December 10, 2024 • 44 mins
The incoming Trump administration won’t just devastate sexual and reproductive health in the United States—the harm will absolutely ripple abroad. Rachel Clement, Senior Director of Government Strategy at PAI, sits down to talk with us about the prospect of global human rights under the incoming administration and potential harmful policy to come.
Already, less than 1% of the U.S. budget goes to foreign assistance. And, under the Trump administration, it’s incredibly likely that UNFPA will be defunded, in tandem with cutting funding in other UN spaces like the WHO, UNESCO, and UN Women. During the last Trump administration, the Geneva Consensus Declaration was created to undermine the United Nations and multilateralism in general, while the Commission on Unalienable Rights, out of the State Department, sought to re-define human rights; these tools and others like them might reemerge. In all, attacks to gender and sexual and reproductive health and rights around the world will be enormous, especially with the probable reintroduction of the expanded Global Gag Rule.
For more information, check out Pantsuit Politics: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/s/podcast
Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social
Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store
Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.com
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast
Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Welcome to Repro Fight Back a podcast on all
things related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice. Hi re pros. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Weather and my pronounsare she her. So y'all, I, I
guess I've not talked to yousince before I went on
(00:47):
vacation, before Thanksgiving.
It was so lovely to have a weekoff. I really did a really good
job of staying away from socialmedia, which was so lovely. I
read a bunch of fluffy funbooks. I had a really just
(01:07):
chill week and it was so niceand so necessary and it was
good to recharge that way. Andthen , uh, let's see, on last
Tuesday I went to go to SCOTUSfor a little while to join the
rally out front before thegender affirming care case. I
wasn't able to stay for thewhole rally. I had some
(01:30):
meetings I had to go to andsome other things, but I was
able to go for like an hour anda half and enjoy the crowd.
Like there were a lot of antisthere from, from the way I came
in. I saw them. But man, onceyou got to the , uh, trans
right side of the rally, it wasjoy. There was just so much
(01:51):
joy. They were playing funmusic and like the sense of
community was great. The crowdwas much bigger than the anti
side . I left and people were,so many people were still
coming. I had a meeting at ouroffice, which is like right
behind the Supreme Court andwas in the office for like an
(02:12):
hour and a half. And when I wason my way home, my Uber went by
the Supreme Court and like thecrowd had, I don't, not quite
doubled, but maybe doubled. Um,and it was just so great to see
so many people out joyfullysupporting trans rights and
making sure that young peopleare able to access gender
affirming care. It just, itmade my heart so happy to see
(02:36):
so many people there supportingum, young trans people. So even
though the arguments don'tsound like they were super
hopeful, but the advocatesChase Gio and Solicitor General
Proguard did amazing. And Ihope that we get a good
(02:57):
decision, but I am not superconfident that we will get a
good decision. But it wasamazing to see the community
come out and support and see somany people there and to again,
just see so much joy of peoplebeing there in community
supporting trans rights. Sothat was , um, really re
(03:18):
re-energizing to be able to gofor a little bit. I wish I
could have stayed longer andbeen there for all of the
speeches people made, but itwas great to go for as much as
I was able to. And I'm glad Iwas able to squeeze it into my
day 'cause I would've been verysad to have missed out on being
there. I think maybe I'll endthere. I don't feel like I have
a lot of other things to updatey'all on. I am excited about
(03:42):
this week's episode. You know,recently we had an episode
where I talked to Aaron Matsonabout some of the ways that
sexual and reproductive healthand rights are gonna be
impacted by the newadministration coming in in
January. I thought that itwould be good to have a more in
depth conversation about someof the global stuff we are
gonna see around sexual andreproductive health and rights
(04:03):
in the new administration. So Iam very excited to have with me
today Rachel Clement at PAAI totalk to us all about what we
can, what we should be lookingfor , um, with the new
administration when it comes toglobal SRHR. So with that,
let's go to my conversationwith Rachel. Hi Rachel. Thank
you so much for being heretoday.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Hi, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
I am excited to talk to you about like terrible
things. But before we getstarted, would you like to
introduce yourself and includeyour pronouns?
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Yeah, of course. My name is Rachel Clement. She,
her, hers. I am currently thesenior director for US
Government Strategy at PAI ,where I work on advancing
universal access to sexualreproductive health and rights
globally.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Awesome. I so in our last episode we talked about
some of the things that wecould see, well I guess maybe
it wasn't our last, whatever.
In a recent episode we talkedabout some of the things we
could see how the election wasgonna impact sexual
reproductive health and rights,but we mostly fa focused
domestically. So I thought itwould be really great to have
you come on and give like thatmore global perspective. And I
(05:12):
figured there were lots of waysthis conversation could go, but
maybe we'll start with likereally big picture because I
think people are less familiarwith this space of like foreign
assistance and things likethat. So what could this
election have meant for bigpicture global stuff?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Yeah, that's such a great question. I , I think
when a lot of people thinkabout foreign assistance, they
think of kind of ongoingconflicts. So Ukraine or other
areas that are facinghumanitarian disasters, but it
is a big part of how the UnitedStates responds globally. But
the United States spends lessthan 1% of its federal budget
(05:51):
on foreign aid. And that goesto a number of different
equities, includinghumanitarian aid, but also
through development assistance,bilateral assistance engagement
in multilateral fora . Youknow, all of that is not
necessarily because the UnitedStates is, is so benevolent.
And so giving, most of that isreally targeted to ensure that
(06:15):
interventions abroad arepromoting things like
democracy, human rights, andadvancing US interests. I think
the two potential candidates atthe presidential level had very
different perspectives on howto advance those interests and
what we're looking at with aTrump administration and the
hundred 19th Congress, it'spotentially pretty scary if the
(06:37):
919th Congress mirrors some ofthe more extremist agendas that
we've seen through thecampaigning. I think we can
expect, if not funding cuts toforeign assistance then
certainly fights about foreignassistance and threats of cuts
to funding and certainlypolicies and rules that will
silence organizations that aresaving lives in the world's
(06:59):
most vulnerable communities.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
I really love that.
Like the place you started wasthe less than 1% of our budget
goes to foreign assistance.
'cause I think general peoplehave like this idea in their
head that the foreignassistance budget is huge and
like we're sending so muchmoney on foreign assistance,
but like it is such a smallpart of the US funding. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (07:24):
And you know, I think what we saw under the
last Trump administration,there was a considered effort
by some former high levelmilitary officials who served
under bipartisanadministrations to really say,
look, the importance of foreignassistance is that it's, it's
the carrot before you need touse the stick. Like this helps
(07:46):
us to avoid getting intoconflicts and protracted wars.
And so it should be a , a toolof the US government to use and
leverage in an effective way.
And I think there is someconcern that the current actors
and some of the more vocalfolks who won in this last
election don't necessarily seethe value of foreign assistance
(08:07):
in that same way.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Yeah, and I , and you're right, like the first
place I'm worrying about islike cuts. We're gonna see to
the budgets around foreignassistance and like how much
we're spending and then howthose cuts get distributed.
Like again, like it's not withall things, it'll never be felt
equally. In some places it willbe harder hit than others. And
(08:28):
then the end , the other placethat I know both of us are
thinking about is themultilateral spaces and how
we're gonna see those impacted.
Yeah,
Speaker 2 (08:36):
I I mean I I think we got a preview of what's to
come under the last Trumpadministration and, and
certainly through actions thatformer Trump administration
officials continue to takeunder the Biden administration.
I think we can say with ahundred percent certainty that
U-N-F-P-A is going to bedefunded and that it's very
likely that other UN spaceslike the WHO UNESCO UN women
(09:01):
will also be facing dress tocuts or defunding and like just
honing in on U-N-F-P-A for amoment because I have had the
opportunity to really see someof the spaces that they
interact with. And defundingU-N-F-P-A isn't just a bad
policy. I , it feels like areal moral failure. It leaves
mothers and babies to face themost vulnerable moments of
(09:22):
their lives without the carethat they urgently need. And in
many of the spaces whereU-N-F-P-A operates, there is no
alternative. It's not that youdefund U-N-F-P-A and someone
else can swoop in and takeover. There's no replacement or
alternative. There's no one tosupply the commodities that are
needed in , in some of thesereally dire humanitarian
settings or to provide the samecare that their network of
(09:46):
providers are able to provide.
