Obama Good - Gag Rule

SDI ‘08
Elections Impact – Gag Rule

Obama Good – Gag Rule Impact
Shell
Obama Good – Gag Rule Impact.................................................................................................................................................. ...............1
Gag Rule 1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Gag Rule 1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Gag Rule Internal – Obama Will Lift................................................................................................................................................ ...........4
Gag Rule Internal – McCain will uphold.................................................................................................................................. ...................5
Overpopulation Impact Overview..................................................................................................................................................... ...........6
Aids 2NC......................................................................................................................................................................................... ............7
Ext – Aids Impact................................................................................................................................................................... .....................8
Democracy 2NC...................................................................................................................................................................... ....................9
Ext – Democracy Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................... ..10
Soft Power/Leadership 2NC.................................................................................................................................................................... ...11
Ext – Leadership........................................................................................................................................................................... .............12
Gag Rule Impact – Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................. ........13
Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation...................................................................................................................................................... ........15
Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation...................................................................................................................................................... ........17
Ext – US Gag Rule Key Global Restrictions....................................................................................................................................... .......18
Family Planning Solves Overpop......................................................................................................................................................... ......20
US Family Planning Assistance Solves............................................................................................................................................ ..........21
Overpop Increasing............................................................................................................................................................................ ........22
Overpopulation Impact – Nuclear War................................................................................................................................................ .......23
Overpopulation Impact – Warming.............................................................................................................................................. ..............24
Overpopulation Impact – Water Wars.................................................................................................................................. ......................25
Overpopulation Impact – Agriculture..................................................................................................................................................... ....27
Overpopulation Impact – Economy.................................................................................................................................... .......................28
Overpop = Eco Collapse............................................................................................................................................................ ................29
A2: Abortion Bad............................................................................................................................................................................... .......30
A2: Abortion Bad............................................................................................................................................................................... .......31
A2: Abortion Bad............................................................................................................................................................................... .......32
1
SDI ‘08
Gag Rule 1NC
C. Impact
1. Obama will repeal the gag rule – McCain won’t
Pollitt, 6/22/08 (Kathy, Columnist @ Nation Magazine and feminist author, CBS News,
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/opinion/main4198848.shtml)
Are there feminist Hillary Clinton supporters who hate Barack Obama so much they'll vote for John McCain just to show the Democratic Party how ticked
off they are? Yes, and I get e-mails from all five of them. Seriously, I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the
general election, but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane. Let me rephrase that:
she would have to believe that the chief — indeed the only — goal of the women's movement is to elect Clinton, not to promote women's rights. A vote for
McCain would be the ultimate face-spiting nose-cutoff. Take that, women's equality!
Not that the media will help women get it. As Eric Alterman and George Zornick exhaustively document elsewhere in this issue, the mainstream press is
doing its best to persuade us that McCain is a moderate -- barely distinguishable from Barack Obama — even on abortion rights, one of the brighter dividing
lines between the parties. In the Providence Journal five days after Clinton suspended her campaign, columnist Froma Harrop was typical: "Would McCain
stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?... The answer is unclear but probably 'no.'" After all, in 1999 he told the San Francisco Chronicle
editorial board that he "would not support repeal" of Roe because women would seek unsafe, illegal procedures. Since the Democrats will control Congress,
Harrop figures, "McCain would probably choose a cipher" rather than get bogged down in the abortion wars. This fake shrewdness, buttressed by much use
of "probably," "seems," "may" and "my guess is," has as much value as a bet by a drunk in a bar. We all have our hunches — usually they magically line up
with our wishes and preferences, in Harrop's case, her support for Clinton. By the end of the column she's castigating Obama for his "present" votes on
abortion bills in the Illinois Assembly, and by the time she's finished, you'd never know that NARAL and Planned Parenthood give Obama 100
percent ratings and McCain a big fat zero.
