Sharing is Caring

I'm a little unsure about this, but I thought I'd share my paper with whoever wanted to read it. It's a rather personal thing for me to share, not that the topic is personal to me just that ya'll are either gonna think I'm hella smart or "what the hell is she doin gettin a masters degree for?!"  Which, come to think of it, you might still think that AND think that I'm hella smart ;)  I can never explain what my degree is. I always just pray that when I say Master of Public Health that people just know what it is.  The way that I just know what it is.  I still get people who have never heard it and think I'm going to be a nurse.  Actually, I get hospital administrator a lot now that its got 'masters' in front of it.  It gets even more hairy when they ask what I want to do with it. Like I know!  Though, maybe this paper will answer some of those questions for all of us.  I found it so endlessly interesting that while I only had to write 1,000 words tonight and could have been done in an hour, I spent another 5 hours (also missing my last bus home and forcing myself to get a taxi) researching and finding things I wanted to include (like the Vatican!)  I suppose if I had to write a thesis for my Masters, it would be on this topic.  (With all the whinging I've been doing the last few weeks, lets all be thankful that I don't have to write a thesis!)  Feel free to tell me what you think here or privately if you like.  I'm interested to see where people (even conservative peoples) stand.  I'm also interested to see what y'all think of it academically since one of my main grievances with Sydney Uni is the harsh harsh grading system that has me cursing everytime I get an assignment back.  (Just remember sisters, its already haded in, no need to red line it!)  SO without further ado, I give you my paper:

RELIGIONS INFLUENCE ON INTERNATIONAL FUNDING FOR SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS



Few topics are more controversial than reproductive health, religion, and international aid. Religion by its very nature has influenced foreign policy since the beginning of civilization. In the last few decades as international aid has increased, religion’s influence has undoubtedly played a role. This paper will explore religions influence on international aid directed toward sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR).

The Millennium Development Goals and the International Conference on Population and Development

With the advent of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on gender equality (3), maternal health (5) and combating HIV and AIDS (6), funding initiatives have shifted from the previous commitment to reproductive health as a whole to a fragmented approach. In 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD, 179 countries and over 1200 NGOs agreed on a 20 year plan to address SRHR (Glasier, 2006). In Cairo, a broad set of ‘packages’ were agreed on which included 1) family planning services, 2) basic reproductive health services, 3) sexually transmitted diseases-HIV/AIDS: prevention, treatment and care and 4) basic research, data and population and development policy analysis. Despite this commitment, reproductive health was controversially excluded from the MDGs just six years later. The exclusion of SRHR is the result of religious influence in and of itself. Conservative and religious states (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, the Vatican, and the United States) yielded their power over the UN based on religious ideology (Glasier, 2006).

Even though the exclusion fragmented funding and decreased funding to family planning and basic reproductive rights, the amount of money flowing into HIV and AIDS and maternal health is higher than ever. The UN is still committed to reproductive health; in 2005 the World Health Assembly (except the United States) reiterated their commitment to a global reproductive health strategy. There is recognition among the international community that “the MDGs and the reproductive health agenda are each the means and the ends of each other. Each requires, sustains, and promotes the other” (Malwade Basu, 2005). The UN is continuing their objective to fight for SRHR through a number of sects, most notably, UN Population Fund (UNFPA) whose main goal is “to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” (United_Nations_Population_Fund, 2010).

The United Nations and the Vatican

When it comes to religious influence, the UN walks a fine line. Technically religion should not influence UN decisions at all, which is summarized by the 1981 Declaration of Religious Tolerance. The Declaration states that it is wrong to discriminate based on their religious beliefs and beliefs should be fully respected and guaranteed (http://www.religioustolerance.org/un_dec.htm). The UN may be tolerant of religious views, but that doesn’t mean that it is not influenced by religion. The Vatican holds a Nonmember Permanent Observer position on the council and allegedly are granted the same status as voting states in UN conferences(Kissling, 1999). Regardless of the Vatican’s voting status, they have undeniable influence on voting members. The Vatican and more conservative states opposed much of the ICPD vehemently and are charged with being behind the exclusion of SRHR in the MDGs (United_Nations_Population_Fund, 2002, Glasier, 2006).