And that feels to me like theUnited States is telling
people, but especially newmothers, that their lives don't
matter, that their children'slives don't matter. And that,
to me feels antithetical towhat the United States stands
for.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
And again, like it's gonna impact the most
vulnerable, right? Like the USis the largest humanitarian
donor to U-N-F-P-A and likethere is just no replacing that
amount of money and the , thenumber of places where
U-N-F-P-A is and they'reserving so many people who are
(10:24):
in just the worst circumstancesin humanitarian settings that
it is, like you said, a realmoral failure to think that
they may have to scale backtheir services because they're
losing this big pot of money.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Absolutely. And U-N-F-P-A does operate in
humanitarian settings that areplaces the United States
government cannot go placeswhere a lot of a , a lot of
people are not. And so they docreate this really vital role.
They also work in developmentsettings, they work on programs
like the joint program to endchild marriage where they're
(10:59):
really working with localcommunities, local leaders to
change social norms, that it'snot hyperbolic to say that
they're changing lives andthey're empowering girls to be
able to stay in school longer,to make choices about, you
know, who and when and if theymarry and ultimately to be able
to just live fuller lives. SoI, yeah, I I just , um,
(11:25):
I really can't state overstatehow terrible it is going to be
when this happens.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Well, yeah, and we focused only on like the
maternal health aspects in thehumanitarian settings, but
their work is bigger than that,right? Like it's talking about
gender-based violenceprevention and, and care for
people who have experiencedgender-based violence, which
always increases inhumanitarian settings. So like
they really are just playingsuch a vital role in all of
(11:53):
these places and suchvulnerable moments for people's
lives. Okay, so that's likeU-N-F-P-A and like kind of the
UN in general, right? Likewe're probably gonna see a big
attack on just UN spaces, youknow, you mentioned the World
Health Organization and UNwomen and unesco, like we're
(12:14):
probably gonna see a lot ofattacks on the UN at large. But
I think there's also anotherthing that both of us have had
talked about a lot coming backand that is the so-called
Geneva census mm-hmm . Consensus
declaration. Sorry, I can'teven say it because it's not
true, right? It's not aconsensus document. So like my
tongue didn't even wanna sayit. So,
Speaker 2 (12:36):
And it wasn't written in Geneva, right? Like
every single part of it is alie. Yeah, no, I mean we've,
we've seen some of what theywanna do, right? Like they
engaged in this so-calledGeneva consensus declaration
under the last Trumpadministration, which is a
concerted effort to underminethe United Nations and
(12:56):
multilateralism as a whole andto center as the most important
part of foreign policy andengagement between nations, an
anti rights agenda, which iswild. And we saw, you know,
under the last administration,they created the commission on
unalienable rights, which alsosought to redefine what, what
(13:19):
our human rights and who hasrights. We also saw the last
administration rewrite, thereare these annual state
department human rightsreports. They go into detail on
a number of different humanrights abuses, country by
country. And they're incrediblyvaluable for diplomats, but
also for businesses seeking tomake decisions about how and
(13:42):
where they do business. Andthey erased reproductive rights
entirely. They erased L-G-B-T-Qrights and then they seriously
undermined women's rightsoverall.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Yeah. When I think back to like the commission on
unalienable rights, likethere's just like no way to
like think about it as like theway they came out and defined,
like not all human rights arenot created equal. There was
definitely a hierarchy in theirmind and like religion and
property rights were at the topand everything else was below
(14:13):
that. Like, what are youkidding me? Like property
rights and religion came overlike basic human rights. Like
they're all on a, like that ,it just was wild. And thinking
about that coming back is , um,kind of unreal.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Yeah. And , and not just religion, right? Because I
think freedom of religion andfreedom from religious
persecution are very valuablehuman rights. It's Christian
persecution and the thepromulgation of yeah . A
certain kind of Christianvalues , um, which is also
really narrowly defining that,right ?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
That idea of like, that the rights are tiered and
some rights have more credencethan others, or that religion
only means Christian religion.
Like that is not how humanrights work. I , and like I
just bottom line, that's nothow this works.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
And again, it , it's , it's so hypocritical to many
of the , the things that havebeen promoted for decades by
the United States around thisidea that we want to put power
into local hands, that we wantdevelopment to be sustainable.
That we, we want ultimately tonot be investing in other
countries in this way becausewe want the global economy and
(15:29):
everyone to sort of have thesebasic standards of healthcare ,
food access, education. Ifyou're only narrowly defining
which human rights matter toyou, you're not really putting
power back in local hands.
You're not really creating asustainable environment for
these things to take place.
Okay.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
I guess the next like bucket of things, and
again, all of these are likeinterrelated, right? Like is
thinking about gender and howwe are going to see attacks in
the gender space. Again, kindof back to that like human
rights conversation of likewomen's rights or human rights
and like definitely going tosee and L-G-B-T-Q rights,
(16:10):
right? Like, and trans rights,like all of these are all equal
human rights and , but I reallythink we're gonna be seeing a
big attack on gender throughoutdomestic and global.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah, unfortunately, I think that's true. And I also
think it's important to notesome of the parallels that
we're seeing between foreignpolicies and domestic policy.
In some ways, some of thethings the United States does
abroad are tests to see how farthey can push things before
they bring those policies home.
The average American is not asin the weeds on like pep bar
(16:46):
reauthorization or what the UNglobal program is doing to end
child marriage in Uganda. Andso it's a lot easier to test
certain policies and see like,oh, okay, well can we take away
this? Right? What if we don'tfund this kind of work? What if
we only prioritize that? Ithink what we're seeing
unfortunately with the Dobbsdecision is that more and more
(17:08):
Americans are feeling the heftand the weight of what it is
like to actually have yourrights restricted and
redefined. And I'm reallyhopeful that I'm wrong and that
some of the worst things thatcould happen under this next
administration and the newCongress don't come true. But
there have been calls, youknow, in conservative think
(17:28):
tanks to redefine gender, tostop using the word gender to
revert back to women, women andgirls if we're lucky. And I
think that would be a real miss. I don't, I don't think that
it's a good faith effort toreally address what the root of
some of these issues are. Andwhile it is true that women and
(17:51):
girls disproportionately facethe burdens of gender
inequality, gender-basedviolence and all of these
things, it also takes workingwith men and working with boys
and addressing why gender normdisproportionately harm
L-G-B-T-Q communities to reallyimprove any of this. And so I,
(18:12):
I hope that we don't go back tonot only using some of that
language, but sort of onlylooking at women as some kind
of homogenous being because Ithink we lose again, a lot of
the evidence-based learningsthat we have from the last
decade or so on what works toimprove outcomes.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Yeah. And just thinking of all of the people
that will all of a sudden findthemselves excluded.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Yeah. And it just, the work will be less effective
even if you are just trying tohelp cisgender women. Like if
you are not also working withmen, if you are not also
working with religious leaders,community leaders, their
daughters, their sons, you'rejust not going to be doing
effective development work. Andthose are our taxpayer dollars.
(18:58):
They should be effective. Andso if we are going back to like
this 1980s definition of whatit means to work on , uh,
gender, I just, it it's , it'sgoing to be badly done. And why
would we want that?
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Like yeah, they are going to, you know, you like
really run away from gender andreally try to become this
pro-life administration, butlike how do you see that
actually like beingrepresentative as like
pro-life, pro-women? Like isthis how they're going to try
(19:36):
to paint themselves?
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Yeah, I think that's a perfect way of framing it,
Jenny . They're absolutelygoing to try to paint
themselves as helping women andhelping families. But
ultimately from the policyproposals we've seen and from
what we know from the lastcongress and the last
administration, the things thatthey'll actually do are going
to hurt women, hurt newborns,hurt children, and are not
(20:02):
going to support happy, healthyfamilies. And so I , I think
they're actually going to tryto weaponize women and
womanhood and motherhood inthis really nefarious way that
really only diminishes women totheir status as incubators and
doesn't even allow for thingslike education and economic
(20:25):
empowerment and sort of thefulsome experience of being a
human to be priorities underthe next administration and
with the next congress. Andthat is, that's bleak.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
Ugh . Oh , that is, that's, that's rough.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
But again, I don't think it has to be that way. I
think that these are thingsthat we absolutely need to push
back on at every level.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Agree . Like I do not wanna see this like
retraction of, of all of thiswork we've done on this like
wide range of like genderissues from child marriage to
FGM to girls' education, to somany other things. And we've
already seen things beingstalled. I mean, what the UN
(21:10):
women report, I don't know, wasit last year or the year before
saying we are 300 years away ifwe stay on the current track to
gender equality to like seethat get even further away is
wild. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
And I , you know, I I think one thing we know for
sure about a future Trumpadministration is that it's
going to be very transactionaland it's going to be very
focused on what other countriesand other actors can do for the
United States. And I just hopethat there is at least some
willingness to listen and tounderstand that gender equality
(21:48):
benefits the United States.