How antichoice is John McCain? Let's leave the psychological tea leaves out of it and look at his record. In his four years in the House,
from 1983 to 1986, he cast eleven votes on reproductive issues. Ten were antichoice. Of 119 such votes in the Senate, 115 were antichoice,
including votes for the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions and for the "gag rule," which refuses funds to clinics abroad that so much as
mention abortion. In 1999, the year he said he opposed repeal of Roe on health grounds, he voted against a bill that would have permitted servicewomen
overseas, where safe, legal abortion is often unavailable, to pay out of their own pockets for abortions in military hospitals.
2. Gag rule causes global overpopulation

San Gabriel Valley Tribune ’05 (7/11, lexis)
Our past efforts have proven very successful: Because of years of hard work by the family-planning and
reproductive- health community, total world fertility has declined from six children per woman in the
1960s to fewer than three today. But as the largest youth generation in history enters their
reproductive years, our work is far from over. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is doing
everything in its power to stifle women's rights and jeopardize the future of our planet. For four years
running, President Bush has blocked funds that Congress has appropriated to the United Nations
Population Fund [UNFPA], the largest supplier of reproductive health-care and family-planning
services worldwide. As one of his first acts in office, Bush imposed the Global Gag Rule, which restricts
foreign NGOs that receive money from the United States for family-planning services from using their
own funds to provide legal abortion services, give counseling or referrals for abortion, or petition their
own governments to liberalize restrictive abortion laws. The results of this policy were easy to predict:
Clinics are closing in Kenya, and contraceptive supplies have dried up in Ethiopia.
3. The impact is ecological extinction

Edward Otten, Professor of Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati, 2000-2001,
http://www.ecology.org/biod/population/human_pop1.html
The exponential growth of the human population, making humans the dominant species on the planet, is
having a grave impact on biodiversity. This destruction of species by humans will eventually lead to a
destruction of the human species through natural selection. While human beings have had an effect for the
last 50,000 years, it has only been since the industrial revolution that the impact has been global rather than
regional. This global impact is taking place through five primary processes: over harvesting, alien
species introduction, pollution, habitat fragmentation, and outright habit destruction.
2
SDI ‘08
Gag Rule 1NC
4. Independently, overpopulation leads to terrorism and WMD conflict
Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, faculty at Stanford University, 9-30-2006, New Scientist
Much of today's population growth is occurring in rural regions in the developing world, sparking tension
both within and between nations as increasing numbers of young people migrate to cities and to wealthier
countries looking for a better life. In the US, where large numbers of illegal immigrants enter the country in
search of work, opinions on immigration are already sharply divided. Western European nations have tended to
accept limited immigration from developing countries as a way to augment their workforce. Here too illegal
immigration is increasingly a problem, as thousands of people flee overcrowded labour markets in poor African
and Asian countries in search of jobs. In many developing countries, numbers of young
working-age people are rising by up to 3 per cent per year. Dissatisfaction is inevitable where populations of
mostly young people face high unemployment, poverty, poor healthcare, limited education, inequity and
repressive government. Revolutions and political unrest most often occur in developing nations with growing
populations. Unemployed, disaffected young men provide both public support and cannon fodder for terrorism. The majority of
terrorists behind 9/11 and attacks in Europe, for instance, have been young adult men. This is also the demographic
group responsible for most crime globally. Expanding populations also create rising demands for food, energy and materials. The strain
this puts on ecosystems and resources in developing countries is compounded by demands from industrialised
nations keen to exploit everything from timber and tropical fruits to metals and petroleum. Shortages of fresh water
are increasingly common, jeopardising food production among many other problems. Rising oil prices may now be signalling
the end of cheap energy, which also poses a threat to successful development. At the same time, mounting
evidence of global warming makes reducing fossil-fuel use imperative. If the 5 billion-plus people in developing nations
matched the consumption patterns of the 1.2 billion in the industrialized world, at least two more Earths would be needed to
support everyone. Politicians and the public seem utterly oblivious to what will be required to maintain crucial
ecosystem services and an adequate food supply in the face of rapid climate change and an accelerated loss
of biodiversity. The future looks grim, unless patterns of consumption change - with rich nations causing less
environmental damage and poor ones consuming more, but adopting the newest, cleanest and most efficient
technologies for energy use and production of goods and services. It seems likely that by 2050 nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of most nations and many subnational groups. Imagine a well-
armed world, still split between rich and poor, with unevenly distributed resources and a ravaged environment. Unless we act now,
future generations will not have to imagine.
