Trump’s anti-abortion rule may endanger PEPFAR

Organisation: Position: Deadline Date: Location:

Donald Trump’s recent signing of an anti-abortion rule could put $9.5bn in US aid funding at risk, including the  PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) programme.

Trump revived the Mexico City policy, a Reagan-era rule prohibiting foreign groups that take US aid money from using any of their other money on abortion-related services.

In the past, the rule was only applied to family planning funding. But, the report says according to analysis by PAI, a reproductive health group in Washington, DC, Trump’s executive order says he wants it applied to all US global health projects – affecting potentially $9.5bn in funding.

The report says the Trump order applies to HIV/Aids prevention and treatment, including the Bush-era PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) programme; some gender-based violence prevention programmes; maternal and child health; nutrition; infectious diseases, including malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases; and foreign projects of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. It’s unclear if the rule will affect the Global Fund for AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which leads prevention globally on those diseases.

The report says the World Health Organisation also receives US funding that could impacted by the rule, but those funding streams are complicated, and a WHO spokesperson said it was too soon to comment on whether or how it might be affected by the rule.

“It’s truly atrocious,” said Brian Dixon, the executive director of the Population Connection Action Fund (PCAF). “It might be the worst policy this country has ever come up with. It’s almost designed to hurt people.”

The report quotes experts as saying that the policy increases maternal death and abortion rates globally. But it’s still anyone’s guess just what all that means. “Everyone was taken flat-footed. I was calling people in the US government who knew nothing about this,” said a senior global health officer at a major international organisation who asked for anonymity. “I was sharing [the order] with people in US government who hadn’t even seen it. [The administration] didn’t even release it till the end of the day.

“That to me was a deliberate strategy: They conflated a whole bunch of things, broadly expanded it’s reach, and there’s no one to offer an interpretation of what it means because they don’t have any anybody confirmed.”

The report says Trump’s order directs the secretaries of state and of health and human services to pull together a plan on this; neither of his nominees for those posts is confirmed yet.

“It’s also a huge power grab. It suddenly takes all these things that have traditionally been in the legislative sphere and makes it an executive action,” the health officer added, explaining that global health priorities have generally been set by Congressional budget approvals.

But, the report says the the broad language of Trump’s version of the rule will impact many more organisations, programmes, and projects – and potentially roll back progress on a host of global health issues, like HIV/Aids.

Andrew Fullem, the director of the HIV and Infectious Diseases Centre at John Snow Inc, a major USAID contractor, said the policy might undo years’ worth of work to integrate HIV prevention, reproductive health, and primary care. Once unbundled, each health area could become a greater challenge.

“It’s going to be harder for women particularly to have HIV testing and quick, immediate referrals for ARVs,” he said, referring to the anti-retroviral drugs that can help HIV-positive people who follow a proper treatment course live as long as HIV-negative people. “Right now, we have programme in Zambia where women are referred for HIV testing and can get ARVs all in one single day. We are now potentially going to make this far more complicated for them, and there will be far more opportunities for people to drop out.”

The report says the policy could potentially impact supplies of those life-saving drugs. The rule requires that groups sign an agreement not to provide abortions or any information related to abortion, including counseling or medical referrals – even in countries where abortion is legal. Groups that don’t sign the policy will lose any US federal funding they receive – or any supplies that funding procures.

“If a group in Nigeria is doing HIV prevention and treatment and decides on principle not to go along with this policy, they’ll lose access to all US-donated supplies,” said Wendy Turnbull, a senior adviser for international advocacy at PAI, based in Washington, DC.

The report says the broad strokes of Trump’s policy also amplify the risks of the so-called chilling effect, the pressure organisations feel to avoid even legal activities if they might seem too close to something that’s illegal.

That’s been especially true, experts say, about post-abortion care. After George W Bush renewed the policy in 2000, there was confusion around whether USAID grant recipients could treat haemorrhaging pregnant women, because the haemorrhage might have been caused by a self-induced abortion.

“Women were coming in bleeding and were being turned away,” Radloff remembers. In 2001, the president explicitly added an exception for post-abortion care to the policy. It’s unclear whether Trump’s version of the regulation will honor that exception.

The report says there was confusion over past restrictions on US funding. Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, said in announcing the rule’s return that the administration was “end[ing] the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.” US aid did not fund abortions prior to Trump’s announcement; that’s been illegal since 1973. Patty Skuster, a senior policy adviser at the safe abortion access organisation Ipas, said the rule further entrenches an anti-abortion stance that has little public health research to support.

“With this rule, a woman going to an HIV clinic, if she has an unwanted pregnancy, she’s not going to know about abortion services, even if they are legal,” Skuster said. “That’s counseling and referral, from an evidence-based public health perspective, should be happening – in the same facility.”

Public health research suggests women who want to end their pregnancies will do so, regardless of whether abortion is legal or US aid is in place. A 2011 study also suggest the global gag rule increases the rates of unsafe abortion, which the WHO says causes 13% of maternal deaths.

Supporters meanwhile have congratulated the president for bringing aid dollars back home. But, the report says, total US foreign aid is .01% of the total federal budget, and family planning assistance is .01% of that. A 2015 study found that most Americans think US aid makes up a quarter of the federal budget.

Turnbull, of PAI, said citizens of those countries prefer not to be reliant on aid. “They want governments to be more self-sufficient,” Turnbull said. “But that’s not going to make up the difference here. There’s nothing that will make up the difference.”

Major health players say it’s too soon to know how the gap left by potentially billions in US global funds can be bridged. “We’re still trying to get our heads around it,” said Marjorie Newman-Williams, vice president and director of international operations for Marie Stopes International, a reproductive health provider with headquarters in London. “There’s a certain vindictiveness, a mean-spiritedness, in this that is hard to comprehend, frankly.”

MSI provides safe abortion services, and it always refuses to abide by the so-called global gag rule. This time around, the group will lose about $30m, or 20% of its budget, Newman-Williams said.

“Marie Stopes never, ever used US government dollars for abortion or abortion related services,” Newman-Williams said, citing much older restrictions that bar the use of aid for that purpose. “This [new rule] doesn’t change that. What it does is take money away so we that we can’t do the things we did within the scope of the law, which is contraception.”

MSI estimates the rule will lead to 2.2m more abortions, 2.1m of them unsafe. “It’s punitive in an unusually cruel way,” she said.

BuzFeed report

Receive Medical Brief's free weekly e-newsletter

Related Posts

Thank you for subscribing to MedicalBrief

MedicalBrief is Africa’s premier medical news and research weekly newsletter. MedicalBrief is published every Thursday and delivered free of charge by email to over 33 000 health professionals.

Please consider completing the form below. The information you supply is optional and will only be used to compile a demographic profile of our subscribers. Your personal details will never be shared with a third party.

Thank you for taking the time to complete the form.