That we , we have so muchevidence to show that when
women are economicallyempowered, they're happier and
healthier, their families arehe and healthier, their
communities are better. Whenwomen are involved in peace
agreements, they're much morelikely to last for decades than
when they're excluded from thetable. And that these things
(22:10):
benefit us national securityand all of these other things
that we report to reallyprioritize and care about. I, I
just, I hope that there is aframing and a , a , a
willingness to listen and hearthe fact that these are not
just like fluffy, kind of niceto do social goods, which they
also are, but they are reallysolid evidence-based, good
(22:34):
foreign policy decisions.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Okay. Now that we have talked about some of the
gender implications, let's turnto the next thing that is
something that we are gonnaspend a lot of our time focused
on, and that's the global gagrule.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Sure. I , one of the, one of the nefarious
things about the global gagrule is that it's a little bit
hard to explain and understandwhat it does is it , it was
first enacted in 1984 byPresident Ronald Reagan and
every president since Reaganhas decided whether or not to
enact or revoke the policy. Soit it switches by party , um,
(23:09):
which is also quite harmfulbecause it has these enormous
and devastating global impacts.
But it forces organizations tochoose whether or not they want
to provide comprehensive sexualand reproductive healthcare and
education without us funding orto change the way that they do
care as a whole, whether or notthey're using US government
(23:32):
dollars, if they accept any USdollars. So even if there were,
you know, a , a true desire forno US funding to go towards
certain kinds of sexualreproductive health and rights
work, that is not what thisrule does. This rule is
essentially poison that taintsall of the dollars and makes it
(23:56):
so that people cannot do withtheir own, their own dollars,
their own government's dollars,other donor dollars. The kind
of work that we know isevidence-based and effective.
And that is probably alsoculturally relevant and, you
know, desired by recipients. Sohistorically it is the
(24:19):
most poor women and, and girlswho suffer pregnant people
often suffer disruptions inreproductive health services.
We have ample evidence thatdemonstrates that the policy
causes more unintendedpregnancies, higher rates of
maternal mortality, and a hugeincrease in unsafe abortions.
(24:41):
It also , uh, impacts like HIVaids, other funding. Um, under
the last administration therule was expanded for the first
time to include all globalhealth funding. So all of the
sudden providers that wereworking on like tuberculosis
and malaria and things thatwere unrelated to sexual
(25:02):
reproductive health and rightswe're grappling with how to
navigate this policy and howand where to change their work
or not change their work. Thereare organizations who are lucky
enough to be able to, to denyus funding and to continue
their good work. Unfortunately,a lot of the providers who have
(25:23):
to are forced to make thischoice , um, are often small
NGOs, local providers. And soit, it does not only cause
disruptions in care, but it cancause a lot of these really
local organizations to have toshutter or shut down. Um,
because some decide that they,they won't accept us funding
(25:44):
and comply with the US gag role, but then they don't have
enough funding to be able tocontinue their work either
because how do you , it is justan impossible choice. It's like
I can provide one 10th of thecare that my patients need and
keep working or I just closedown. It's cruel and the
(26:05):
cruelty is the point. It it isintended to be harsh. There is
no evidence to demonstrate thatthe gag rule improves outcomes
in any area.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
I just have like two things to add, like that was
that was great. Just a quicklike clarification of, we talk
about how it expanded underthe, the previous Trump
administration. Before that itonly applied to family planning
funding, which was a very smallbucket of funding versus the
whole global health program.
(26:37):
And it had so much impact,partially because the Obama
administration had spent somuch of their effort around
global health of integratinghealth systems. So you, so
patients weren't having to goto this clinic to get maternal
health and this clinic to getHIV or their kids going to this
one. There was a real push tomake sure that you could go to
(27:00):
like one clinic and get all ofthe care. So now all of a
sudden when this is like globalgag rules affecting global
health, you have all of theseplaces that became integrated
that had to like grapple of howit was gonna impact their
entire way of doing business.
And so like the , it becamejust like even more harmful in
(27:21):
many ways because of that. Welland
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Just to add to that, one of the reasons they did
that and tried to make thathealthcare more integrated is
because we know that's moreeffective. Yeah. Um , there are
a lot of parents who will doabsolutely everything to make
sure that their children getevery, you know, regular health
appointment that they need tomake sure that they're
(27:43):
developmentally on track andwill not do the same for
themselves. And so byintegrating those clinics,
you're able to say like, Hey,while you're here, do you also
wanna get like your tetanusbooster? Like do you also wanna
just like get your shot ? Like,and it's so much easier. And so
overall populations arehealthier because there's just
that ease of care and whenyou're restricting funding
(28:05):
streams, it does, itnecessarily leads to these
weird choices where it's like,okay, well this health clinic
provides this one servicebecause if a penny is spent on
like the wall or the floor onSRHR services, it can't be done
with us funding. So that iswith this funding stream and
then all of the other servicesare over here in this building.
(28:25):
And like you're lucky if thatbuilding is in the same city or
the same community, you mighthave to travel for hours and
hours or be days away kindadepending on where you are. So
yeah, that's a really greatpoint, Jenny . Thank you.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Okay, so that was terrible, right? like
that expansion we were dealingwith the fallout of it,
honestly still. Yeah . For, forthe impacts it had
unfortunately it sounds likethe, by looking at like project
2025 and stuff, the proposal isto make it even worse. So what
(28:58):
are we looking at for thiscoming new administration?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, I I think that's a really important point
too. One of the most harmfulparts of the global gag rule is
the chilling effect that it hasand that chilling effect can
last before it's implemented.
Just, you know, knowing that anadministration is going to be
incoming that will implementthe gag role and it can last
after an administration who'simposed the gag role has left
(29:24):
office. Because you know, asmuch as we are in the weeds of
this stuff, most doctors andproviders are not sort of day
to day reading the latest onthe gag rule. And so a lot of
people over implement and overinterpret what this means if
you're receiving US funding andit can have this enormous
(29:46):
chilling effect that takesdecades to recover from. So
yes, to say that we're stillfeeling it is absolutely
accurate, I'm a little bithesitant to say, oh, the next
administration is absolutelygoing to do X, Y, Z on gag
because we have seen in project2025 what's laid out would
include all foreign assistance. What we know about President
(30:10):
Trump is that sometimes what hepromises or proposes is not
kind of what's final and inpolicy, I don't have any reason
to believe that he issurrounded himself with people
who are going to mitigate thatposition. But I, I would just
caution kind of your listenersand anyone who, who works with
USAID or USAID implementers tojust know that we have one
(30:33):
administration at a time andright now the Biden
administration is still inpower. All of their policies
are still in place and folksshould continue to follow the
law and the policies of thisadministration. All of that
said, I do think that thepotential harm for the gag rule
is going to be enormous andthat they're going to see
(30:57):
exactly how far they can gobefore there's serious
pushback. They were testing thewaters, you know, in the last
year of the last administrationexpanding the gag rule not only
to global health, but um, toOASI think they will look to
push this as far as they thinkthey can get away with it.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
I'm really glad you pointed out like nobody needs
to do anything right now.
People who are getting usfunds, like still run your
programs as you are because gagis not a , any new iteration of
gag is not in place yet. Evenwhen it is announced until your
contract changes, like don't,don't change it before you have
(31:38):
to make the decision. 'causeyou wanna make sure you're
getting care to the people whoneed it.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Well, and you , you wanna follow the law. Um, I
think, yeah, there's this fearand this chilling effect that,
oh , okay, well this, thisterrible thing is going to
happen and so we have to reactnow and I , I think it's well
and good to start planning nowfor, okay, how will we react to
this? What will we do? Whatprocedures would we need to
have in place? Can we continueto accept us funding? I think
(32:03):
those are fine conversations tobe having right now, but taking
action, you know, in Decemberof 2024 just doesn't feel like
the right move. And I, I wouldhate to see anyone's care
restricted because of rumorsand , and fearmongering, or not
fearmongering, just fear very,very, very valid fear
Speaker 1 (32:22):
. Yeah. And I
think that's really what's
happening right now, right? Ispeople are scared about what
they're going to have to do ordecisions they're gonna have to
make. And like those are reallyhard decisions. Like do you
take the money and help peoplein the ways you can, do you
refuse the money so you canprovide the full range of care
(32:45):
that you think is right? Likethat's a really hard choice to
have to make when you aredealing with your community and
like you're a trusted provider.
