Editorial, Opinion Piece Discuss Potential Impacts, Implementation Of Mexico City Policy
New York Times: Mr. Trump’s ‘Gag Rule’ Will Harm Global Health
“…Mr. Trump’s memorandum … would apply the policy to ‘global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.’ Although reproductive health groups are still studying the memorandum, this language would appear to apply to any international health funding … used to fight malaria, HIV, Zika, Ebola, and many other global health threats. This would seem to go well beyond family planning aid from the [U.S.] Agency for International Development and the State Department, to also include money from all American governmental agencies and departments. … President Trump’s decision [to reinstate the Mexico City policy] will limit health organizations’ ability to fight disease and promote reproductive health, and other governments will have to pitch in to help. On Wednesday, the Dutch government announced plans to establish an international fund to help fill the gap left by the reinstatement of the policy, paying for contraception, abortion, and education for women. [Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)] have introduced bills that would permanently repeal the Mexico City policy. Neither, regrettably, is likely to pass” (1/26).
The Hill: A new global gag rule: The trouble with governing by executive order
Mark J. Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University
“…[I]t is appropriate to ask whether [an executive order] is the most appropriate way to create policy. … These constant shifts in policy are the result of presidents taking direct action unconstrained by other policymaking forces that likely would have facilitated greater policy continuity. The lack of policy continuity of course has had consequences for the intended beneficiaries of U.S. aid programs, not to mention the utter confusion caused for international aid organizations that have been spun back and forth over shifting policies from one administration to the next. In fairness, Trump is following a now long established pattern of unilateral presidential action in the first days of an administration to decide an issue that should be addressed through the normal process of legislative deliberation and negotiation with the president. No one expected differently. … The trouble is, what Trump does today by executive order will eventually be reversed. Rule by executive order only ensures temporary accomplishments” (1/26).