3
SDI ‘08
Gag Rule Internal – Obama Will Lift
Obama Will Overturn Gag Rule
Lynch, ’07 (andrea, Reproductive Health Reality Check, 12/7,
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire)
Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice
groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood
of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked
hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health.
And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South
Dakota. And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned
Parenthood clinic in Aurora.
Cont….
If elected president, would Sen. Obama overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?
Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA.
Obama would yank the gag rule – he co-sponsored the Senate’s attempt to overturn it.
Carpenter ’07 (Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com. Townhall.com – Sept 7th – available via
http://www.genderhealth.org/pubs/SenateForeignOpsPressCoverage_07.pdf)
Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D.-Calif.) amendment to a foreign aid spending bill to repeal what is known as the “Mexico City Policy” passed 53-
41 Thursday evening. The final bill passed 81-12 later that night.
The “Mexico City Policy” forbids nongovernmental organizations from performing or promoting abortion for family planning purposes as
a condition to receive U.S. federal money. The policy was originally
enacted by President Ronald Reagan during the 1984 United Nations International Conference in Mexico
City. It permits non-governmental organizations to provide abortion in cases of rape, incest or to preserve
the life of the mother, but does not approve of abortion as method of contraception. President Bill Clinton
suspended the policy during his term and President Bush reinstated it in 2001.
Boxer’s amendment attracted twelve cosponsors, including two Republicans senators--Olympia Snowe
(Maine) and Susan Collins (Maine). Three Democratic senators campaigning for their party’s nomination
for president also cosponsored Boxer’s amendment: Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Chris Dodd (Conn.) and
Barack Obama (Ill.).
4
SDI ‘08
Gag Rule Internal – McCain will uphold
McCain will uphold it
Blumner, 3/9/08 (Robyn, Columnist @ St Petersburg Times, lexis)
Sen. John McCain wants people to know that he is a true conservative. The right flank of his party, particularly blowhards like Rush
Limbaugh, want to paint McCain as a closet pinko because he only has an 82 percent rating with the American Conservative Union. But
McCain insists that his conservative credentials speak for themselves.
Believe him. They do.
What scares me most about McCain, beyond our 100-year presence in Iraq, his itchy trigger finger relative to other foes, and his
enthusiasm for tax cuts for the rich, is his fiercely conservative record on women's reproductive freedom. Here, there is no moderate
McCain or reach-across-the-aisle McCain. On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological
as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic.
You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case
to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for
substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's
now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality.
The next president will be the decider on whether women's emancipation from the slavery of the womb will continue in this country. We
are on the cusp of losing the right to control our bodies and determine our family size. McCain promises as much.
Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary, for
example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won
over only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote.
But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly reiterates
that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he wants
to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unborn."
In accordance with these views, McCain promises to "nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will overturn Roe if given
half a chance."
McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of slaves. This is the
policy that bars foreign family planning organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises clients on abortion as an
option or advocates for legal abortion - even when using their own funds. We know that population control and family planning is the only
way for Third World nations to advance, yet the United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck of the most effective
groups.
5
SDI ‘08
Overpopulation Impact Overview
The Disad Outweighs
1. magnitude – we access extinction through environment, terrorism and global WMD
conflict – and our Ehrlich evidence says overpopulation makes all other conflicts more
likely and worse – magnifying every 1ac impact
2. Overpopulation is the single most probable way for extinction to come about.
J. Anthony Cassils, with the Population Institute of Canada, January 2004, Population and Environment,
p. 172-173
Nothing threatens the future of our species as much as overpopulation. Yet the very mention of this issue
sends chills through the spines of many special interests who refuse to recognize our collective
dilemma. Some poor nations with exploding populations charge racism, colonialism, imperialism,
and demand aid, but do not deal with their overpopulation, deteriorating environment, and
corruption. Feminists might ascribe blame to patriarchy, racism, and lack of rights for women.