Like you wanna still be thereto help your, your people, but
you wanna make sure also makesure they're getting all of the
care that would enable them tolead healthy, fulfilled lives.
(33:06):
So I just, I always feel sohard for those people who are
having to make that choicebecause it is, it's an
impossible choice.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Yeah. And you know, while I know at the top that
the United States isresponsible for something like
42% of global reproductivehealth spending, that includes
an enormous amount of work.
That can be everything frominfrastructure, including that,
you know, there are clinics,there are safe places to go for
(33:36):
care. It can includecommodities, actual access to
medications. It can alsoprovide payment and salaries
for doctors and nurses andcommunity healthcare workers.
And so the us puttingrestrictions on 42% of that pie
is not a small thing and itwill absolutely force people to
(33:59):
make those, those really harddecisions that you just
outlined. Okay.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
I know I , it's already like thinking through
all of the things that we'regonna be dealing with in the
next like four years. I'malready tired and it hasn't
even started yet, but likestill have the fight in me just
tired.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
. No
Speaker 1 (34:21):
. Okay. So I
always like to wrap up by, I
mean hope isn't quite the rightword, but at least giving their
audience some actions they cantake to get involved. So what
can the audience do to helpfight back against some of
these things?
Speaker 2 (34:36):
Yeah, I mean, I said no because I , I think one of
the things that the anti rightsactors that we're seeing sort
of being most vocal in thismoment do they, they want us to
lose hope before anythingactually starts. They want us
to feel devastated and to feellike there is nothing that we
(34:57):
can do or say and to sort ofsilence ourselves and accept
our fate as the worst possibleoutcome is inevitable when that
is not the case. It is bothtrue that the global impact of
these regressive US policiescould be devastating and could
end decades of progress onmaternal health, contraceptive
(35:18):
access, gender equality, andembolden this global anti
rights movement. But it's alsotrue that we live in a
democracy and that Americancitizens have incredible power.
And I think now that more andmore people are, are sort of
feeling and realizing the waysin which our rights are being
(35:40):
restricted here at home, I hopemore and more people are also
seeing those linkages to whatwe do abroad. You know, even in
just talking to my friends andfamily, I think they're sort of
continu not constantly becauseI don't talk about this all the
time, but when I bring it upand it's new information to
them, my friends, were notaware that for the last 40
years we have been imposing thegag rule and that while at home
(36:03):
we've had abortion access andwe've had certain rights
abroad, we're sending a verydifferent message about what
rights are rights and what whatthe United States government
cares about and prioritizes.
And I think the more folks areaware of what we do abroad, the
more they can also prevent someof it from coming back home and
(36:25):
applying to us. But the morethey can also talk to, you
know, their friends and familyand tell them about the global
gag role and about US foreignpolicy and our efforts to
create a more gender equitableworld and ensure access to
sexual reproductive healthcareand rights. I know there's
always like a call your memberof congress call out and it's a
weird time to add somethinglike that, but I I would hope
(36:47):
that your listeners would feelemboldened to do some of that
in this coming Congress. I Ithink one of the things that I
continuously hear in myadvocacy on the Hill is that
they don't get calls aboutforeign policy again, unless
it's like an Israel GazaUkraine situation. Generally
people are not as motivated topick up the phone and call
(37:08):
their member of Congress orsend an email. It's okay to
email too. And I would just, Iwould hope that people would
feel a bit more emboldened tohave those conversations with
the folks in their lives andwith their duly elected
representatives. I'll also justsay, you know, the PAI has a
website that we run on theglobal gag rule that I'm happy
(37:29):
to, to send you. It's globalgag rule.org and we have a
number of fact sheets. We havesome really helpful , um,
things that we will update oncewe know what the new gag rule
is going to entail. That helpspractitioners understand like
what's allowable under US law,what is not allowable under US
law. Because one of the thingsthat they're going to want to
do is create confusion so thatfolks are over sort of
(37:54):
analyzing and implementingeverything. So we wanna make
sure that folks have the toolsand resources to be able to do
what they're allowed to dounder current US law. There is
a chart up now, so for folkswho are doing anything between
now and January 20th, you know,read our Good to Go chart and,
and please know that we will beupdating that and updating the
website as we go.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
That that is all great. And one of the things
you said really made me thinkof something like we kinda
tangentially talked about, butmaybe did not explicitly note
of one of the things we'regoing to lose. We talked about,
you know, the Geneva consensusand how, and like maybe
defunding and some of thisstuff with the un but the
(38:35):
importance of the voice we arelosing for the US being an
advocate in those spaces forsexual and reproductive health
and rights to switch now tothis anti rights bully pulpit
that they're going to be ableto use. Like that is going to
be a huge shift in just thevoice the US is carrying around
(38:58):
the world when they're speakingabout these things. But should
,
Speaker 2 (39:01):
Yeah, I I mean it was one of the, the hardest
things, the hardest pills toswallow when the United States
first endorsed the GenevaConsensus declaration to see
the United States aligningitself with the other nations
that signed that document wasjarring. I mean, I I think
(39:21):
reproductive rights are humanrights and they're important
full stop . I think they shouldalso be viewed as a test for
how many other rights canchipped away at, taken away.
And when you look at some ofthe countries that United
States was aligning itself withunder the last Trump
(39:41):
administration, I think thatshould get people fired up. I
don't think that's what mostAmericans think the United
States is. I think mostAmericans still view America as
exceptional in a lot of ways,and that includes a lot of our
democratic institutions. Thatincludes a lot of our deeply
(40:04):
held values. And I hope thatpeople find inspiration and can
keep, you know, seeding theirown hope. Because I think some
of these things that we willsee with the new Congress, with
the new administration mayleave people feeling initially
aghast or hopeless, but I don'tthink that's who this country
(40:27):
is or who it sees itself as orwants to be aspirationally. And
so I I hope that, like yousaid, there's still a lot of
fight left in people because weare going to need to channel
into that and not give up andto continue to push back
against these things becauseeveryone should have access to
care and the United Statesshould not be exporting
(40:47):
restrictions and shame, butshould really be exporting
freedom and choice and , andhope ultimately.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
Yeah, I , and I think this is like the perfect
moment to remind people like,man, just remember the, the
first Trump administration,this is a marathon and not a
sprint. There's gonna be a lotof things that pop up. You need
to step in when you're abletake a step back when you are
(41:17):
not, and not burn yourself outbecause you know, you just, you
have to keep the hope and keepthe fight going and, and don't
give into that overwhelm asmuch as sometimes it is easy to
do and to be taking care ofyourself and your community and
those around you because it isgonna be a long hard slog and
(41:40):
and you can't do all thethings. You can't. You just,
you just cannot. So you do whatyou can when you can. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Absolutely. And I , I think, I think it's a good
reminder because I think one ofthe things we saw under the
last administration and that wesaw under the last Congress
particularly the house was alot of chaos.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
It was hard to stay focused in one direction
because there were so manylittle fires to kind of put
out. And I think it's just agood reminder that not every
fire is your fire to put outand that we all have to do our
part and stand in your powerwherever that power is and to
know that like you are notalone. That there is this whole
(42:21):
community of people who arealso going to be fighting for
refugees in your community,migrants in your community,
domestic issues if you'refocused on foreign policy,
foreign policy, if you're focuson domestic policy and to just
sort of tap in where you canand when you can. Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Rachel, thank you so much for being here today. It
was so lovely to talk to youabout, again, kind of terrible
things, but, but it was a goodconversation. Thanks
Speaker 2 (42:48):
So much. I hope the next time that we touch base
we'll have happier stuff totalk about and some good wins.
Yeah, I think we
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Will . Okay y'all, I had a great time talking to
Rachel about so many things.
There are so many ways that weare going to see global impacts
, um, after the election, notjust to SRHR, but to
multilateral institutions, toforeign assistance in general.
Um, there's just so much tokeep an eye on. And remember
(43:18):
y'all, again, this is amarathon, it is not a sprint.
Make sure you are taking careof yourselves and those in your
community as we go forward inthis fight because it is gonna
be a long, very hard road. Um,but we need to keep fighting
and we need to keep showing up.
So with that, make sure you'retaking care of yourselves this
(43:39):
week and I will see y'all nextweek. If you have any
questions, comments, or topicsyou would like us to cover,
always feel free to shoot me anemail. You can reach me at jen
jn , NI e@reprofightback.com oryou can find us on social
media. We're at Repro Fightback on Facebook and Twitter or
re Pros FB on Instagram. If youlove our podcast and wanna make
(44:02):
sure more people find it, takethe time to rate and review us
on your favorite podcastplatform. Or if you wanna make
sure to support the podcast,you can also donate on our
website@regrowsfightback.com.
Thanks all .
Welcome to Repro Fight Back a podcast on all
things related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice. Hi re pros. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Weather and my pronounsare she her. So y'all, I, I
guess I've not talked to yousince before I went on
(00:47):
vacation, before Thanksgiving.
It was so lovely to have a weekoff. I really did a really good
job of staying away from socialmedia, which was so lovely. I
read a bunch of fluffy funbooks. I had a really just
(01:07):
chill week and it was so niceand so necessary and it was
good to recharge that way. Andthen , uh, let's see, on last
Tuesday I went to go to SCOTUSfor a little while to join the
rally out front before thegender affirming care case. I
wasn't able to stay for thewhole rally. I had some
(01:30):
meetings I had to go to andsome other things, but I was
able to go for like an hour anda half and enjoy the crowd.
Like there were a lot of antisthere from, from the way I came
in. I saw them. But man, onceyou got to the , uh, trans
right side of the rally, it wasjoy. There was just so much
(01:51):
joy. They were playing funmusic and like the sense of
community was great. The crowdwas much bigger than the anti
side . I left and people were,so many people were still
coming. I had a meeting at ouroffice, which is like right
behind the Supreme Court andwas in the office for like an
(02:12):
hour and a half. And when I wason my way home, my Uber went by
the Supreme Court and like thecrowd had, I don't, not quite
doubled, but maybe doubled. Um,and it was just so great to see
so many people out joyfullysupporting trans rights and
making sure that young peopleare able to access gender
affirming care. It just, itmade my heart so happy to see
(02:36):
so many people there supportingum, young trans people. So even
though the arguments don'tsound like they were super
hopeful, but the advocatesChase Gio and Solicitor General
Proguard did amazing. And Ihope that we get a good
(02:57):
decision, but I am not superconfident that we will get a
good decision. But it wasamazing to see the community
come out and support and see somany people there and to again,
just see so much joy of peoplebeing there in community
supporting trans rights. Sothat was , um, really re
(03:18):
re-energizing to be able to gofor a little bit. I wish I
could have stayed longer andbeen there for all of the
speeches people made, but itwas great to go for as much as
I was able to. And I'm glad Iwas able to squeeze it into my
day 'cause I would've been verysad to have missed out on being
there. I think maybe I'll endthere. I don't feel like I have
a lot of other things to updatey'all on. I am excited about
(03:42):
this week's episode. You know,recently we had an episode
where I talked to Aaron Matsonabout some of the ways that
sexual and reproductive healthand rights are gonna be
impacted by the newadministration coming in in
January. I thought that itwould be good to have a more in
depth conversation about someof the global stuff we are
gonna see around sexual andreproductive health and rights
(04:03):
in the new administration. So Iam very excited to have with me
today Rachel Clement at PAAI totalk to us all about what we
can, what we should be lookingfor , um, with the new
administration when it comes toglobal SRHR. So with that,
let's go to my conversationwith Rachel. Hi Rachel. Thank
you so much for being heretoday.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Hi, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
I am excited to talk to you about like terrible
things. But before we getstarted, would you like to
introduce yourself and includeyour pronouns?
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Yeah, of course. My name is Rachel Clement. She,
her, hers. I am currently thesenior director for US
Government Strategy at PAI ,where I work on advancing
universal access to sexualreproductive health and rights
globally.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Awesome. I so in our last episode we talked about
some of the things that wecould see, well I guess maybe
it wasn't our last, whatever.
In a recent episode we talkedabout some of the things we
could see how the election wasgonna impact sexual
reproductive health and rights,but we mostly fa focused
domestically. So I thought itwould be really great to have
you come on and give like thatmore global perspective. And I
(05:12):
figured there were lots of waysthis conversation could go, but
maybe we'll start with likereally big picture because I
think people are less familiarwith this space of like foreign
assistance and things likethat. So what could this
election have meant for bigpicture global stuff?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Yeah, that's such a great question. I , I think
when a lot of people thinkabout foreign assistance, they
think of kind of ongoingconflicts. So Ukraine or other
areas that are facinghumanitarian disasters, but it
is a big part of how the UnitedStates responds globally. But
the United States spends lessthan 1% of its federal budget
(05:51):
on foreign aid. And that goesto a number of different
equities, includinghumanitarian aid, but also
through development assistance,bilateral assistance engagement
in multilateral fora . Youknow, all of that is not
necessarily because the UnitedStates is, is so benevolent.
And so giving, most of that isreally targeted to ensure that
(06:15):
interventions abroad arepromoting things like
democracy, human rights, andadvancing US interests. I think
the two potential candidates atthe presidential level had very
different perspectives on howto advance those interests and
what we're looking at with aTrump administration and the
hundred 19th Congress, it'spotentially pretty scary if the
(06:37):
919th Congress mirrors some ofthe more extremist agendas that
we've seen through thecampaigning. I think we can
expect, if not funding cuts toforeign assistance then
certainly fights about foreignassistance and threats of cuts
to funding and certainlypolicies and rules that will
silence organizations that aresaving lives in the world's
(06:59):
most vulnerable communities.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
I really love that.
Like the place you started wasthe less than 1% of our budget
goes to foreign assistance.
'cause I think general peoplehave like this idea in their
head that the foreignassistance budget is huge and
like we're sending so muchmoney on foreign assistance,
but like it is such a smallpart of the US funding. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (07:24):
And you know, I think what we saw under the
last Trump administration,there was a considered effort
by some former high levelmilitary officials who served
under bipartisanadministrations to really say,
look, the importance of foreignassistance is that it's, it's
the carrot before you need touse the stick. Like this helps
(07:46):
us to avoid getting intoconflicts and protracted wars.
And so it should be a , a toolof the US government to use and
leverage in an effective way.
And I think there is someconcern that the current actors
and some of the more vocalfolks who won in this last
election don't necessarily seethe value of foreign assistance
(08:07):
in that same way.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Yeah, and I , and you're right, like the first
place I'm worrying about islike cuts. We're gonna see to
the budgets around foreignassistance and like how much
we're spending and then howthose cuts get distributed.
Like again, like it's not withall things, it'll never be felt
equally. In some places it willbe harder hit than others. And
(08:28):
then the end , the other placethat I know both of us are
thinking about is themultilateral spaces and how
we're gonna see those impacted.
Yeah,
Speaker 2 (08:36):
I I mean I I think we got a preview of what's to
come under the last Trumpadministration and, and
certainly through actions thatformer Trump administration
officials continue to takeunder the Biden administration.
I think we can say with ahundred percent certainty that
U-N-F-P-A is going to bedefunded and that it's very
likely that other UN spaceslike the WHO UNESCO UN women
(09:01):
will also be facing dress tocuts or defunding and like just
honing in on U-N-F-P-A for amoment because I have had the
opportunity to really see someof the spaces that they
interact with. And defundingU-N-F-P-A isn't just a bad
policy. I , it feels like areal moral failure. It leaves
mothers and babies to face themost vulnerable moments of
(09:22):
their lives without the carethat they urgently need. And in
many of the spaces whereU-N-F-P-A operates, there is no
alternative. It's not that youdefund U-N-F-P-A and someone
else can swoop in and takeover. There's no replacement or
alternative. There's no one tosupply the commodities that are
needed in , in some of thesereally dire humanitarian
settings or to provide the samecare that their network of
(09:46):
providers are able to provide.
And that feels to me like theUnited States is telling
people, but especially newmothers, that their lives don't
matter, that their children'slives don't matter. And that,
to me feels antithetical towhat the United States stands
for.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
And again, like it's gonna impact the most
vulnerable, right? Like the USis the largest humanitarian
donor to U-N-F-P-A and likethere is just no replacing that
amount of money and the , thenumber of places where
U-N-F-P-A is and they'reserving so many people who are
(10:24):
in just the worst circumstancesin humanitarian settings that
it is, like you said, a realmoral failure to think that
they may have to scale backtheir services because they're
losing this big pot of money.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Absolutely. And U-N-F-P-A does operate in
humanitarian settings that areplaces the United States
government cannot go placeswhere a lot of a , a lot of
people are not. And so they docreate this really vital role.
