{"id":1283,"date":"2008-10-29T15:00:48","date_gmt":"2008-10-29T20:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/girlwpen.com\/?p=1283"},"modified":"2008-10-29T15:00:48","modified_gmt":"2008-10-29T20:00:48","slug":"global-exchange-election-day-special","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/2008\/10\/29\/global-exchange-election-day-special\/","title":{"rendered":"Global Exchange: Election Day Special"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Report\"It’s hard to believe that election day is now less than a week away. The Economists’ Policy for Women’s Issues<\/a> has graded <\/a>the candidates nationally, but here with a special (and first!) edition of Global Exchange, Gwen <\/a>and Tonni <\/a>will be grading each candidate on their work in international issues that affect women. We are absolutely thrilled to have them address a topic that has been egregiously overlooked in this election. –Kristen<\/em><\/p>\n

In just a few days the citizens of the United States of America will cast their ballots and determine their President, the future leader of the Free World (and really anything he so chooses). Today we consider what both candidates\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 positions on reproductive health, international trade, the conflict in Darfur, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean for women internationally.<\/p>\n

Toni Ann Brodber:<\/strong> Not too long ago I found myself explaining to a newly baptized American friend of mine why we foreigners watch every 4 years with bated breath as the American public decides our collective fate. Your policy often becomes our policy whether we like it or not. Some of us know this first hand. Frankly many of us faced near asphyxiation as a result of recent US policy decisions. Now, by the time we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve learned how to breathe with barely any air there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s hope…and the cycle begins again.<\/p>\n

Gwendolyn Beetham:<\/strong> I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know how many of my friends (including, you, Tonni!) from around the world have told me that they wish they could vote in this year\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s election, not least because White House policies very much affect women around the world.
\n
\nTB:<\/strong> No pressure.<\/p>\n

With the current economic crisis, what the next president\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s foreign policies will mean for women isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t grabbing any headlines. There has been some coverage<\/a> of how the candidate\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s different policies will affect US women, but, like our friends at the Center for New Words<\/a>, we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re of the opinion that there just hasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t been enough. So, we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve done the research for you. We\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve looked at how the candidates\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 foreign policy positions will affect women globally, and have taken it one step further by grading the campaigns. Our findings may (or may not)surprise you.<\/p>\n


\nReproductive Health <\/strong>
\nThe Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was a Reagan-era policy that made it possible to deny U.S. funding to organizations that that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153provide abortion services or counsel, refer, or lobby on abortion\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. One of George W. Bush\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first official acts in office was to reinstate this policy, which had been repealed during the Clinton Administration. This rule led to the scaling back of reproductive health programs in approximately 56 countries around the world, which, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights<\/a>, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153imperils women\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s health and lives both in countries where abortion is legal, as well as where it is illegal.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Reports on the impact of the Gag Rule<\/a> on women\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s lives point to a shortage of contraceptives, clinic closings, loss of funds for HIV\/AIDS education, and a rise in unsafe abortions in countries where the rule has been implemented.<\/p>\n

According to a survey conducted by RH Reality Check in December 2007, Obama plans to overturn the Global Gag Rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA.<\/a> McCain supports the Global Gag Rule and voted against repealing it in 2005. He has not addressed UNFPA directly, but, when asked in a town hall in Iowa whether he believed that contraceptives stopped the spread of HIV, McCain responded, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153You\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve stumped me.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Grade:
\nObama\/Biden: A
\nMcCain\/Palin: D-<\/strong><\/p>\n

Comments:<\/em>
\nFor the past seven years, the Bush Administration has also stopped funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), claiming that it “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” UNFPA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s office in China as an example of such support, despite the fact that a U.S. fact-finding mission to China found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. More recently, USAID discontinued funding to Marie Stopes International (MSI)<\/a> in several African countries due to the organization\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ties to UNFPA in China. (Curiously, such moral objections don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t seem to stop the government from letting China buy up much of the U.S.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s debt.<\/a>) According to UNFPA<\/a>, the $34 million in funding that the U.S. would give annual could prevent:<\/p>\n