A speech given by Senator Barbara Boxer on April 5, 2005
Mr. President, today I'm offering an amendment to overturn the so-called Mexico City Policy which undermines some of our country's most important values and goals. The Mexico City Policy is also known as the Global Gag Rule. And I will explain exactly what it does in a moment.
Most of my colleagues know the history of this policy. It was named the "Mexico City Policy" because that's where it was announced in 1984. But it is also known, as I said, as the Global Gag Rule because that's exactly what it does. It gags international organizations that receive USAID family planning funds.
What does that mean? It means, for example, that a family planning clinic in Nepal that receives USAID funding is prohibited from using the clinic's own funds to provide, advocate for, or even talk about abortion to the women they serve - even talk to a woman about her options.
Let's be clear what we're talking about one more time. We are not talking about spending one slim dime or one penny of U.S. money to pay for abortions abroad, because that's been illegal under the Helms Act since 1973. So since 1973, U.S. funds -- funds abroad cannot be used in any way to advocate for abortion, to allow women to have an abortion, to refer her for an abortion. U.S. funds since 1973 could never be used for any of those purposes.
Now, we could debate that, but I'm not going to debate that. What I am going to debate is why the greatest, freest country in the world, the United States of America, would put a Global Gag Rule -- put a tape over the mouths of organizations who are trying to help the women in their country if they use their own funds, not U.S. funds, but their own funds for those purposes.
I cannot understand for the life of me how we can in good faith, as the leading democracy in the world, sending our troops abroad, and they are dying every day for freedom of speech and the kind of Constitution we hope they will have -- how we could put a Global Gag Rule on those organizations, when in this country you couldn't even consider it for two seconds because it would be completely unconstitutional
My friends, this is a free country. We are proud of the fact that it is free. We are proud of the fact that we don't tell our citizens what they can think, what they can say if it's on their own dime. But yet abroad, in some of the poorest countries in the world, we are saying, "If you want a penny of federal funds, USAID or the like, you cannot use your funds in any way you would like. We're telling family clinics who are out there in the toughest of circumstances -- treating women in the direst poverty situations -- we're telling them that they are gagged if they want to receive any U.S. funds.
Again, these restrictions that we are placing on these nonprofit agencies would be unconstitutional and unacceptable in the United States of America. And ironically, what is very interesting, is the Global Gag Rule is even stricter than the requirements put on by the Helms Amendment. So this is an unbelievable move by this administration, after these restrictions were removed in 1990, to place these restrictions back.
Now it is true that the White House, depending on who is in the White House, has shifted back and forth on the advisability of the Global Gag Rule. But the Senate always said it has no place as part of American law. The Senate has stood proud, Democrats and enough Republicans, yes, to make sure that we do not have a double standard. That we do not say with one hand open to these countries, "We want democracy for you, we want freedom for you, we want freedom of speech for you." And then on the other hand say, "But if you exercise it you are going to be punished."
Tell me how that makes sense for America. Tell me how that makes any sense for our credibility in the world.
Now, the last time we debated this Global Gag Rule -- or the Mexico City Policy
-- in this chamber was about two years ago. I introduced this exact
amendment and it passed with bipartisan support. Now, we hope that we will achieve
that same outcome here today. It will be a close vote. We've had some changes
in this body, but we still think and hope we have the votes. We will find that
out. But to me what's at stake is, do we want to have an America that lives
what it says? That not only says to the world that freedom is good, and freedom
of expression is good, and if you are good enough to work hard and raise your
own funds, as long as you spend them consistent with your own laws in your own
countries, we will say it's your right.
But oh, no. That's not what this administration has done. It was one of the first things the president did when he got elected the first time was to put back in place this Global Gag Rule.
I would say that this Global Gag Rule is not fair. We are a country that believes
in fundamental fairness, and yet this Global Gag Rule tells foreign, non-governmental
organizations -- these are people out there working in the toughest circumstance
-- how they should spend their own money. For example, it tells clinics they
can't use their own money to help a woman in deep despair who comes in with
a serious problem, an unintended pregnancy, perhaps even forced
on her. It tells the NGOs, the non-governmental organizations, they can't use
their own funds, they can't even advocate for the laws.