They also work in developmentsettings, they work on programs
like the joint program to endchild marriage where they're
(10:59):
really working with localcommunities, local leaders to
change social norms, that it'snot hyperbolic to say that
they're changing lives andthey're empowering girls to be
able to stay in school longer,to make choices about, you
know, who and when and if theymarry and ultimately to be able
to just live fuller lives. SoI, yeah, I
(11:25):
I really can't state overstatehow terrible it is going to be
when this happens.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Well, yeah, and we focused only on like the
maternal health aspects in thehumanitarian settings, but
their work is bigger than that,right? Like it's talking about
gender-based violenceprevention and, and care for
people who have experiencedgender-based violence, which
always increases inhumanitarian settings. So like
they really are just playingsuch a vital role in all of
(11:53):
these places and suchvulnerable moments for people's
lives. Okay, so that's likeU-N-F-P-A and like kind of the
UN in general, right? Likewe're probably gonna see a big
attack on just UN spaces, youknow, you mentioned the World
Health Organization and UNwomen and unesco, like we're
(12:14):
probably gonna see a lot ofattacks on the UN at large. But
I think there's also anotherthing that both of us have had
talked about a lot coming backand that is the so-called
Geneva census mm-hmm
declaration. Sorry, I can'teven say it because it's not
true, right? It's not aconsensus document. So like my
tongue didn't even wanna sayit. So,
Speaker 2 (12:36):
And it wasn't written in Geneva, right? Like
every single part of it is alie. Yeah, no, I mean we've,
we've seen some of what theywanna do, right? Like they
engaged in this so-calledGeneva consensus declaration
under the last Trumpadministration, which is a
concerted effort to underminethe United Nations and
(12:56):
multilateralism as a whole andto center as the most important
part of foreign policy andengagement between nations, an
anti rights agenda, which iswild. And we saw, you know,
under the last administration,they created the commission on
unalienable rights, which alsosought to redefine what, what
(13:19):
our human rights and who hasrights. We also saw the last
administration rewrite, thereare these annual state
department human rightsreports. They go into detail on
a number of different humanrights abuses, country by
country. And they're incrediblyvaluable for diplomats, but
also for businesses seeking tomake decisions about how and
(13:42):
where they do business. Andthey erased reproductive rights
entirely. They erased L-G-B-T-Qrights and then they seriously
undermined women's rightsoverall.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Yeah. When I think back to like the commission on
unalienable rights, likethere's just like no way to
like think about it as like theway they came out and defined,
like not all human rights arenot created equal. There was
definitely a hierarchy in theirmind and like religion and
property rights were at the topand everything else was below
(14:13):
that. Like, what are youkidding me? Like property
rights and religion came overlike basic human rights. Like
they're all on a, like that ,it just was wild. And thinking
about that coming back is , um,kind of unreal.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Yeah. And , and not just religion, right? Because I
think freedom of religion andfreedom from religious
persecution are very valuablehuman rights. It's Christian
persecution and the thepromulgation of yeah . A
certain kind of Christianvalues , um, which is also
really narrowly defining that,right ?
Speaker 1 (14:50):
That idea of like, that the rights are tiered and
some rights have more credencethan others, or that religion
only means Christian religion.
Like that is not how humanrights work. I , and like I
just bottom line, that's nothow this works.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
And again, it , it's , it's so hypocritical to many
of the , the things that havebeen promoted for decades by
the United States around thisidea that we want to put power
into local hands, that we wantdevelopment to be sustainable.
That we, we want ultimately tonot be investing in other
countries in this way becausewe want the global economy and
(15:29):
everyone to sort of have thesebasic standards of healthcare ,
food access, education. Ifyou're only narrowly defining
which human rights matter toyou, you're not really putting
power back in local hands.
You're not really creating asustainable environment for
these things to take place.
Okay.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
I guess the next like bucket of things, and
again, all of these are likeinterrelated, right? Like is
thinking about gender and howwe are going to see attacks in
the gender space. Again, kindof back to that like human
rights conversation of likewomen's rights or human rights
and like definitely going tosee and L-G-B-T-Q rights,
(16:10):
right? Like, and trans rights,like all of these are all equal
human rights and , but I reallythink we're gonna be seeing a
big attack on gender throughoutdomestic and global.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah, unfortunately, I think that's true. And I also
think it's important to notesome of the parallels that
we're seeing between foreignpolicies and domestic policy.
In some ways, some of thethings the United States does
abroad are tests to see how farthey can push things before
they bring those policies home.
The average American is not asin the weeds on like pep bar
(16:46):
reauthorization or what the UNglobal program is doing to end
child marriage in Uganda. Andso it's a lot easier to test
certain policies and see like,oh, okay, well can we take away
this? Right? What if we don'tfund this kind of work? What if
we only prioritize that? Ithink what we're seeing
unfortunately with the Dobbsdecision is that more and more
(17:08):
Americans are feeling the heftand the weight of what it is
like to actually have yourrights restricted and
redefined. And I'm reallyhopeful that I'm wrong and that
some of the worst things thatcould happen under this next
administration and the newCongress don't come true. But
there have been calls, youknow, in conservative think
(17:28):
tanks to redefine gender, tostop using the word gender to
revert back to women, women andgirls if we're lucky. And I
think that would be a real miss. I don't, I don't think that
it's a good faith effort toreally address what the root of
some of these issues are. Andwhile it is true that women and
(17:51):
girls disproportionately facethe burdens of gender
inequality, gender-basedviolence and all of these
things, it also takes workingwith men and working with boys
and addressing why gender normdisproportionately harm
L-G-B-T-Q communities to reallyimprove any of this. And so I,
(18:12):
I hope that we don't go back tonot only using some of that
language, but sort of onlylooking at women as some kind
of homogenous being because Ithink we lose again, a lot of
the evidence-based learningsthat we have from the last
decade or so on what works toimprove outcomes.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Yeah. And just thinking of all of the people
that will all of a sudden findthemselves excluded.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Yeah. And it just, the work will be less effective
even if you are just trying tohelp cisgender women. Like if
you are not also working withmen, if you are not also
working with religious leaders,community leaders, their
daughters, their sons, you'rejust not going to be doing
effective development work. Andthose are our taxpayer dollars.
(18:58):
They should be effective. Andso if we are going back to like
this 1980s definition of whatit means to work on , uh,
gender, I just, it it's , it'sgoing to be badly done. And why
would we want that?
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Like yeah, they are going to, you know, you like
really run away from gender andreally try to become this
pro-life administration, butlike how do you see that
actually like beingrepresentative as like
pro-life, pro-women? Like isthis how they're going to try
(19:36):
to paint themselves?
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Yeah, I think that's a perfect way of framing it,
Jenny . They're absolutelygoing to try to paint
themselves as helping women andhelping families. But
ultimately from the policyproposals we've seen and from
what we know from the lastcongress and the last
administration, the things thatthey'll actually do are going
to hurt women, hurt newborns,hurt children, and are not
(20:02):
going to support happy, healthyfamilies. And so I , I think
they're actually going to tryto weaponize women and
womanhood and motherhood inthis really nefarious way that
really only diminishes women totheir status as incubators and
doesn't even allow for thingslike education and economic
(20:25):
empowerment and sort of thefulsome experience of being a
human to be priorities underthe next administration and
with the next congress. Andthat is, that's bleak.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
Ugh . Oh , that is, that's, that's rough.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
But again, I don't think it has to be that way. I
think that these are thingsthat we absolutely need to push
back on at every level.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Agree . Like I do not wanna see this like
retraction of, of all of thiswork we've done on this like
wide range of like genderissues from child marriage to
FGM to girls' education, to somany other things. And we've
already seen things beingstalled. I mean, what the UN
(21:10):
women report, I don't know, wasit last year or the year before
saying we are 300 years away ifwe stay on the current track to
gender equality to like seethat get even further away is
wild. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
And I , you know, I I think one thing we know for
sure about a future Trumpadministration is that it's
going to be very transactionaland it's going to be very
focused on what other countriesand other actors can do for the
United States. And I just hopethat there is at least some
willingness to listen and tounderstand that gender equality
(21:48):
benefits the United States.
That we , we have so muchevidence to show that when
women are economicallyempowered, they're happier and
healthier, their families arehe and healthier, their
communities are better. Whenwomen are involved in peace
agreements, they're much morelikely to last for decades than
when they're excluded from thetable. And that these things
(22:10):
benefit us national securityand all of these other things
that we report to reallyprioritize and care about. I, I
just, I hope that there is aframing and a , a , a
willingness to listen and hearthe fact that these are not
just like fluffy, kind of niceto do social goods, which they
also are, but they are reallysolid evidence-based, good
(22:34):
foreign policy decisions.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Okay. Now that we have talked about some of the
gender implications, let's turnto the next thing that is
something that we are gonnaspend a lot of our time focused
on, and that's the global gagrule.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Sure. I , one of the, one of the nefarious
things about the global gagrule is that it's a little bit
hard to explain and understandwhat it does is it , it was
first enacted in 1984 byPresident Ronald Reagan and
every president since Reaganhas decided whether or not to
enact or revoke the policy. Soit it switches by party , um,
(23:09):
which is also quite harmfulbecause it has these enormous
and devastating global impacts.
But it forces organizations tochoose whether or not they want
to provide comprehensive sexualand reproductive healthcare and
education without us funding orto change the way that they do
care as a whole, whether or notthey're using US government
(23:32):
dollars, if they accept any USdollars. So even if there were,
you know, a , a true desire forno US funding to go towards
certain kinds of sexualreproductive health and rights
work, that is not what thisrule does. This rule is
essentially poison that taintsall of the dollars and makes it
(23:56):
so that people cannot do withtheir own, their own dollars,
their own government's dollars,other donor dollars. The kind
of work that we know isevidence-based and effective.
And that is probably alsoculturally relevant and, you
know, desired by recipients. Sohistorically
(24:19):
most poor women and, and girlswho suffer pregnant people
often suffer disruptions inreproductive health services.
We have ample evidence thatdemonstrates that the policy
causes more unintendedpregnancies, higher rates of
maternal mortality, and a hugeincrease in unsafe abortions.
(24:41):
It also , uh, impacts like HIVaids, other funding. Um, under
the last administration therule was expanded for the first
time to include all globalhealth funding. So all of the
sudden providers that wereworking on like tuberculosis
and malaria and things thatwere unrelated to sexual
(25:02):
reproductive health and rightswe're grappling with how to
navigate this policy and howand where to change their work
or not change their work. Thereare organizations who are lucky
enough to be able to, to denyus funding and to continue
their good work. Unfortunately,a lot of the providers who have
(25:23):
to are forced to make thischoice , um, are often small
NGOs, local providers. And soit, it does not only cause
disruptions in care, but it cancause a lot of these really
local organizations to have toshutter or shut down. Um,
because some decide that they,they won't accept us funding
(25:44):
and comply with the US gag role, but then they don't have
enough funding to be able tocontinue their work either
because how do you , it is justan impossible choice. It's like
I can provide one 10th of thecare that my patients need and
keep working or I just closedown. It's cruel and the
(26:05):
cruelty is the point. It it isintended to be harsh. There is
no evidence to demonstrate thatthe gag rule improves outcomes
in any area.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
I just have like two things to add, like that was
that was great. Just a quicklike clarification of, we talk
about how it expanded underthe, the previous Trump
administration. Before that itonly applied to family planning
funding, which was a very smallbucket of funding versus the
whole global health program.
(26:37):
And it had so much impact,partially because the Obama
administration had spent somuch of their effort around
global health of integratinghealth systems. So you, so
patients weren't having to goto this clinic to get maternal
health and this clinic to getHIV or their kids going to this
one. There was a real push tomake sure that you could go to
(27:00):
like one clinic and get all ofthe care. So now all of a
sudden when this is like globalgag rules affecting global
health, you have all of theseplaces that became integrated
that had to like grapple of howit was gonna impact their
entire way of doing business.
And so like the , it becamejust like even more harmful in
(27:21):
many ways because of that. Welland
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Just to add to that, one of the reasons they did
that and tried to make thathealthcare more integrated is
because we know that's moreeffective. Yeah. Um , there are
a lot of parents who will doabsolutely everything to make
sure that their children getevery, you know, regular health
appointment that they need tomake sure that they're
(27:43):
developmentally on track andwill not do the same for
themselves. And so byintegrating those clinics,
you're able to say like, Hey,while you're here, do you also
wanna get like your tetanusbooster? Like do you also wanna
just like get your shot ? Like,and it's so much easier. And so
overall populations arehealthier because there's just
that ease of care and whenyou're restricting funding
(28:05):
streams, it does, itnecessarily leads to these
weird choices where it's like,okay, well this health clinic
provides this one servicebecause if a penny is spent on
like the wall or the floor onSRHR services, it can't be done
with us funding. So that iswith this funding stream and
then all of the other servicesare over here in this building.
(28:25):
And like you're lucky if thatbuilding is in the same city or
the same community, you mighthave to travel for hours and
hours or be days away kindadepending on where you are. So
yeah, that's a really greatpoint, Jenny . Thank you.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Okay, so that was terrible, right?
that expansion we were dealingwith the fallout of it,
honestly still. Yeah . For, forthe impacts it had
unfortunately it sounds likethe, by looking at like project
2025 and stuff, the proposal isto make it even worse. So what
(28:58):
are we looking at for thiscoming new administration?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, I I think that's a really important point
too. One of the most harmfulparts of the global gag rule is
the chilling effect that it hasand that chilling effect can
last before it's implemented.
Just, you know, knowing that anadministration is going to be
incoming that will implementthe gag role and it can last
after an administration who'simposed the gag role has left
(29:24):
office. Because you know, asmuch as we are in the weeds of
this stuff, most doctors andproviders are not sort of day
to day reading the latest onthe gag rule. And so a lot of
people over implement and overinterpret what this means if
you're receiving US funding andit can have this enormous
(29:46):
chilling effect that takesdecades to recover from. So
yes, to say that we're stillfeeling it is absolutely
accurate, I'm a little bithesitant to say, oh, the next
administration is absolutelygoing to do X, Y, Z on gag
because we have seen in project2025 what's laid out would
include all foreign assistance. What we know about President
(30:10):
Trump is that sometimes what hepromises or proposes is not
kind of what's final and inpolicy, I don't have any reason
to believe that he issurrounded himself with people
who are going to mitigate thatposition. But I, I would just
caution kind of your listenersand anyone who, who works with
USAID or USAID implementers tojust know that we have one
(30:33):
administration at a time andright now the Biden
administration is still inpower. All of their policies
are still in place and folksshould continue to follow the
law and the policies of thisadministration. All of that
said, I do think that thepotential harm for the gag rule
is going to be enormous andthat they're going to see
(30:57):
exactly how far they can gobefore there's serious
pushback. They were testing thewaters, you know, in the last
year of the last administrationexpanding the gag rule not only
to global health, but um, toOASI think they will look to
push this as far as they thinkthey can get away with it.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
I'm really glad you pointed out like nobody needs
to do anything right now.
People who are getting usfunds, like still run your
programs as you are because gagis not a , any new iteration of
gag is not in place yet. Evenwhen it is announced until your
contract changes, like don't,don't change it before you have
(31:38):
to make the decision. 'causeyou wanna make sure you're
getting care to the people whoneed it.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Well, and you , you wanna follow the law. Um, I
think, yeah, there's this fearand this chilling effect that,
oh , okay, well this, thisterrible thing is going to
happen and so we have to reactnow and I , I think it's well
and good to start planning nowfor, okay, how will we react to
this? What will we do? Whatprocedures would we need to
have in place? Can we continueto accept us funding? I think
(32:03):
those are fine conversations tobe having right now, but taking
action, you know, in Decemberof 2024 just doesn't feel like
the right move. And I, I wouldhate to see anyone's care
restricted because of rumorsand , and fearmongering, or not
fearmongering, just fear very,very, very valid fear
Speaker 1 (32:22):
happening right now, right? Ispeople are scared about what
they're going to have to do ordecisions they're gonna have to
make. And like those are reallyhard decisions. Like do you
take the money and help peoplein the ways you can, do you
refuse the money so you canprovide the full range of care
(32:45):
that you think is right? Likethat's a really hard choice to
have to make when you aredealing with your community and
like you're a trusted provider.
Like you wanna still be thereto help your, your people, but
you wanna make sure also makesure they're getting all of the
care that would enable them tolead healthy, fulfilled lives.
(33:06):
So I just, I always feel sohard for those people who are
having to make that choicebecause it is, it's an
impossible choice.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Yeah. And you know, while I know at the top that
the United States isresponsible for something like
42% of global reproductivehealth spending, that includes
an enormous amount of work.
That can be everything frominfrastructure, including that,
you know, there are clinics,there are safe places to go for
(33:36):
care. It can includecommodities, actual access to
medications. It can alsoprovide payment and salaries
for doctors and nurses andcommunity healthcare workers.
And so the us puttingrestrictions on 42% of that pie
is not a small thing and itwill absolutely force people to
(33:59):
make those, those really harddecisions that you just
outlined. Okay.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
I know I , it's already like thinking through
all of the things that we'regonna be dealing with in the
next like four years. I'malready tired and it hasn't
even started yet, but likestill have the fight in me just
tired.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Speaker 1 (34:21):
mean hope isn't quite the rightword, but at least giving their
audience some actions they cantake to get involved. So what
can the audience do to helpfight back against some of
these things?
Speaker 2 (34:36):
Yeah, I mean, I said no because I , I think one of
the things that the anti rightsactors that we're seeing sort
of being most vocal in thismoment do they, they want us to
lose hope before anythingactually starts. They want us
to feel devastated and to feellike there is nothing that we
(34:57):
can do or say and to sort ofsilence ourselves and accept
our fate as the worst possibleoutcome is inevitable when that
is not the case. It is bothtrue that the global impact of
these regressive US policiescould be devastating and could
end decades of progress onmaternal health, contraceptive
(35:18):
access, gender equality, andembolden this global anti
rights movement. But it's alsotrue that we live in a
democracy and that Americancitizens have incredible power.
And I think now that more andmore people are, are sort of
feeling and realizing the waysin which our rights are being
(35:40):
restricted here at home, I hopemore and more people are also
seeing those linkages to whatwe do abroad. You know, even in
just talking to my friends andfamily, I think they're sort of
continu not constantly becauseI don't talk about this all the
time, but when I bring it upand it's new information to
them, my friends, were notaware that for the last 40
years we have been imposing thegag rule and that while at home
(36:03):
we've had abortion access andwe've had certain rights
abroad, we're sending a verydifferent message about what
rights are rights and what whatthe United States government
cares about and prioritizes.
And I think the more folks areaware of what we do abroad, the
more they can also prevent someof it from coming back home and
(36:25):
applying to us. But the morethey can also talk to, you
know, their friends and familyand tell them about the global
gag role and about US foreignpolicy and our efforts to
create a more gender equitableworld and ensure access to
sexual reproductive healthcareand rights. I know there's
always like a call your memberof congress call out and it's a
weird time to add somethinglike that, but I I would hope
(36:47):
that your listeners would feelemboldened to do some of that
in this coming Congress. I Ithink one of the things that I
continuously hear in myadvocacy on the Hill is that
they don't get calls aboutforeign policy again, unless
it's like an Israel GazaUkraine situation. Generally
people are not as motivated topick up the phone and call
(37:08):
their member of Congress orsend an email. It's okay to
email too. And I would just, Iwould hope that people would
feel a bit more emboldened tohave those conversations with
the folks in their lives andwith their duly elected
representatives. I'll also justsay, you know, the PAI has a
website that we run on theglobal gag rule that I'm happy
(37:29):
to, to send you. It's globalgag rule.org and we have a
number of fact sheets. We havesome really helpful , um,
things that we will update oncewe know what the new gag rule
is going to entail. That helpspractitioners understand like
what's allowable under US law,what is not allowable under US
law. Because one of the thingsthat they're going to want to
do is create confusion so thatfolks are over sort of
(37:54):
analyzing and implementingeverything. So we wanna make
sure that folks have the toolsand resources to be able to do
what they're allowed to dounder current US law. There is
a chart up now, so for folkswho are doing anything between
now and January 20th, you know,read our Good to Go chart and,
and please know that we will beupdating that and updating the
website as we go.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
That that is all great. And one of the things
you said really made me thinkof something like we kinda
tangentially talked about, butmaybe did not explicitly note
of one of the things we'regoing to lose. We talked about,
you know, the Geneva consensusand how, and like maybe
defunding and some of thisstuff with the un but the
(38:35):
importance of the voice we arelosing for the US being an
advocate in those spaces forsexual and reproductive health
and rights to switch now tothis anti rights bully pulpit
that they're going to be ableto use. Like that is going to
be a huge shift in just thevoice the US is carrying around
(38:58):
the world when they're speakingabout these things. But should
,
Speaker 2 (39:01):
Yeah, I I mean it was one of the, the hardest
things, the hardest pills toswallow when the United States
first endorsed the GenevaConsensus declaration to see
the United States aligningitself with the other nations
that signed that document wasjarring. I mean, I I think
(39:21):
reproductive rights are humanrights and they're important
full stop . I think they shouldalso be viewed as a test for
how many other rights canchipped away at, taken away.
And when you look at some ofthe countries that United
States was aligning itself withunder the last Trump
(39:41):
administration, I think thatshould get people fired up. I
don't think that's what mostAmericans think the United
States is. I think mostAmericans still view America as
exceptional in a lot of ways,and that includes a lot of our
democratic institutions. Thatincludes a lot of our deeply
(40:04):
held values. And I hope thatpeople find inspiration and can
keep, you know, seeding theirown hope. Because I think some
of these things that we willsee with the new Congress, with
the new administration mayleave people feeling initially
aghast or hopeless, but I don'tthink that's who this country
(40:27):
is or who it sees itself as orwants to be aspirationally. And
so I I hope that, like yousaid, there's still a lot of
fight left in people because weare going to need to channel
into that and not give up andto continue to push back
against these things becauseeveryone should have access to
care and the United Statesshould not be exporting
(40:47):
restrictions and shame, butshould really be exporting
freedom and choice and , andhope ultimately.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
Yeah, I , and I think this is like the perfect
moment to remind people like,man, just remember the, the
first Trump administration,this is a marathon and not a
sprint. There's gonna be a lotof things that pop up. You need
to step in when you're abletake a step back when you are
(41:17):
not, and not burn yourself outbecause you know, you just, you
have to keep the hope and keepthe fight going and, and don't
give into that overwhelm asmuch as sometimes it is easy to
do and to be taking care ofyourself and your community and
those around you because it isgonna be a long hard slog and
(41:40):
and you can't do all thethings. You can't. You just,
you just cannot. So you do whatyou can when you can. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Absolutely. And I , I think, I think it's a good
reminder because I think one ofthe things we saw under the
last administration and that wesaw under the last Congress
particularly the house was alot of chaos.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
It was hard to stay focused in one direction
because there were so manylittle fires to kind of put
out. And I think it's just agood reminder that not every
fire is your fire to put outand that we all have to do our
part and stand in your powerwherever that power is and to
know that like you are notalone. That there is this whole
(42:21):
community of people who arealso going to be fighting for
refugees in your community,migrants in your community,
domestic issues if you'refocused on foreign policy,
foreign policy, if you're focuson domestic policy and to just
sort of tap in where you canand when you can. Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Rachel, thank you so much for being here today. It
was so lovely to talk to youabout, again, kind of terrible
things, but, but it was a goodconversation. Thanks
Speaker 2 (42:48):
So much. I hope the next time that we touch base
we'll have happier stuff totalk about and some good wins.
Yeah, I think we
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Will . Okay y'all, I had a great time talking to
Rachel about so many things.
There are so many ways that weare going to see global impacts
, um, after the election, notjust to SRHR, but to
multilateral institutions, toforeign assistance in general.
Um, there's just so much tokeep an eye on. And remember
(43:18):
y'all, again, this is amarathon, it is not a sprint.
Make sure you are taking careof yourselves and those in your
community as we go forward inthis fight because it is gonna
be a long, very hard road. Um,but we need to keep fighting
and we need to keep showing up.
So with that, make sure you'retaking care of yourselves this
(43:39):
week and I will see y'all nextweek. If you have any
questions, comments, or topicsyou would like us to cover,
always feel free to shoot me anemail. You can reach me at jen
jn , NI e@reprofightback.com oryou can find us on social
media. We're at Repro Fightback on Facebook and Twitter or
re Pros FB on Instagram. If youlove our podcast and wanna make
(44:02):
sure more people find it, takethe time to rate and review us
on your favorite podcastplatform. Or if you wanna make
sure to support the podcast,you can also donate on our
website@regrowsfightback.com.
Thanks all .
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!