At the time of the ICPD, the United States was under the Democratic Presidency of Bill Clinton. Vice President Al Gore and a large set of representatives attended the conference to show support for the cause (United_Nations_Population_Fund, 2002). However, six years later at the time the MDGs were being drafted power in the United States had shifted to Republican President George W. Bush. President Bush is largely known for making policies based on his conservative evangelical Christian background. Bush, the Vatican, and conservative Islamic countries oppose many aspects of SRHR (Glasier, 2006) and are charged with blocking SRHR’s inclusion in the MDGs. Barbara Crossette quoted Ambassador Gert Rosenthal of Guatemala in her paper Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals: the Missing Link well when he says: “Why reproductive health wasn’t put up as one of the seven domestic policy goals—I think the answer’s obvious. It’s a very contentious issue just as it is domestically in this country [the United States]. A lot of Islamic countries and countries that are close to the Holy See prefer not to talk about the subject, in spite of the Cairo declaration.” (Crossette, 2005).

The United States, The Global Gag Rule, and PEPFAR

It is not only the UN that religion influences regarding international funding. As stated above, the United States, the largest ODA funder by volume, is heavily influenced by religion depending on which political party is in power. Under Democratic Presidencies (Clinton and Obama), the US is generally less religiously influenced though religious rhetoric has been present under every president. Religion has always been present in foreign policies from the United States stemming from Protestant themes of anti-authority, liberalization, and individualism that go back to the 17th century with the United State’s independence from Great Britain (Verclas, 2008).

In the United States, the dichotomy between Democratic and Republican policies is never ending. The ideological agenda of the United States under conservative presidencies has resulted loss of funds from initiatives that promote and improve SRHR. In 1973, President Nixon created the Helms Amendment which prohibits any U.S. Aid money to be used to perform abortions, domestically and internationally. This amendment has existed for over 35 years without much dissent. However, in 1984, President Ronald Reagan instituted the Mexico City Policy as a way to reinforce the Helms Amendment(Crane, 2004). Becoming widely known as the US Global Gag Rule, Non-Governmental Organizations could not receive monies from USAID or the State Department to “perform abortions in cases other than rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s life, provide counseling and referral for abortion, or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country” (Crane, 2004). Not only could the NGOs not use US monies for these initiatives, but they were ineligible for any USAID money if they performed these services with funds from any other source. These restrictions are profoundly harsh on women’s health programs and have been attributed with the closing of many women’s health clinics due to funding loss(Fillinger, 2006).

The Gag Rule stayed in effect under George HW Bush, but was rescinded shortly in Clinton’s presidency. Unfortunately, as Clinton faced a religiously funded Congress, in 1999 a light version of the Gag Rule was re-instated(Crane, 2004). In 2001, under George W. Bush, the Gag Rule was re-instated. This time, NGOs still could not receive funds from the US if they provided any of the services mentioned as well as being required to enforce the Gag Rule on other NGOs they worked with, severely restricting partnership abilities and limiting free speech and free association (Skuster, 2004). If the Gag Rule were instituted for US based NGOs it would be deemed unconstitutional due to its prohibition of advocacy and restrictions on partnerships. Foreign NGOs however, are outside the scope of the constitution and therefore are not protected(Saunders, 2004).

Access to family planning has been proven to prevent unintended pregnancies, which would therefore reduce the number of abortions (Fillinger, 2006). Even though there’s been a lot of research done to show the effectiveness of family planning services, these studies were not taken into account when the Gag Rule was re-instated. Evidence based, medically accurate information was disregarded in exchange for Christian beliefs of abstinence education and anti-abortion. The Gag Rule was intended to curb the number of abortions performed worldwide (Cohen, 2001). This however, hasn’t happened and most likely contributed to an increase of abortions as well as severely hampering HIV/AIDS initiatives and other SRHR initiatives. Fortunately, the Gag Rule was rescinded again on President Obama’s first day in office (Jakobsen, 2009), though should a republican president take over in 2012 or 2016, it is likely that the Gag Rule would again be reinstated.