Human rights advocates might uphold the principle that each woman should have the right to
determine how many children she bears. Most religions prefer to see human population increase,
basing this view on ancient teachings created for another time and very different circumstances.
Each one of these groups tries to define the world through their own specific special interest, losing
the overall perspective. The denial of the crucial importance of this issue is astounding. It is as if most people
are saying: “Do not disturb our comfort, do not increase our anxiety by raising difficulties, do not
make us rethink our beliefs.” It is time to tone down the squabbles and to develop a comprehensive
strategy to address overpopulation. We humans have the intelligence and consciousness to deal
with this serious problem, but, all too often, we delay acting until we find ourselves in the midst of a
catastrophe. This paper favours “the precautionary principle” and the belief that it is in the general
interest of humanity to act with anticipatory intelligence to avert potential disasters. THE ISSUE
Each of the subjects mentioned in the title—population, sustainable development and security—
have received considerable publicity in recent decades. All too often, they have been treated as
disparate subjects when they are, in fact, very much interconnected. This paper accepts the
following premises: • overpopulation is the chief cause of ongoing ecological damage • overpopulation is the
fundamental cause of growing insecurity • overpopulation is the prime reason that sustainable development
remains beyond reach. As population increased rapidly in the twentieth century, some eminent
scientists alerted the public about the likely consequences to the health of all life on Earth. Rising
consumption and the development of ever more powerful technologies magnify the negative impact of overpopulation
on the biosphere. Given the huge benefits that would result from population reduction, one wonders
why the issue has not been dealt with more effectively. If we humans reduce the global population
to a fraction of its present level to, for example, two billion1 or the equivalent of the population of
the Earth about 1930, it would provide extraordinary benefits. The quality of life of all people would
soar. We would have all the advantages of modern technology but little, if any, environmental
deterioration.
3. Disad turns the case

(insert from laundry list)
4. Obama solves the aff

(Insert)
6
SDI ‘08
Aids 2NC
The gag rule cripples AIDS prevention

Dina Bogecho, former Research Associate at Population Action International and Melissa Upreti, Legal
Advisor for Asia at the Center for Reproductive Rights, 2006, Health and Human Rights, (9)1, p. 21
By crippling the countries primary reproductive health care providers, the Gag Rule has also
undermined HIV/AIDS prevention efforts in Kenya. Given that HIV/AIDS is primarily transmitted via
heterosexual sex, a crucial link exists between HIV/AIDS and basic sexual and reproductive health
care, and family planning providers can thus play a key role in HIV prevention. Unfortunately, by
losing theses financial resources, Kenya’s leading family planning organizations have been severely
restricted in their abilities to provide VCT and other HIV prevention services at their clinics.
AIDS threatens human extinction

Michael Kibaara Muchiri, Ministry of Education in Nairobi, Kenya, 3/6/2000,
Statistics show that AIDS is the leading killer in sub-Saharan Africa, surpassing people killed in warfare. In
1998, 200,000 people died from armed conflicts compared to 2.2 million from AIDS. Some 33.6 million people
have HIV around the world, 70 percent of them in Africa, thereby robbing countries of their most
productive members and decimating entire villages. About 13 million of the 16 million people who
have died of AIDS are in Africa, according to the UN. What barometer is used to proclaim a
holocaust if this number is not a sure measure? There is no doubt that AIDS is the most serious threat to
humankind, more serious than hurricanes, earthquakes, economic crises, capital crashes or floods. It
has no cure yet. We are watching a whole continent degenerate into ghostly skeletons that finally
succumb to a most excruciating, dehumanizing death. Gore said that his new initiative, if approved
by the U.S. Congress, would bring U.S. contributions to fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases
to $ 325 million. Does this mean that the UN Security Council and the U.S. in particular have at last
decided to remember Africa? Suddenly, AIDS was seen as threat to world peace, and Gore would
ask the congress to set up millions of dollars on this case. The hope is that Gore does not intend to
make political capital out of this by painting the usually disagreeable Republican-controlled
Congress as the bad guy and hope the buck stops on the whole of current and future U.S.
governments' conscience. Maybe there is nothing left to salvage in Africa after all and this talk is
about the African-American vote in November's U.S. presidential vote. Although the UN and the
Security Council cannot solve all African problems, the AIDS challenge is a fundamental one in that
it threatens to wipe out man. The challenge is not one of a single continent alone because Africa cannot be
quarantined. The trouble is that AIDS has no cure -- and thus even the West has stakes in the AIDS
challenge. Once sub- Saharan Africa is wiped out, it shall not be long before another continent is on the brink of
extinction. Sure as death, Africa's time has run out, signaling the beginning of the end of the black race and maybe the
human race.
7
SDI ‘08
Ext – Aids Impact
( ) The gag rule destroys AIDS prevention programs
Susan A. Cohen, Director of Government Affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, June 2001.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/3/gr040301.html
Finally, since the 1980s, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has taken hold, especially in southern Africa, where
55% of new infections occur among women and where the disease is spreading most rapidly among
the young. In countries such as South Africa, where HIV/AIDS prevention and family planning assistance are
programmed in an integrated way to maximize their ability to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy (often among those who are already HIV-
positive), the gag rule inevitably will undermine both efforts. Planned Parenthood Association of South Africa
(PPASA), for example, stands to lose one-quarter of its funding, merely because it offers counseling and referral for
legal abortion. "We give people [information about their] choices," says PPASA head Motsomi Aubrey
Senne; "One of those choices is abortion."
( ) The gag rule guts AIDS treatment programs
Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, 5-4-2003, Catholic News Times, p. 10.
The State Department recently floated a proposal to apply the infamous "Mexico City policy" to all
organizations that get the new AIDS initiative funding. That policy, a global gag rule imposed by
President Reagan, lifted by President Clinton, and reinstated by President Bush on his first day in
office, bars funding to family planning groups that provide abortion counseling, referrals, and
services or that lobby on abortion rights, even if they do it with their own money. The gag rule has
never applied to HIV/AIDS assistance. Yet the administration tried to portray this move as somehow a
"compromise" that merely requires family planning groups to separate their work fighting HIV/AIDS from
everything else they do. But the two are inseparable, and every responsible international family planning program
has been integrating them for years. Family planning and fighting HIV/AIDS are not just about handing out
contraceptives. Central elements in both are education on reproductive health care, safe sexual practices, and pre-
and postnatal care for mothers and their babies. Effective programs in both promote a woman's right to decide
the number and spacing of her children, because AIDS is spreading most rapidly where young girls have no power to
negotiate the terms of sex with older men, or where women cannot insist on condoms or fidelity from their
partners for fear of violence. Women are also the chief caretakers of other AIDS victims and their orphans.
Often they are forced out of work and school and into poverty. Bush's initiative promises medicines,
condoms, and care for the sick, but it makes no reference to addressing women's needs. On the
contrary, the initiative would expect women to visit separate facilities for family planning and for HIV/AIDS
education and services. Where AIDS victims are stigmatized, many who are now treated quietly at family planning
clinics would be forced either to go public or go without assistance. The initiative would force perennially short-
funded, nongovernmental groups with proven track records of success against AIDS to set up separate buildings and
bookkeeping systems and perhaps double their staffs and equipment in order to continue. In many poor
countries where U.S.-funded family planning clinics are the only health care providers within miles,
this simply will not happen.