Let's say for example there's a law on the books in one of these poor countries
that says if you're raped or you are a victim of incest, you cannot have an
abortion. And in this country, we changed that. If you are a victim of rape
or incest, we say federal funds can be used to help you. Let's say there's a
country that has a total restriction, even if you are raped or there's incest
involved, and the non-governmental entity is trying to change that in their
country. Under the
Global Gag Rule we would say, you would lose all of your federal dollars if
you advocate to change those, what I would call, ignorant laws.
It tells other countries, this Global Gag Rule, that you can't even tell a woman who comes before you what her options could be, even if the woman asks, "What can I do?" You cannot tell them. In our country, that would be illegal, unconstitutional. But no, we put this on the poorest nations of the world. That's not Uncle Sam. That's Imperial Sam, and none of us wants to be imperial. At least that's my impression. We want to be democratic. But we're not acting in a democratic fashion when we have this double standard around the world.
We believe here in freedom of speech, and yet the Global Gag Rule tells foreign,
non-governmental organizations they cannot in any way express
an opinion on this subject without losing their funds. We don't tell United
States of America organizations what they can say and not say in this country,
even if we find it offensive, there's a lot of organizations that I find, gee,
I think we'd be better off without them. I don't think their advocacy is right.
But I have no right as a United States Senator to tell any organization in America,
"You know, I'm tired of hearing what you're saying. Don't say it anymore."
Because if I tried to stop them here, I would be ruled out of order, unconstitutional,
and that would be the right thing. But yet we do it to nongovernmental organizations.
Some of us in this chamber just came back from Iraq. I was one of those people. And we saw the unimaginable challenges facing our soldiers, government officials, and the Iraqis themselves. As they struggle to deal with a very dangerous insurgency in that country. Our soldiers are putting their lives on the line so that the Iiraqis have a chance to live in freedom -- to live in freedom. And one of the foremost freedoms in our country that we wish for other people is freedom of speech. Government will not interfere with you no matter what you say as long as you're not hurting anybody or inciting anybody. You can hold an opinion. That's why our soldiers are over there, fighting so that the Iraqi people can write a constitution that gives them the same freedoms we have here.
We heard the Iraqis say -- they told us, the up-and-coming leaders -- "We read your constitution. We read your history. We know about your filibuster and how it protects minority rights." These are the Iraqis. We heard our soldiers say they're willing to risk their lives so the Iraqis can have freedom. Well, that includes freedom of speech. But yet we take away the freedom of non-governmental organizations to tell the truth to the women who may come before them seeking help on a reproductive freedom.
Our policy should be a model for the world. But the Gag Rule, that's a bad signal. It enforces a dangerous code of silence. It tells people, if the government in power doesn't agree with you, then put a gag over your mouth and just suck it up and don't tell the truth about how you feel and keep vital information from the women you are serving.
You know, whether you're pro-choice, anti-choice, it has nothing to do with
it. It's a question of freedom of speech. And I would hope that regardless of
our feeling on the issue of choice, regardless of how we come down, we would
agree that it is fair to have a debate about it. I may not like to hear your
opinion. If I don't agree with you, it may be hard for me to handle. But that's
part of this great country. We have to listen to each other, we have to debate,
and we have to respect each other's views, but you don't respect a view --
If I walked up to a senator on the floor and said, "You know what? I'm tired of hearing your point of view and I'm going to put a gag over your mouth." How ridiculous! And if they did that to me, how ridiculous. It's freedom of speech we're talking about and the Global Gag Rule takes a hammer to our Constitution, to our credibility, and I think just knocks us down in the eyes of the world, and it makes hypocritical what we are asking our soldiers to do across this globe.
I want to give you some examples. Peru, for example -- family planning NGOs funded by the U.S. were barred from advocating against the constitutional clause banning abortion. It wasn't the Peruvian government gagging their own people. It was our government, and it wasn't all Peruvian NGOs that couldn't participate. It was only those who opposed the abortion ban. The other people were free to talk about it. What's that about?
America comes in and says, "If you want our money, you can only advocate for the position that the government in power wants you to. You can't have another opinion." I think it's beyond outrageous. Just listen to what one non-governmental organization leader in Peru said. And I'm quoting this individual.
"We used to hold debates, invite medical doctors, produce research publications. We cannot speak freely now. No one knows at what point it becomes prohibitive speech. USAID told us that we couldn't lobby for decriminalization. If we attend a conference and the issue of abortion came up, we can't speak but we don't know how much we can talk about it before it crosses over to not being permitted anymore. We can do research on unsafe abortions, but if we draw any conclusions, someone can say 'that's lobbying' and we lose all our money."
I'm so proud of the Senate. Every time we've brought it up, we've overturned it. And I hope that will be the case today.
Now, I want to tell you a story about a real case in Nepal, and in 2001 this issue came to my attention. There was a nongovernmental organization, a clinic, that had to make a Hobson's choice. Do we take USAid money which we desperately need to help our people but will force us to remain silent on the issue of reproductive freedom? What should we do? Should we give up the money and retain our freedom? Let me tell you what this organization did. It gave back the USAid money, even though it put them in a very precarious financial position. They did it because of a 13-year-old girl named Min-Min, I brought her picture with me to the Senate floor two years ago because I wanted my colleagues to see the face of what we're talking about here today. This isn't just about freedom of speech. This is about real, live people and what happens to them if they can't get reproductive health care. Min-Min was raped by a relative. She was raped by an uncle. She became pregnant and it was a shame upon the family and the family said you must have an illegal abortion. As a result of that illegal abortion, from a girl 13 years old who was raped by her uncle, someone was sentenced to 20 -- was sentenced to 20 years in prison
Who was it? Was it the rapist? No. Was it the parents who said you have to end the pregnancy? No. It was this tiny girl, 13 years old, sent to jail for 20 years for the crime of being raped by a relative, and being forced by her family to have an abortion.
Now, the non-governmental organization wants to go to bat for this child. So they turn back American money -- can you believe it? We punished an organization that wanted to go to bat for a 13-year-old rape victim, incest victim, really. We took the side of the rapist. That's what we did. And we said to the NGO, if you want to help this child, give back the money. Because you can't advocate for changing in the law in your land.
So this clinic in Nepal turns back their money -- our money -- and fought for
Min-Min. She had her 14th birthday in prison. She had her 15th birthday in
prison. But then, because they didn't take American money and they were free
to lobby in behalf of Min-Min, they succeeded in changing the laws of Nepal.
And they helped set that little girl free.
Now, for their valor and their courage and their success in freeing a child from prison who was put there after she was raped by her uncle, this is what they had to do: they had to give up $100,000 in USAID funding and they had to let 60 staff members go. They couldn't help 50,000 other people like Min-Min, and these are the real stories behind this presidential edict of this president, when he steps up to the plate and says, "I'm putting in place a gag rule."
I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed that we were on the side of the rapist and against
the side of a little girl who was a victim of incest. How can this United States
Uenate look at that story and say, yeah, we want to be on the side of the rapist?
That's right. Why should the rapist go? -- We don't want to change the laws
in Nepal.
To me, this example alone is enough reason to do away with this Global Gag Rule.
Now here's another point. We should always look at our policies and ask the question, are our policies decreasing the number of abortions that take place worldwide? Because all of us want to decrease the number of abortions taking place worldwide. Frankly, the Mexico City Global Gag Rule makes it far tougher to reduce the number of abortions.
We support family planning counseling, and care. We support family planning, I thought, because we want to prevent abortions. Between 1988 and 2001, modern contraceptive use in Russia increased by 74% and the abortion rate went down 60%. So there is a direct correlation between contraception and education on how to use contraception, and the abortion rate.
Now, I say this even though I believe this should be a known fact. But sometimes, we seem to forget it. So what happens when we punish a non-governmental organization that is involved with family planning? Like that clinic in Nepal I talked to you about that had to give back $100,000 and lay off 60 people. They could no longer serve the women who need so desperately to be served. So is this president saying that he wants to keep contraception away from women who are asking for it? Because if that's what he wants to do, this Global Gag Rule is doing just that.