The Global Gag Rule is a clear example of a heavily religiously influenced policy from the United States. George W. Bush increased funds to HIV and AIDS during his presidency, which surprised many in the public health field (Crane, 2004). However, all of his policies are underwritten with his religious ideologies. The Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has also come under a lot of scrutiny for pressuring NGOs to conform to religious ideology or face loss of funding (Saunders, 2004). It is an unfortunate situation for many NGOs, the US is the largest funder of international aid, yet the restrictions that come with it hamper their efforts considerably.

Europe

The most generous European nations include Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden who all give the UN recommended amount of 0.07% of the GNI to Official Development Assistance (ODA) (Claeys, 2004). Europeans often don’t understand why the United States can allow religion to play such a significant role in the policy decision making process, but it’s important to realize that religion plays a role in every society. On the surface European countries generally oppose allowing religion to influence funding choices(Verclas, 2008). The prominent view is that it’s the government’s duty to restrict religion as a form of protection of religious freedoms (Verclas, 2008). Germany for example is one of the top funders of foreign aid, believes itself to be a very secular country and doesn’t like the idea of the Church influencing foreign policy. However, while the church does not blatantly influence policy, it may have an influence that is more behind the scenes. Verclaus (2008) states that “Without significant public dissent the government collects church taxes that support the main religious institutions in Germany [and] religious organizations dispense most of Germany’s foreign aid.” The level of influence the Church has on the government and foreign aid would be difficult to determine but it would be foolish to say that there is no influence.

Arab and Islamic Nations

There is a considerable lack of information regarding Islamic nations and funding trends, especially toward SRHR. Most of the information available originates from battle over the ICPD and the MDGs. Conservative Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Libya had serious grievances with the ICPD and were part of the dissenters that kept SRHR off the MDGs . A few states even boycotted the ICPD stating, “We are against these issues of homosexuals, abortion and the ultimate freedom of women, which will allow for the expansion of immortality in the streets.” (Cohen, 1994). Based on this information, it is safe to assume that Islamic states do not offer international aid to SRHR directly. Furthermore, there are no Islamic members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Arab nations are giving aid, regardless of whether there is much analysis of the aid they give. It is estimated that between 1974 and 1994, Arab countries gave on average 1.5% of their GNI as ODA to developing countries, which is considerably higher than the UN recommended 0.07% that most OECD members still have trouble reaching (Neumayer, 2003). Through Neumayer’s research (2003) Arab nations are more likely to give to the poorest countries, other Arab countries, sub-Saharan Africa, and countries that have a UN voting record that is similar to Saudi-Arabia (I.e. against Israel). The information available does not find a heavy connection between Islam and aid from Arab countries and does not address Arab countries funding toward SRHR (Neumayer, 2003).

Faith Based Organizations

Religion has an enormous influence on states and bi-lateral agencies in the world. With the majority of people subscribing to certain religion, it is inevitable that their views would seep into policies around the world. Religious views of individuals and groups are held with great passion and importance, but their influence doesn’t need to be seen as negative. There are thousands of examples of Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) providing services in all areas of health and well being. World Vision is one of the largest Christian FBOs working toward poverty eradication and education. Catholics for a Choice is a group who consistently advocate revoking the Permanent Observer states of the Vatican within the UN which, even they support the Catholic Church, they see as a breach of separation of church and state and an example of the Church overstepping its bounds.

In terms of SRHR, there are still many examples of FBOs trying to do their part. FBOs have been especially important in countries in Latin America where Catholicism is a predominant force and are working with the health and human rights issues of people living with HIV and AIDS(Pitkin Derose, 2010). Many religious groups recognize the fight for improved SRHR is a human rights issue and therefore believe religion and the Church should be involved in a positive and proactive way. The International Interfaith Network for Development and Reproductive Health produced a report for the World Summit in 2005 calling for the inclusion of SRHR to the MDGs(IINDPH, 2005). There are also, perhaps surprisingly, Islamic based organizations that are fighting for SRHR. Islamic Relief is an NGO that is “dedicated to alleviating the poverty and suffering of the world’s poorest people” and released a large report that breaks down different SRHR issues and explains how Islam can successfully address them (Islamic_Relief, 2009).

