Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the price-of-democracy dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

In the heat of a late September day in Mozambique, southern Africa, we started filming a meeting of young charity volunteers. They had poured heart and soul into an ambitious project aimed at combating HIV and spreading a message about contraception in the province of Gaza.

Then, out of the blue, and as our cameras rolled, came an unexpected announcement: the volunteers' work was to end because of a new policy from the United States.

Under US President Donald Trump's "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" policy, any foreign aid organisation that wants US funds cannot "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries".

Sebastiao Muthisse from AMODEFA, the Mozambican Association for Family Development, outlined the dilemma the aid organisation faced. They were not prepared to sign Trump's so-called 'global gag rule 'forbidding mention of abortion, and, as a result, projects had to close. For the youngsters it appeared to make no sense. Surely lack of advice on family planning would lead to unwanted pregnancies? Why should they be censored when it came to speaking about abortion?

AMODEFA, a member association of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has worked in Mozambique since 1989. Now, the stance both organisations have taken on the Trump rule means they face losing millions of dollars in US aid, and for AMODEFA in Mozambique two-thirds of their total budget, a sum of $2m.

It's led to hard decisions, particularly when it comes to critical work on HIV prevention.

In a suburb of the capital Maputo, we met Palmira Tembe. Members of Palmira's family have died; five grandchildren are now dependent on her, along with her 13 year-old-son Nelson.

AMODEFA has received funds to help people like Palmira disclose to their families that they have HIV, and to support their care. Palmira told us that prior to the charity's involvement she couldn't tell her son Nelson why he was sick. Now both take HIV medicine together.

We will have generations that are sick without knowing what they have – they will run the risk of transmitting HIV to other people because they do not know their HIV status. In a country where it's estimated that up to 13 percent of people aged between 15 and 49 live with HIV, the support of organisations like AMODEFA can be a lifeline. But the work AMODEFA does with families like Palmira's is under threat, due to their refusal to sign up to the Trump policy.

Project leader Dr Marcelo Kantu is concerned about the future. "We will have generations that are sick without knowing what they have - they will run the risk of transmitting HIV to other people because they do not know their HIV status," he told us.

Visiting those supported by charity work in Mozambique, there was a recurring question: With the heavy price organisations could pay for defying the new US policy, why not forget about the abortion issue, sign up to the Trump rule, and keep American aid money?

Activists and charity workers told us it was not only about upholding a principle of choice, it was about free speech and a law introduced in Mozambique to save lives.

Mozambique liberalised its law on abortion in 2014, not least due to the high numbers of maternal deaths from illegal terminations. Since then, abortion is a legal option up until 12 weeks of pregnancy, and in cases of rape or incest during the first 16 weeks.

But there is Mozambique's new law on the one hand, and the Trump policy on the other.

janrinok writes:

It has long been understood that aid donations are sometimes an integral part of foreign policy; aid can be given in the hope that the recipient will favour the donor further along the line, perhaps with trade agreements or regional political support.

But is this a case of the donor wanting to influence a law that has been passed by a democratically elected government? Should aid be used as a way of dictating 'democracy' to follow the donor's views rather than allowing each democratic nation to evolve into the nation that its own citizens want?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:59AM (4 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:59AM (#607952) Journal

    Sounds fair, it works the other way round too.
    The anti abortion crowd might be against the fact that their tax money is used to perform abortions.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:53PM (3 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:53PM (#607979) Homepage Journal

    The anti abortion crowd might be against the fact that their tax money is used to perform abortions.

    If you're against abortion because it's murder, but you don't want to be taxed to pay for orphanages and other services for children whose parents can't support them, then we should just let them starve in the street?

    Likewise, if you're against abortion if tax money is used to pay for such procedures (where in the U.S. does that happen [wikipedia.org]?), then many, many more tax dollars will be spent on children whose parents (stupid kids! Choosing the wrong parents!) don't have the resources to properly care for them. If that's not acceptable, again, they should just starve in the street, right? I wonder what the cost to taxpayers would be to bury all those dead kids. More than the cost of abortions?

    But that's just wasteful. As Swift mentions [art-bin.com]:

    ”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

    His idea would be a boon to us all, would it not? The anti-choice folks could have their ban on abortions, the taxpayers are relieved of the necessity of paying for the care of these poor children, the parents could earn a little extra malt liquor, crack or meth money selling the children to butchers and finer restaurants, and the taxpayers again benefit from more money to spend on tasty babies.

    That Swift was a genius, I tell you!

    More seriously, most of the arguments I hear come down to something along the lines of, if you "murder" a fetus it's morally wrong, but if a child dies because there aren't resources to keep them alive, that's just the economic reality and the fault of the child for picking the wrong parents.

    There are serious logical and ethical inconsistencies with that stance. It sounds like folks are trying to eat their cake and have it too, rather than having any real respect for life or the welfare of children.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by chromas on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:26PM

      by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:26PM (#608081) Journal

      BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! The only way to make one-year-old children delicious is deep frying, and he knows it!

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)

      by Bot (3902) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:11PM (#608893) Journal

      > If you're against abortion because it's murder, but you don't want to be taxed to pay for orphanages ...

      What part of "sounds fair" does look like I consider such a position OK?

      Are in your place all abortion clinics and propagandists and "help centers" private? good. Here they are not. OTOH it might be possible that anti abortionist associations get their share of public funding too, but that does not invalidate the point that one is sure paying for things one does not like at all.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:28PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:28PM (#608906) Homepage Journal

        What part of "sounds fair" does look like I consider such a position OK?

        I was making a more general point WRT the arguments anti-choice folks in the US generally spout, not attacking you personally.

        Are in your place all abortion clinics and propagandists and "help centers" private? good. Here they are not. OTOH it might be possible that anti abortionist associations get their share of public funding too, but that does not invalidate the point that one is sure paying for things one does not like at all.

        Propagandists? Please give me an example of such activity?

        Telling women that they *own* their own bodies and can decide for themselves what they wish to do with their bodies is propaganda? Please.

        Actually, yes they are [wikipedia.org]. And more's the pity, IMHO.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr