This article will outline the legislative history of the Global Gag Rule and will describe the key stakeholders responsible for the policy’s passage and promotion. The negative effects associated with the policy’s implementation will be discussed, as well as its implications for human rights discourse and political activism.
American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (2006) ‘U.K. to Spend $5 Million on “Global Safe Abortion Fund”’, Contemporary Sexuality40(4): 8.
2.
BunchC. (1995) ‘Transforming Human Rights from a Feminist Perspective’, in PetersJ.WolperA. (eds) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives, pp. 11–17. New York: Routledge.
3.
CampS. (1987) ‘The Impact of the Mexico City Policy on Women and Health Care in Developing Countries’, Journal of International Law and Politics20: 35–51.
4.
CarrollJ. (2005) ‘Conservative Religious Ideology, US Policy on Reproductive Services and the Impact on Women’s Health’, Science and Religion: Global Perspectives, Metanexus Institute, Philadelphia, PA.
ChariS. (2006) ‘Son of Bush or Son of God: Politics and the Religious Subaltern in the United States, from Elsewhere’, The South Atlantic Quarterly105(1): 37–54.
7.
CharlesworthH. (1994) ‘What are “Women’s International Human Rights?’’’, in CookR. (ed.) Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives, pp. 58–84. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
8.
CincottaR.CraneB. (2001) ‘The Mexico City Policy and US Family Planning Assistance’, Science’s Compass294: 252–6.
9.
CohenS. (2004) ‘US Global Reproductive Health Policy: Isolationist Approach in an Interdependent World’, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, August, pp. 7–9.
10.
CraneB. (1994) ‘The Transnational Politics of Abortion’, Population and Development Review20: 241–62.
11.
CraneB.DusenberryJ. (2004) ‘Power and Politics in International Funding for Reproductive Health: The US Global Gag Rule’, Reproductive Health Matters12(24): 128–37.
12.
CrossetteB. (2004/2005) ‘Hurting the World’s Poor in Morality’s Name’, World Policy Journal21(4): 57–62.
13.
FriedmanE. (2003) ‘Gendering the Agenda: The Impact of the Transnational Women’s Rights Movement at the UN Conferences of the 1990s’, Women’s Studies International Forum26(4): 313–31.
14.
GreenJ.SmidtC.GuthJ.KellstedtL. (2005) The American Religious Landscape and the 2004 Presidential Vote: Increased Polarization. Washington, DC: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
15.
GrewalI.KaplanC. (2001) ‘Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies7(4): 663–79.
16.
HaynesJ. (2007) An Introduction to International Relations and Religions. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
17.
HinrichsenD. (2004) ‘Ladies, You Have No Choice: How Extremists Took Over US Family Planning Policy’, World Watch17(2): 24–30.
18.
HwangA. (2002) ‘Exportable Righteousness, Expendable Women’, World Watch15(1): 24–31.
19.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, GA Res 2200 (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp (No 16) at 52, UN Doc A/6316 (1967) [hereinafter Civil and Political Covenant] (entered into force 23 March 1976).
20.
International Federation of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of Social Work (2004) ‘Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles’, General Meetings of the International Federation of Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of Social Work, Adelaide, South Australia.
21.
KeckM.SikkinkK. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
KerrJ. (2000) ‘Responding to Globalization: Can Feminists Transform Development?’, in PorterM.JuddE. (eds) Feminists Doing Development: A Practical Critique, pp. 190–205. London: Zed Books.
MarsdenL. (2008) For God’s Sake: The Christian Right and US Foreign Policy. London: Zed Books Ltd.
25.
MerryS. (2003) ‘Constructing a Global Law: Violence Against Women and the Human Rights System’, Law & Social Inquiry28(4): 941–77.
26.
MollmanM. (2004) ‘Who Can Be Held Responsible for the Consequences of Aid and Loan Conditionalities? The Global Gag Rule in Peru and Its Criminal Consequences’, Women and International Development Working Paper 279, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
27.
NeierA. (1987) ‘The Right to Free Expression Under International Law: Implications of the Mexico City Policy’, International Law and Politics20: 229–40.
28.
Population Action International (2004) ‘How the Global Gag Rule Undermines US Foreign Policy & Harms Women’s Health’, June. Available online at: www.populationaction.org.
29.
Presidential Documents (2001) ‘Memorandum of March 28, 2001 – Restoration of the Mexico City Policy’, Federal Register66(61): 17303–13.
30.
ReimannK.D. (2006) ‘A View from the Top: International Politics, Norms and the Worldwide Growth of NGOs’, International Studies Quarterly50: 45–67.
31.
RussoN.DeniousJ. (2005) ‘Controlling Birth: Science, Politics, and Public Policy’, Journal of Social Issues61(1): 181–91.
The Global Gag Rule Impact Project (2005) ‘Access Denied: US Restrictions on International Family Planning’, Global Gag Impact Project, Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.globalgagrule.org/e_ecsum.htm.
34.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, GA Res 217A (III), 3 UN GAOR (183d plen. mtg.) at 71, UN Doc A/810 (1948) [hereinafter Universal Declaration].
35.
WalbyS. (2002) ‘Feminism in a Global Era’, Economy and Society31(4): 533–57.
36.
WilcoxC. (2000) Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics, 2nd edn.Boulder, CO: Georgetown University Press.