My friends, this is a radical thing we're dealing with. Because when you tell agencies they have to make a deal with the devil, take money and then be gagged, many of them will say, "I don't want your money. I would rather be able to advocate." And if they don't take the money, then they're in a terrible circumstance because they've got to lay off people who would go out and prevent young women, they're preventing young women from family planning. And when those young women in the poorest of the poorest nations are desperate, unfortunately, they may seek what we called here when abortion was illegal, back-alley abortions, and women die. And many women die. Thousands and tens of thousands every year across this globe because of illegal abortion.
I believe very much that family planning is the answer. It can bring us all
together whether we believe in a woman's right to choose or we believe the government
should be involved in it and tell a woman -- and tell a family -- how to live
their life. Regardless of what side you are on. My goodness, family planning
ought to bring us together, because for those of us who believe abortion should
be safe, legal and rare, the way to get to that place is to have adequate family
planning.
And for those who believe the government should jail women and jail doctors
who have abortions and give abortions, then we should have family planning to
have fewer abortions.
Why don't we hold hands on this vote as we have in the past and walk down the aisle together across those divides and say family planning is the way to make abortion rare. That's the key. But the Global Gag Rule has the opposite impact. The Global Gag Rule is causing more abortions because, people, the non-governmental organizations, will not take the funding, they won't be gagged, and they won't have the staff to go out and give those women the advice, the contraception, that they are asking for.
Now there's another issue that comes into play here, and that's the issue of HIV/AIDs. Preventing AIDs is very important. And the use of modern family planning methods will help us prevent AIDs. So this Global Gag Rule is dangerous. It's dangerous directly and it's dangerous indirectly. It goes against our Constitution and freedom of speech. If this president tried to put a gag rule on in America, he would be laughed out of the courts. Of course, they don't do that because they can't; because we have something called a Constitution and freedom of speech here. And we don't go around putting gags on doctors who have their own practices. We let them do what they think is right; to do no harm and to help people.
I want to talk about a school in Uganda where three of its students had died from unsafe abortions. The same man, the same man, impregnated the three girls. It was a horrible tragedy, but the local clinic still didn't know what to do since it received USAID funding. So here they had a situation where three girls were made pregnant by the same man and they didn't want to give back the money they had gotten from the United States of America. This is what they said, "What should the school do? Refer the girls to the clinic? It is very difficult for the nurse in the situation. What can she counsel about? It is a problem if the provider is a member of that community. I can't speak, he can't speak, or she can't speak because of Global Gag Rule."
A person cannot even speak as a community member or a parent because how can you differentiate between an individual or the fact that they are an employee of this non-governmental organization. The point being made here is, here is someone being seen in the clinic, the tragedy of one man impregnating three girls in a school, and feels that he or she can't speak out in their capacity as an individual citizen because they work for a non-governmental organization. Then that organization will be forced to give up its funding.
This is a very bad policy.
We are saying to clinics throughout the world who we're supposedly trying to help, "You must choose between limiting your services, limiting your services to a woman who comes to you in desperate need, or shut down your doors because you've got to give back the funding from the United States of America."
It's really a stunning and unfair policy.
One of the planned parenthood chapters in my state is in Ethiopia right now. They are seeing first-hand the impact of the Global Gag Rule on women's lives. Think about what it means to try and get health care in Ethiopia. If you are lucky you might have only a three or four day walk to a clinic. A three or four day walk to a clinic in Ethiopia. Less than 8% of the population has access to contraception. Only 20% get prenatal care. One in seven women dies from pregnancies or unsafe abortions. In fact, backyard abortions are the second leading cause of death for women, only behind tuberculosis.
