1. Foreign aid funding from the United States Government cannot be used to perform abortions, or to coerce women into having abortions. This has been true since 1961, and has never changed since. No US foreign aid funding is being used, or can be used directly to perform abortions, and nobody’s really challenged that as far as I’m aware. Ursula — I think you were confusing the 1961 law (which is not affected by Obama’s memo) with the 1984 “Mexico City Policy,” which is reversed by his memo and does not say anything about coercion as far as I’m aware.

2. The 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which spells that out, also says that US foreign aid funding cannot be used to motivate someone to have an abortion. It’s the interpretation of this phrase which led to contention and to the Global Gag Rule.

3. The Global Gag Rule in 1984 expanded the 1961 prohibition by cutting off foreign aid funding to any organization that so much as provides information about abortion. This cut off funding to all sorts of organizations, most organizations that provide reproductive counseling services to women, for instance. It also cut off funding completely to organizations that DO provide abortions, and were doing so using other sources of funding. This is why it’s called the “Gag Rule” — if you say anything about abortions, if you provide information, counseling, referrals, or advocate for legalization or availability of abortions, then you are cut off.

4. None of this is about money being provided to other governments; it’s about non-profit, non-governmental organizations that do work in foreign countries or internationally. It’s not a “bailout,” it has to do with the funding of groups like Doctors Without Borders and many other aid organizations.

5. Obama’s memo reversing this order is called ” Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning,” and I assume this is deliberate. The Gag Rule is about providing information and advocating for legalization and availability of services; “coercive population planning” is already off-limits from the 1961 law.

The Global Gag Rule, in essence, is about forcing organizations that provide medical services internationally to stay in lockstep with the current American regime’s ideology. Not in services, which have been restricted for almost half a century, but in what you say. That’s why it’s called a “Gag Rule.” Many organizations were unwilling to gag their doctors and health care providers — in some cases it even violated the laws of countries they were working in to gag doctors this way — and so they lost funding and hundreds of thousands of women were unable to receive health care.

Some of these arguments about “should the US provide foreign aid funding” and “why are we bailing out foreign countries” and “why are we paying for abortions” are totally false; most of them are besides the point. The Gag Rule does something very specific, and very obviously wrong.

But I did see one thing, reading the memo. The gag rule banned funding of organizations that coerced abortion. (I’m thinking China’s one-child policy, here.) Coerced abortion is bad.

A statute saying that we won’t fund coerced abortion could be used to codify that we do fund other types of abortion access. And best of all, it would be hard for “pro-life” candidates to vote against it, so it would get the bipartisan support Obama cares so much about. And it would tie the hands of future Republican presidents.

So, I’ve sent an e-mail off to my senator and congresscritter about this, and if you’ve got a pro-choice representative, you may want to do the same. If you’re reps aren’t pro-choice, maybe not, as it is a bit sneaky, and why give away the surprise?

Do you really think he will address the anti-prostitution pledge? Its super important but i don’t think it has the same sort of political backing as overturning the global gag rule did.

And yeah, next the no-prostitution rule! And the HHS rule (which according to HHS is not being implemented anyway)! And Don’t Ask Don’t Tell!