuant to court decisions, attorney general opinions, or department policy. Id.
101. All the laws have been blocked through court challenges or are unenforceable. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, SO-CALLED "PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION" BAN LEGISLATION: BY STATE (Feb. 2004), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bp_pbastate.html.
102. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER NO. B029, UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASSAULT ON THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE: "PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN" IS AN AFFRONT TO WOMEN AND TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT (Dec. 2003) [hereinafter UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASSAULT] (arguing that "partial-birth" abortion legislation is an ill-disguised attempt to criminalize abortion and to severely erode Roe), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bp_pba.html.
103. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
104. Id. at 930. The Court’s decision rendered invalid 30 similar state laws. See UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASSAULT, supra note 102.
105. Carhart, 530 U.S. at 930.
106. See Exporting the U.S. Domestic Anti-Family Planning and Anti-Woman Agenda, in 2 SEXUALITY INFO. & EDUC. COUNCIL OF THE U.S., MAKING THE CONNECTION 1 (Winter 2002/2003) (describing the Bush administration’s attempts to curtail abortion rights in the international arena).
107. See U.S. AGENCY FOR INT’L DEV., Restoration of the Mexico City Policy Concerning Family Planning (detailing the history of the USAID family planning program), at http://www.usaid.gov/ bush_pro_new.html (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
108. 22 U.S.C. § 2151b(f)(1) (2000).
109. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER NO. B019, THE BUSH GLOBAL GAG RULE: A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS (Sept. 2003) [hereinafter BUSH GLOBAL GAG RULE] (quoting USAID, POLICY DETERMINATION NO. 56, A.I.D. POLICIES RELATIVE TO ABORTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES 2 (1974)), http://www.crlp.org/pub_bp_ggr.html; see also Family Planning and Population Assistance Activities, 48 C.F.R. § 752.7016(b)(iv) (1996) (listing prohibitions on abortion-related activities).
110. See JOHN BLANE & MATTHEW FRIEDMAN, POPULATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT, OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 5, MEXICO CITY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION STUDY A-4 (1990) (stating that "[a]bortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of spacing births"); Memorandum on the Mexico City Policy, 29 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 88 (Jan. 22, 1993) (directing USAID to remove anti-abortion conditions from USAID grants).
111 See USAID, supra note 107, which states: It should be noted that since 1973, with the enactment of the Helms Amendment, USAID has been legally prohibited from supporting or encouraging abortion as a method of family planning. USAID has strict procedures to ensure that no USAIDprovided funds are used for abortion, including legally binding contracts with organizations receiving funds, separate accounting procedures to ensure that no USAID funds support prohibited activities, close technical monitoring, and regular financial audits by outside nationally-recognized accounting firms.
112 US Policy Statement for the International Conference on Population, 10 POPULATION & DEV. REV. 574, 578 (1984) [hereinafter Mexico City Policy Statement]; see also James L. Buckley, Statement by U.S. Delegate to the Conference on Population in Mexico City, Aug. 8, 1984, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 9, 1984, at A8 (outlining the U.S. policy on abortion at the conference). The global gag rule undermines the internationally recognized right to freedom of speech, impedes the development of the democratic process, civil society, and women’s participation in society and would be unconstitutional if directly applied to U.S.-based NGOs, creating a hypocritical double standard.
113. See sources cited supra note 110.
114. Planned Parenthood Fed’n v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 915 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990) ("Planned Parenthood II"); Pathfinder Fund v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 746 F. Supp. 192 (D.D.C. 1990); DKT Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 887 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ("DKT II").
115. See Planned Parenthood II, 915 F.2d at 61–62 (noting that in Planned Parenthood I the court had "agreed that the policy itself was not justiciable," but "upheld AID’s conditions on funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations as the least restrictive means of implementing a nonjusticiable foreign policy decision"); DKT Mem’l Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 810 F.2d 1236, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("DKT I") (stating that "attacks on foreign policymaking are nonjusticiable," but allowing plaintiffs’ challenge because they did "not seek to litigate the political and social wisdom of AID’s foreign policy," but instead challenged "the legality of AID’s implementation of the Policy"). The court in Pathfinder only addressed the justiciability of a challenge to the implementation of the Mexico City Policy; it did not address whether the Mexico City Policy itself would be nonjusticiable. Pathfinder, 746 F. Supp. at 196 n.7.
116. Because Planned Parenthood of New York City ("PPNYC"), a domestic NGO, is the proposed plaintiff in a challenge to the new global gag rule and/or its implementation, this analysis focuses on the feasibility of a challenge by a domestic NGO plaintiff, as opposed to foreign- NGO plaintiffs, which may raise issues of standing. See DKT II, 887 F.2d at 291 (holding that foreign NGOs lack standing to bring a First Amendment challenge to the Mexico City Policy).
117. The Clinton administration ended the Mexico City Policy in 1993. BUSH GLOBAL GAG RULE, supra note 109 (citing Memorandum on the Mexico City Policy, 29 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 88 (Jan. 22, 1993)).
118. Id.
119. UNFPA, Frequently Asked Questions, at http://www.unfpa.org/about/faqs.htm (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
120. See Alan Guttmacher Inst., U.S. Support for Family Planning Overseas: The Program and the Politics, in ISSUES IN BRIEF (1996) (explaining the origins of U.S. population policy), http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib2.html (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
121. See Susan A. Cohen, The United States and the United Nations Population Fund: A Rocky Relationship, 2 GUTTMACHER REP. ON PUB. POL’Y 1 (1999) (noting that these opponents "succeeded in passing legislation that prohibited U.S. funding of any agency that ‘directly or indirectly’ supported coercive abortion or sterilization"), available at http://www.agi-usa.org/ pubs/journals/gr020101.pdf (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
122. Id. at 1–2.
123. See Ctr. for Reprod. Law & Policy v. Bush, No. 01 Civ. 4986, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10903, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2001) (dismissing complaint on the grounds that the injury was conjectural and not caused by the conduct challenged).
124. Funding levels for USAID family planning and reproductive health programs have also been targeted by anti-reproductive rights activists within the U.S. government. Such appropriations reached a high of $541.6 million in fiscal year 1995, but the following year, when Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress, the level plummeted to $356 million, and has never been fully restored. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL FACTSHEET NO. F048, INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (June 2003), http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_ifp.html. In addition to the 35% cut in funds in FY 1996, Congress imposed complex spending restrictions, permitting the release of funds only in small monthly installments (known as "metering"). In FY 1997, Congress enacted unprecedented and cumbersome rules governing the release of USAID family planning and reproductive health funds. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER NO. B004, CAIRO +5: ASSESSING U.S. SUPPORT FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AT HOME AND ABROAD (Feb. 1999) [hereinafter CAIRO +5], http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bp_icpdfund2.html. Before such funds could be released, the president was required to make a finding, and Congress to approve such finding, that delaying a metered release of funds until July 1997, rather than releasing funds in March 1997, would have a negative impact on the proper functioning of the family planning program. Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 518A(d), 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-145 (1996); see also CAIRO +5, supra (explaining the rules regarding use of USAID funds). President Clinton made such a finding and issued an accompanying report. See USAID, IMPACT OF DELAYING USAID POPULATION FUNDING FROM MARCH TO JULY 1997, H.R. DOC. NO. 105–36, at 6–7 (1997). By a narrow margin, Congress approved the President’s finding, and the funds were released in March rather than in July of 1997. In FY 1998 and FY 1999, Congress again delayed the release of funds through metering, this time without provisions for considering presidential findings. Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-118, § 592(b), 111 Stat. 2386 (1997). Five leading research organizations in the United States have estimated that the 35% reduction in reproductive health assistance between FY 1995 and 1996 alone 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. ROCKEFELLER FOUND., HIGH STAKES: THE UNITED STATES, GLOBAL POPULATION AND OUR COMMON FUTURE 25 (1997).
