The health consequences of Trump's global gag order

May 19, 2017 by Maureen Miller, The Conversation
Community health workers like these visit patients’ homes in Malawi to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Credit: Baylor College of Medicine Children's Foundation–Malawi/Chris Cox, CC BY-ND

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order that media reports say could obstruct nearly US$8.8 billion the U.S. spends annually to fight deadly diseases abroad. Here, Maureen Miller, a Columbia University Medical Center professor and infectious disease epidemiologist with training in medical anthropology, answers five questions about this move, including what it has to do with abortion.

1. What's at stake?

Three of the biggest killers in the developing world are AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Currently 36.7 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, a third of the world's population is infected with tuberculosis and more than one million people die from malaria each year.

Trump's executive order endangers $6.8 billion in annual funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Former President George W. Bush created this initiative, known as PEPFAR, to help save the lives of people suffering from HIV/AIDS.

The U.S. put $1.35 billion of that money into the the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria last year. This independent organization is the largest entity dedicated to preventing and treating these diseases. The U.S., its top donor, covers half the Global Fund's operating costs, but that represents only a quarter of what our nation spends to fight these diseases internationally. Some $600 million in family planning aid is affected, as is other spending slated for .

Although I follow these issues closely, I have been unable to find a complete breakdown of the widely reported $8.8 billion affected.

Women compose 51 percent of the people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide. Since 60 percent of the people with the virus in sub-Saharan Africa are women, they may bear the brunt of this move.

2. How does the US support global efforts to fight and treat HIV/AIDS?

PEPFAR, primarily implemented through USAID, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, emphasizes improving the health of women, newborns and children. Among its biggest achievements has been integrating AIDS relief and reproductive health services, since HIV is transmitted primarily through unprotected sex.

Until now, PEPFAR has commanded broad bipartisan support, perhaps due to its well-documented success. For the first time since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the 1980s, new HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa – which accounts for almost two-thirds of all people living with HIV/AIDS – are decreasing. Former President Bush, who traveled to Botswana and Namibia in April, still champions the program.

Eunice Adhiambo, an HIV-positive Kenyan woman, and her HIV-negative daughter Jyll. Credit: Riccardo Gangale/USAID Kenya

3. How is global health aid connected to abortion?

An estimated 303,000 women, primarily in developing countries, die yearly from complications due to pregnancy, childbirth and abortion, and those are the leading causes of death among adolescent girls globally. Approximately one-third of maternal deaths could be prevented if all women had access to effective contraception.

The U.S. is the world's largest supporter of family planning and reproductive health services. It is also one of the largest purchasers and distributors of contraceptives. No federal funds have paid for abortions, however, since 1973 – either internationally or at home. All nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. support must agree to this policy.

In 1984, the Reagan administration expanded those restrictions by denying U.S. family-planning money to entities that performed abortions or promoted the practice. Subsequent Democratic presidents lifted this restriction, known either as the "Mexico City policy" or the "global gag rule," while Republican presidents reinstated it.

Trump framed his new order as "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance," but it's unlikely to reduce the number of abortions performed in poor countries. A 2011 study by Stanford University researchers found that abortion rates in sub-Saharan African countries rose when the standard restrictions were in force from 2001 to 2008.

4. How does Trump's action stray from Republican precedents?

The Trump administration has expanded the policy's reach, broadening it to encompass all foreign health care providers that receive U.S. funding rather than only those that get dollars. For example, any group that does sexual health education to prevent the spread of HIV and also informs women that abortion is legal where they live will lose their U.S. support. They would have remained eligible for that money had Trump followed the pattern set by the past three Republican administrations.

The exact repercussions are unknown. The State Department, under Rex Tillerson's leadership, plans to review the impact within six months.

5. Can other donors bridge the gaps?

It's unclear which organizations will agree to these new restrictive terms or what will happen to spending. The administration says it will redistribute funds from organizations that refuse to comply to those that will.

But those other groups may not exist. As Johnathan Rucks of the global health group PAI told The New York Times: "It's not like we have an influx of providers in places like West Africa."

Given the limited alternatives, the number of unmet health needs will surely rise, particularly for women and children. In March, other governments and private funders announced they had raised $190 million for international family planning to narrow the anticipated gap caused by the Trump administration's policies. Now, that's probably just a drop in the bucket of what will be needed.

Bill Gates, a philanthropist who with his wife Melinda gives more than $4 billion away every year, mostly to improve global and fight poverty, told The Guardian that Trump's expansion of the policy could "create a void that even a foundation like ours can't fill."

Explore further: Latest ban on U.S. global health funding ignores science, researchers say

Related Stories

Latest ban on U.S. global health funding ignores science, researchers say

February 27, 2017
In a commentary published Feb. 22 in The New England Journal of Medicine, two School of Medicine scientists make a case for lifting the ban on U.S. aid to international groups that support abortion-related activities, saying ...

Dutch call for fund to offset Trump abortion NGO move

January 25, 2017
The Netherlands on Tuesday called for an international fund to support health centres offering abortion services in developing countries, after US President Donald Trump ordered a halt to US government financing.

Trump's policy changes put women's sexual and reproductive health at risk, argues expert

March 2, 2017
Donald Trump's sexual and reproductive health policy changes threaten women in the USA and across the world, warns an expert in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care.

Canada considers contributing to Dutch abortion fund

January 27, 2017
Canada is considering contributing to a Dutch-led international fund to support abortion services in developing countries, set up in response to US President Donald Trump's order to halt financing of NGOs that support the ...

The uncalculated costs of global health insecurity

April 13, 2017
In the last decade, the United States has played a leading funder role in the preparedness and responses to global infectious outbreaks and the delivery of basic healthcare in developing countries. The proposed aid cuts in ...

At Canada conference, $13 billion sought for anti-AIDS fight

September 15, 2016
International donors gather in Montreal this weekend with a goal of raising another $13 billion for the fight to eradicate AIDS and two other major deadly diseases—tuberculosis and malaria—by 2030.

Recommended for you

Schoolchildren who use e-cigarettes are more likely to try tobacco

August 17, 2017
Vaping - or the use of e-cigarettes - is widely accepted as a safer option for people who are already smoking.

Federal snack program does not yield expected impacts, researchers find

August 17, 2017
A well-intentioned government regulation designed to offer healthier options in school vending machines has failed to instill better snacking habits in a sample of schools in Appalachian Virginia, according to a study by ...

Study shows cigarette makers shifted stance on nicotine patches, gum

August 17, 2017
The use of nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers or nasal sprays—together called "nicotine replacement therapy," or NRT—came into play in 1984 as prescription medicine, which when combined with counseling, helped ...

In a nutshell: Walnuts activate brain region involved in appetite control

August 17, 2017
Packed with nutrients linked to better health, walnuts are also thought to discourage overeating by promoting feelings of fullness. Now, in a new brain imaging study, researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) ...

Energy dense foods may increase cancer risk regardless of obesity status

August 17, 2017
Diet is believed to play a role in cancer risk. Current research shows that an estimated 30% of cancers could be prevented through nutritional modifications. While there is a proven link between obesity and certain types ...

Technology is changing Generation smartphone, and not always for the better

August 16, 2017
It's easy to imagine some graybeard long ago weighing in on how this new generation, with all its fancy wheels, missed out on the benefits of dragging stuff from place to place.

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.