Conclusion

Partnerships are imperative in public health. The fight for improved mortality and quality of life depend on innovative partnerships. To believe that public health and SRHR can exist in a secular bubble would be a serious misstep. The challenge is going to be finding the balance between using religious influence to further the cause without allowing it to influence harmful policies. There aren’t necessarily any answers to this conundrum; it will continue to be a trial and error effort that needs to be closely monitored.






CLAEYS, V. W., E. 2004. Official Development Assistance Levels and Spending for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights since the ICPD. Geneva: International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network.

COHEN, S. 2001. Global Gag Rule: Exporting Antiabortion Ideology at the Expense of American Values. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy: Issues and Implications.

COHEN, S. R., C. 1994. The Cairo Consensus: Population, Development and Women. Family Planning Perspectives, 26, 272-277.

CRANE, B. D., J. 2004. Power and Politics in International Funding for Reproductive Health: the US Global Gag Rule. Reproductive Health Matters, 12, 128-137.

CROSSETTE, B. 2005. Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals: the Missing Link. Studies in Family Planning, 36, 71-79.

FILLINGER, T. 2006. Enhancing Human Security: US policies and their impact on women in sub-saharan Africa. Race Religion Gender & Class, 337.

GLASIER, A., GULMEZOGLU, A., SCHMID, G., GARCIA MORENO, C., & VAN LOOK, P. 2006. Sexual and Reproductive Health: a matter of life and death. The Lancet, 368, 1595-1607.

IINDPH 2005. A Faith-Filled Commitment to Development Includes a Commitment to Women's Rights and Reproductive Health. In: HEALTH, I. I. N. F. D. A. R. (ed.) Religious Reflections of the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, DC.

ISLAMIC_RELIEF 2009. Reproductive Health Policy. In: RELIEF, I. (ed.). Brimingham, UK: Islamic Relief.

JAKOBSEN, J. B., E. 2009. Religion, Politics and Gender Equality. Country Report: USA. In: DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN'S STUDIES, B. C. (ed.). New York: Columbia University.

KISSLING, F. 1999. The Vatican at the United Nations: A Cause for Concern. Human Rights Tribune. Catholics for a Free Choice.

MALWADE BASU, A. 2005. The Millenium Development Goals Minus Reproductive Health: An Unfortunate, but Not Disastrous Omission. Studies in Family Planning, 36, 132-134.

NEUMAYER, E. 2003. What Factors Determine the Allocation of Aid by Arab Countries and Multilateral Agencies? The Journal of Development Studies, 39, 134-147.

PITKIN DEROSE, K., KANOUSE, D., & KENNEDY, D. 2010. The Role of Faith-Based Organizations in HIV Prevention and Care in Central America, New York, Rand.

SAUNDERS, P. 2004. Prohibiting Sex Work Projects, Restricting Women's Rights: The International Impact of the 2003 US Global AIDS Act. Health and Human Rights, 7, 179-192.

SKUSTER, P. 2004. Advocacy in Whispers: the Impact of the USAID Global Gag Rule Upon Free Speech and Free Association in the Context of Abortion Law Reform in Three East African Countries. Journal of Gender and Law, 11, 97-126.

UNITED_NATIONS_POPULATION_FUND 2002. An agenda for people: the UNFPA through three decades, New York, New York University Press.

UNITED_NATIONS_POPULATION_FUND. 2010. About UNFPA [Online]. [Accessed].

VERCLAS, K. 2008. Religion and its Impact on Foreign Policy in the United States and Germany: Similarities and Differences. Baltimore: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; The Johns Hopkins University.

I want to blog

I want to blog sooo bad!  I have a lot to say at the moment.  AND NO TIME TO SAY IT.  And if I wrote a blog now I wouldn't waste your time telling you about how my new living arrangement is surprisingly awesome, about my new travel plans, my view of the beach, or my excitement for more visitors.  I'd only talk about how I have to write these 4 damn papers and can't seem to get them done.  And then I'd be mad that I wasted my time writing a blog instead of writing the papers.  So I'm not going to write a blog and I'm not going to give you all the updates I know you are dying for, cuz I'm going to finish this damn paper.  So tomorrow I can complain about having to write 3 damn papers...