Because of the Global Gag Rule that this administration has put in place after eight years of it being lifted, funding and supplies to the largest family planning providers in Ethiopia has been cut. It's been cut because they refuse to be gagged. The people in Ethiopia are looking to America with our Constitution, and our freedoms, and our freedom of speech and they are saying we're not going to allow the President of the United States of America and the Congress to gag us. We'll have to give back the money. That is the most counterproductive thing we can do. Why? They are running out of contraception, they are runnin out of money. They are less able to serve people in rural areas, only 7% of whom have access to basic sanitation. They are less able to curb the rising tide of HIV sweeping over the population, leaving shattered lives and families in its wake.
Why would we want to be responsible for that? Well, we don't have to be today. We're going to have a chance to do what the Senate has done year after year after year. We have stood up for women's health. We have stood up for freedom of speech. We have stood up for the rights of people, even the poorest of the poor, to get access to health care. To find out what their options are. To know what the possibilities are. To fight for changes in the law. Laws that would put an innocent girl of 13, who was raped by her uncle, in prison for 20 years.
The Senate has stood on the right side of this issue, on the correct side of this issue, for years. I'm so proud of this Senate. We did it with almost all of the Democrats and many Republicans standing with us. And I hope that happens today, because if it doesn't, a message will be sent throughout the world, yes, to our troops in Iraq, you say you are fighting to bring freedom of speech around the . But here in the United States Senate, we have just stood with a Global Gag Rule. I hope that's not a message that we send.
I don't want to see us continue this Global Gag Rule. It is hurting the very people we say we care about, the poorest of the poor, the women, the girls, the victims of rape, the victims of incest.
Now the amendment that I plan to offer and that has actually been set aside is identical to the one we passed two years ago. It is very simple. It simply says that foreign non-governmental organizations cannot be denied funding solely because the medical services they provide with their own funds include counseling and referrals. That's all we say. Now, in this very amendment, we admit very straight-forwardly that no NGO can violate its own country's laws. If abortion is illegal and if you can't refer people in your country, they say that's the law of the land. Then, of course, we support people paying attention to the laws of their country. But we don't say, and we shouldn't say, and we wouldn't say it here, that these NGOs shouldn't be able to lobby for new laws. It's very, very key.
Again in the case of Nepal where they sent a 13-year-old girl away for 20 years who was a victim of an uncle's incest, and they let the rapist go free, and there were no penalties for the parents who forced her to have an abortion. That NGO, that clinic, that turned back USAID funding because they looked at it and said, "You know what? We're not selling out our people, we're not selling out this child for some dollars."
I can't believe the side that we were on, the Global Gag Rule, put us on the side of a rapist. I repeat that. That's what the Global Gag Rule did, and that is not a side that anyone in this chamber wants to be on. And therefore, I hope everyone in this chamber will vote to be on the side of the women who were the victims and who so need us to be by their side.
Basically, what we're saying in our amendment is we believe in human rights. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe other countries should have the same freedoms that we have in this country. And if we can't gag people in this country, let's not do it abroad just because we can. Almost 60 years ago in the dark shadows of World War II, it was our country that championed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to set a standard for human rights all over the world. This is what that declaration said: The advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from fear and want, has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people."
That's America after World War II. Can someone explain to me how America feels
it's on the side of the good when it says, we will punish a nongovernmental
organization that goes to bat for a rape victim who is 13-years-old and lets
the rapist off the hook? We are not on the side of human rights, my friend.
We are on the side of people who are evil, and that is wrong. And that is not
what our government ought to be doing. The aspirations of our country and of
our people should be reflected in our policies, and that's why I will urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what they have done over and over
again and stand up and be counted on the side of freedom and justice,... yeah,
and the American Way. Because it is the American Way to allow freedom and justice
and to allow people, even when we don't agree with them, to take their complaints
and their points of view to their governments. That's what our soldiers are
fighting for and dying for in Iraq,. And yet, with this policy, we stand on
the side of tyranny. So I urge my colleagues to stand with us again, Senator
Snowe and I.
This is a bipartisan Boxer-Snowe Amendment, and I urge you, when the time comes, and I'm hoping that the chairman will let us know at what point we will be voting on this. I urge you to stand with Senators Boxer and Snowe in this bipartisan amendment to end the Global Gag Rule. I thank you very much and I yield the floor.