125. Cohen, supra note 121, at 1.
126. The veto threat from President Clinton on anti-choice legislation was a sufficient backstop to keep most anti-choice legislation from being passed. Anti-choice members of Congress were successful in passing legislation banning so-called "partial-birth" abortion in 1996 and 1997, but each time Clinton vetoed the legislation because it did not contain an exception for women’s health. Thomas, Bill Summary & Status for the 104th Congress, H.R. 1833, 104th Cong. (1996) (vetoed by President Clinton on Apr. 10, 1996), http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d104query.html (last visited Mar. 13, 2004); Thomas, Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress, H.R. 1122, 105th Cong. (1997) (vetoed by President Clinton on Oct. 10, 1997) (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
127. During the relative lull in Washington, D.C., the far right largely took its battle to the state legislatures, as well as to the local communities, holding vigils outside abortion clinics, blocking clinic entrances, and resorting to violent tactics such as bombs, arson, and murder by the more militant members. See CRAIG & O’BRIEN, supra note 3, at 56–57 (examining the violence directed at abortion clinics); NAT’L ABORTION FED’N, 2001 YEAR-END ANALYSIS OF TRENDS OF VIOLENCE AND DISRUPTION AGAINST REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE CLINICS (same), at www.prochoice.org/Violence/Trends/2001.htm (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
128. See Karen Tumulty & Viveca Novak, Under the Radar: Thirty Years After Roe v. Wade, the White House Is Pressing Its Case Against Abortion Delicately. An Inside Look at the Strategy, TIME, Jan. 27, 2003, at 38 (discussing President Bush’s strategy to delicately move towards overturning Roe).
129. The right-wing radicals have experienced two peak periods in their federal quest to eradicate reproductive rights—the first during the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and the second now ongoing under the current Bush administration. Both waves of the movement have envisioned their best chance at eliminating the constitutional protection of reproductive rights by packing the federal judiciary—and especially the U.S. Supreme Court—with ideologically conservative judges who favor overturning Roe and its progeny. In 1984, the Republican Party adopted an anti-abortion platform, demanding anti-abortion litmus tests for judicial nominees and recognition of the rights of the "unborn." President Reagan appointed ultraconservative Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court and elevated Justice William Rehnquist to Chief Justice in 1986. President George H.W. Bush later appointed right-wing Clarence Thomas to replace the retiring liberal champion, Justice Thurgood Marshall. See CRAIG & O’BRIEN, supra note 3, at 55, 166 (explaining the actions taken in opposition to abortion rights by the Reagan and both Bush administrations).
130. State Children’s Health Insurance Program; Eligibility for Prenatal Care for Unborn Children, 67 Fed. Reg. 9,936 (Mar. 5, 2002) (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. pt. 457); 42 U.S.C. § 1397(jj)(a) (2000).
131. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158 (1973).
132. Low-income pregnant women deserve actual, not merely incidental, health insurance coverage that covers all of their pregnancy-related needs. By contrast, the regulations place the health of pregnant women at risk, by failing to cover maternal health care needs that are separate from that of the fetus, failing to cover postpartum care, and threatening a woman’s integral right to control her own health care. There are superior means of ensuring prenatal care for women whose incomes fall within the SCHIP-eligibility criteria in their state. See, e.g., Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001, H.R. 2610/S. 724, 107th Cong. (2001) (opposing amendments to expand coverage for targeted low-income pregnant women and their progeny).
133. See Rick Weiss, New Status for Embryos in Research, WASH. POST, Oct. 30, 2002, at A1.
134. Press Release, U.S. FDA, FDA Names 11 Physicians to Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs (Dec. 24, 2002), available at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/ 2002/NEW00861.html.
135. See Letter from Members of Congress, to George W. Bush, President of the United States (Oct. 16, 2002) (conveying their "deep reservations" about Hager’s candidacy for chairman of the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs) (on file with authors).
136. See Press Release, DHHS, Modifications to the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information—Final Rule (Aug. 9, 2002) (including a modification of the privacy rules involving parents and minors), available at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/ 2002pres/20020809.html.
137. Dana Milbank, Lott’s Promise To Bring up Abortion Worries Bush Aides, WASH. POST, Nov. 12, 2002, at A23 (quoting Lott as saying "I will call it up, we will pass it, and the president will sign it" in reference to the ban on partial-birth abortions).
138 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, S. 3, 108th Cong. (2003) (enacted as Pub. L. No. 108–105, Nov. 5, 2003)
139. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (holding that a Nebraska law criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortions" violates the U.S. Constitution).
140. Child Custody Protection Act, S. 851, 108th Cong. § 2431 (2003).
141. Id.
142. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, DOMESTIC FACTSHEET NO. F007, THE CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT: CREATING CHAOS AND PUNISHING ADOLESCENTS (Dec. 2003) (asserting that the Child Custody Protection Act would create chaos for everyone involved in a minor’s abortion decision), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ccpa.html.
143. Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003, S. 146, 108th Cong. (2003).
144. Id.
145. Congress also enacted the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, H.R. 2175, 107th Cong. (2002). The law amends the U.S. code by defining the terms "person," "human being," "child," and "individual" to include "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development" who is extracted or expelled from its mother. Id. at § (2)(a)(8). Although the law does not change legal protections of fetuses or newborns and does not change the applicable medical standard of care, anti-choice forces have hailed it as an important symbolic victory in recognizing the sanctity of early life (and an important step in their attempt to eventually overturn Roe). See, e.g., Kenneth L. Connor, The Born Alive Act Is a Win for Humanity, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Aug. 5, 2002, at A-15 ("President Bush recognizes that every child ought to be protected in law from the moment of conception. With his public signing of this bill today, he once again broadens the scope of basic human rights in America."), available at http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020805edfam05p1.asp.
146. See Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001, H.R. 2610, 107th Cong. (2001) (allowing states to cover pregnant women and newborns under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program).
147. Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002, H.R. 4691, 107th Cong. (2002). By way of background to ANDA, although there are a declining number of trained abortion providers in the United States, and despite the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s ("ACGME") rule that medical residency programs must provide abortion training, Congress passed the Coats Amendment in 1996, which provided protections for medical schools that refused to provide this training and undermined ACGME’s standards. 42 U.S.C.S. § 238n (Supp. 2003). More specifically, the amendment provided that medical schools could not be discriminated against by governments for failure to provide abortion training; and further that: [T]he Federal Government, or any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance, shall deem accredited any postgraduate physician training program that would be accredited but for the accrediting agency’s reliance upon an accreditation standard that requires an entity to perform an induced abortion or require, provide, or refer for training in the performance of induced abortions, or make arrangements for such training, regardless of whether such standard provides exceptions or exemptions. Id. at (b)(1). ANDA would expand these protections beyond medical schools to apply to any "health care entity," and would go beyond training and provision of services to include payment, insurance coverage, and referrals.
148. While such claims run contrary to well-established scientific and medical conclusions, supporters of the bill might argue that such forms of contraception are abortifacents and thus urge "health care entities" to refuse to provide or cover them as well.
149. President Bush issued a Presidential Memorandum implementing the policy on March 28, 2001. Memorandum of March 28, 2001—Restoration of the Mexico City Policy, 66 Fed. Reg. 17,303 (Mar. 29, 2001).
150. Letter from Congressman Christopher Smith, to Andrew Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development (Oct. 24, 2002); see also Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 196 (1991) (stating that a Title X grantee may continue to perform abortion-related services, as long as they are outside of their Title X projects); FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 402 (1984) (stating that although the FCC and Congress have power to regulate speech by noncommercial stations, they could not completely deny funding based on the stations’ editorializing) (on file with author). The same restrictions, if placed directly on U.S.-based organizations, would be an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
151. HENRY J. KAISER FAMILY FOUND., REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS ASK USAID TO RESCIND FUNDING FOR POPULATION COUNCIL (Nov. 1, 2002), at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/ daily_reports/rep_index.cfm.
152. Memorandum from White House Office of the Press Secretary, to Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State (Aug. 29, 2003) (on file with author).
153. Department of State and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2004, Reid Amendment, S. 1585, 108th Cong. § 412 (2003).
154. S. 925, 108th Cong. (2003), available at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress—1st Session, http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
155. In a letter dated February 12, 2002, Representatives Hastert, Armey, and DeLay requested that the president investigate the claims of UNFPA involvement in the population control program of the People’s Republic of China. Letter from Denny Hastert, Dick Armey, and Tom DeLay, members of United State House of Representatives, to George W. Bush, President of the United States (Feb. 12, 2002). Subsequently, an official memo from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed to Senator Patrick Leahy, dated July 21, 2002, states the decision to withhold funding of $34 million to UNFPA. Memorandum from Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, to Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate (July 21, 2002) (on file with author).
156. See Coercive Population Control in China: New Evidence of Forced Abortion and Forced Sterilization: Hearing Before the House Comm. on Int’l Relations, 107th Cong., 16–19 (2001) (testimony of Stephen Mosher, President, Population Research Institute).
157. See Letter from Ambassador (Ret.) William A. Brown, Ms. Bonnie L. Glick, and Dr. Theodore G. Tong, to Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State (May 29, 2002) (stating findings and recommendations), available at http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/rpt/2002/12122/htm. In a similar move, the Bush administration also indicated that it is postponing a decision on funding for the World Health Organization’s Human Reproduction Program, which conducts research on medication that induces abortions.
158. The delegation also tried to restrict sexual education and information to "abstinence-only until marriage." Katie Marton, The New AIDS Fight; Protect Women, Stop a Disease, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 1, 2003, at A19.
159. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER NO. B030, U.N. SPECIAL SESSION ON CHILDREN: MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND NEGLECTED REALITIES (Dec. 2002), http://www.reproductive rights.org/pub_bp_childsummit.html.
160. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER NO. B023, UNGASS ON HIV/AIDS: WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT EMBRACED, REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS SLIGHTED (Dec. 2001) (noting that the U.S delegation "lobbied extensively for language on HIV/AIDS prevention that emphasized abstinence, at times at the expense of references to broader HIV/AIDS prevention and sexuality education components and to reproductive rights explicitly"), http://www.reproductive rights.org/pub_bp_hivungass.html.
161. See Elizabeth Blunt, Abortion Issue Bedevils Summit, BBC, Sept. 3, 2002 (discussing U.S. opposition to reproductive health services), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/ 2233961.stm.
162. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, ON THE HILL: BUSH ADMINISTRATION THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FROM CRUCIAL FAMILY PLANNING AGREEMENT (Nov. 7, 2002), http://www.reproductiverights.org/hill_usfp_icpd.html.
163. See CAIRO +5, supra note 124 (noting that the U.S. was "a key leader in reorienting international population assistance toward a broader approach that emphasizes meeting individual health needs").
164. Editorial, An Anti-Life Crusade, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 20, 2002, at A38.
165. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 20378.
166. Editorial, Down with Motherhood?, WASH. TIMES, June 13, 2002, at A20; see also Phyllis Schlafly, U.N. Treaty on Women, COPLEY NEWS SERV., May 22, 2002 (arguing that the treaty’s "feminist jargon" creates a legal obligation for the United States to allow "abortions at any time for any reason").
167. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on Foreign Relations, 103d Cong. 13 (1994) (statement of Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Advisor, U.S. Dep’t of State) ("This Convention is ‘abortion neutral.’").
168. Malvina Halberstam, U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 2 WOMEN & INT’L HUM. RTS. L. 141, 149 (2000).
169. To date, 174 countries have ratified CEDAW. Ratifying countries include those whose governments oppose abortion and/or have restrictive abortion laws. For example, Chile, Egypt, El Salvador, Ireland, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nepal, the Philippines, and Poland have all ratified CEDAW. See U.N. DIV. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN, STATES PARTIES (listing all states that are party to CEDAW), at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm (last visited Mar. 13, 2004). Chile and El Salvador have some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. See CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, WOMEN BEHIND BARS 17 (1998) (analyzing Chilean abortion laws from a human rights perspective).
170. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women members are elected by states’ parties and meet periodically to review governments’ compliance with the Convention. Their findings and recommendations to reporting governments are made public.
171. See the committee’s commendation of China’s opposition to coercive abortion. Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, U.N. GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 38, at 29, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1 (1999). The committee also lauded India for introducing legislation banning sex-selective abortion. Report of the Committee of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess., Supp. No. 38, at 9, U.N. Doc. A/55/38 (2000).
172. In the summer of 2001, the Center for Reproductive Rights, formerly known as the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy ("CRLP"), brought a challenge against the global gag rule, suing the President, Secretary of State, and Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. Ctr. for Reprod. Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002). CRLP charged that the global gag rule’s censorship of NGOs directly interferes with the ability of the CRLP’s legal advisors to advocate for abortion law reform in the U.S. and internationally, in violation of their rights to free speech protected by the First Amendment and international law. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the First Amendment claim, holding that the harm alleged by the CLRP "did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Id. at 190 (quoting Planned Parenthood Fed’n v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 915 F.2d 59, 64 (2d Cir. 1990)).
173. Robert Scheer, Playing Politics with World Population, SALON, Nov. 6, 2002, at http://www.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/11/06/scheer/index.html.
174. WHO, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS 7, 10 (2003), available at http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/safe_abortion/ Safe_Abortion.pdf.
175. Id. at 7.
176. It has been estimated that before Roe, "between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegally induced abortions occur[ed] annually in the United States." Willard Cates, Jr. & Robert W. Rochat, Illegal Abortions in the United States: 1972–1974, 8 FAM. PLAN. PERSP. 86, 92 (1976). Moreover, the incidence of abortion-related deaths declined after Roe. In the 1960s, it was estimated that women in the United States died at an annual rate of 5,000 to 10,000 per year due to illegal abortions, and many others suffered severe physical and psychological injury. LAWRENCE LADER, ABORTION 3 (1966). Researchers estimated that after Roe, the number of abortionrelated deaths decreased. See Cates & Rochat, supra, at 88 (charting the decline in abortion deaths from 1972 to 1974); see also Nancy Binkin et al., Illegal-Abortion Deaths in the United States: Why Are They Still Occurring?, 14 FAM. PLAN. PERSP. 163, 166 (1982)(assuming that "the risk of death is several times greater after an illegal abortion than after a legal abortion).
177. More than 50% of gynecological admissions in Kenya are due to abortion-related complications. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, BREAKING THE SILENCE: THE GLOBAL GAG RULE’S IMPACT ON UNSAFE ABORTION 26 (2003) [hereinafter BREAKING THE SILENCE], available at http://www.crlp.org/pdf/bo_GGR_impact_1003.pdf.
178. See supra text accompanying notes 105–11.
179. The Center for Reproductive Rights has conducted a study examining the impact of the global gag rule on four countries. BREAKING THE SILENCE, supra note 177.
180 BUSH GLOBAL GAG RULE, supra note 109, http://www.reproductiverights.org/ pub_bp_ggr_page3.html.
181 Id.
182 Id. at 1.
183 Anand Tamang, Remarks at the Press Conference for the Center for Reproductive Rights (Feb. 15, 2001), in Muffled Protest Against the Global Gag Rule, X REPROD. FREEDOM NEWS (Mar. 2001), available at http://www.reproductiverights.org/rfn_01_03.html.
184. ANAND TAMANG ET AL., WOMEN IN PRISON IN NEPAL FOR ABORTION: A STUDY ON IMPLICATIONS OF RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAW ON WOMEN’S SOCIAL STATUS AND HEALTH 15 (2000), http://www.crehpa.org.np/ogs/crehpa/women_in_prison_for_abortion_and_infanticide. html (last visited Apr. 15, 2004).
185. The Family Planning Association of Kenya ("FPAK") has closed three clinics. See THE GLOBAL GAG RULE IMPACT PROJECT, THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL GAG RULE IN KENYA 4 (2003) ("Collectively in 2000, these clinics served nearly 19,000 clients—roughly 1,560 women, men, and children every month."), http://64.224.182.238/globalgagrule/pdfs/case_studies/ GGRcase_kenya.pdf.
186. One of the authors participated in interviews for these reports in January 2001.
187. CTR. FOR REPROD. RIGHTS, BRIEFING PAPER NO. B027, EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES ON THE GLOBAL GAG RULE (Oct. 2002), http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bp_euroggr.html.
188. Alan Guttmacher Inst., International Family Planning Perspectives: Guidelines for Authors, at http://www.agi-usa.org/guidelines/guidelines_ifpp.html (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
189. Press Release, Ipas, Ipas and Roe v. Wade at 30 (Jan. 22, 2003), available at http://www.ipas.org/english/press_room/2003/releases/01222003.html.
190. Press Release, United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA Expresses Regret at U.S. Decision Not To Grant It Funding (July 22, 2002), available at http://www.unfpa.org/ news/news.cfm?ID=70&Language=1.
191. UNFPA, 34 Million Friends of UNFPA: Frequently Asked Questions, at http://www.unfpa.org/support/friends/faqs.htm (last visited Mar. 13, 2004). The same amount was withheld for 2003. Press Release, Congressman Joseph Crowley, Crowley and Lowey Praise Release of $59 Million in International Family Planning Funds Held by Administration (Dec. 8, 2003), http://crowley.house.gov/news/index.asp.
192. For example, an NGO representative in Mali noted that controversy about abortion is not just a problem in Mali, but all over—there are even doctors in the United States who have to hide from assassins. Anonymous interview with NGO activist, in Bamako, Mali (May 18, 2001) (on file with authors).
193. Anonymous Interview with NGO activist, in Bamako, Mali (May 17, 2001) (on file with authors).
194. Anonymous Interview with NGOs, in Kathmandu, Nepal (Mar. 21–26, 2002) (on file with authors).
195. Concerning the United States’ involvement at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children, the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition observed: Working hand-in-glove with conservative extremists, the US has constantly and consistently undermined efforts to achieve consensus at this United Nations meeting. While the US preaches and promotes democratic participation around the globe, it is abusing its power and alienating traditional allies by compromising the health of adolescents in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia. Using its power as a big donor country, the US has silenced other countries that provide their young people with sexual and reproductive education and services. Press Release, International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition, Statement by the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition (May 10, 2003), available at http://www.reproductiverights.org/ww_adv_child_coalition.html.
196. See CATHOLICS FOR CONTRACEPTION, FAMILY PLANNING UNDER ATTACK: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY CONCERNS ("Catholic church officials have condemned HIV/AIDS education and prevention programs that include the promotion of condom use as an effective method to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS."), at http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/contraception/ family.htm (last visited Mar. 13, 2004).
197. Nazila Fathi, To Regulate Prostitution, Iran Ponders Brothels, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 28, 2002, at A3.
198. See Pamela Constable, Safe Childbirth Not Yet One of Afghan Women’s Rights, WASH. POST, Sept. 26, 2002, at A1 (explaining that most deliveries by Afghan women still occur at home, partly because the Taliban placed "women’s ‘honor’ above their health" and "banned women from traveling—even in emergencies—unless a male relative accompanied them").
199. News Release, Alan Guttmacher Inst., Administration Actions on International Family Planning Align United States with Vatican, Repressive Islamic Regimes (July 24, 2002), available at http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/archives/nr_gr0503.html.
200. Id.
201. Editorial, The War Against Women, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 12, 2003, at 14.

previous