8
SDI ‘08
Democracy 2NC
The gag rule destroys democratization
Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program at
Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003,
Breaking the Silence, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, p. 15
It has long been recognized that democratic governance is a fundamental prerequisite for a just and stable world. According
to democracy experts, a functioning democracy “must provide for a rule of law, and rigorously protect the right of
individuals and groups to speak, publish, assemble, demonstrate, lobby, and organize to pursue their interests and
passions.” Without a robust and active civil society, a democratic government cannot respond to its citizenry. NGOs
play an invaluable role in building a structured dialogue between citizens and governments. They contribute
information and ideas, advocate more effectively for change, bring individuals with common interests together to
petition their government, and generally increase government accountability and legitimacy. The gag rule, however,
precludes NGOs from using their own funds to access key forums such as par- liaments, executive branch officials and
the public, and prevents them from addressing the root causes of unsafe abortion by putting it on the political and social
agenda. Each of the four countries under study is a young democracy that struggles with low public confidence in the
political process, untested democratic institutions, shaky traditions of open and informed debates, and limited legal reform.
Civil society organizations in these emerging democracies require support from outside donors, such as USAID, to foment
open, informed debates between political branches and civil society organizations on the frontlines of democratic reform.
Instead, the gag rule forbids NGOs from participating in their own country’s democracy and also encourages
governments to act in an authoritarian manner. USAID gives funding to build capacity for civil society to provide the necessary friction with the
government, to make sure it is there, to see how civil society can work with parliament. The hypocrisy of USAID fund ing to build civil society—but not some issues
such as abortion—is troubling. NGO, Uganda The irony is that America spearheaded the “informed choices” project. It is a project that is trying to com- pile information
on how women make their own choices on reproductive health. Cooperating Agency, Kenya In Peru, the recent fall of the repressive regime of President Alberto
Fujimori signaled the potential for a new era of democracy. However, Peruvian women’s rights activists point out that the global gag rule strengthens the con-
servative and repressive agenda of reproductive rights opponents in the government. We had a democracy tide but the current conservative approach of USAID and
the [then] Minister of Health goes against democracy. This conservatism is not strictly about reproductive health issues. It limits participation of citizens in making
their own decisions, private ones and those related to the state. This approach goes against what started with the fall of Fujimori. NGO, Peru Democracy was
constitutionally established in Ethiopia in the early 1990s, following decades of repressive military rule that brutal- ized any opposition and independent civic
organizing. The subsequent development of civil society organizations in the country has been new and volatile. Most local NGOs are consumed by the struggle to
survive and to provide services. For example, one of Ethiopia’s primary reproductive health providers, which lost a substantial portion of its funding by refusing to be
gagged, has downgraded advocacy activities to keep its services and programs operational. In Ethiopia, NGOs and civil society are still emerging and depend on
donors, especially the U.S. NGOs are the agents of change. The health conditions and the conditions of women in Ethiopia are terrible, and these agents of change
government officials often look to the U.S. as
cannot speak out on a variety of issues. International Donor, Ethiopia Several respondents said that
a positive model for development and democratization. The global gag rule signals that the U.S., a presumed beacon of
progress, is questioning the appropriateness of safe and legal abortion. People see the U.S. as a role model on free speech
and democracy. If they see that the role model is taking an action, people will think that they are doing that action for a
good intention, that there has to be a reason, and that it should be emulated. The global gag rule will put big questions in
peoples’ minds. They will ask, why would a poor country try to advocate while big states are taking a big step backward? These questions have been especially
asked by policymakers who are informed. International NGO, Ethiopia
( ) Democracy checks extinction
Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December 1995, Promoting Democracy in the
1990s, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist
aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates
Nuclear, chemical, and
that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones.
biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly
endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the
weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern
themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors
to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own
populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one
another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form
more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for
investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to
protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes
it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the
rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
9
SDI ‘08
Ext – Democracy Impact
( ) Repealing the gag rule is key to effective US democracy promotion
Neier 01. (Aryeh, founder and former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, and president of the Open
Society Institute, “Mexico City Policy: Effects of Restrictions”, FDCH Congressional Testimony, July 19, lexis)
In over 38 years of experience in the human rights field, the Global Gag Rule is the only time I have
encountered U.S. censorship of speech promoting law reform through democratic processes. The entire human rights
movement relies on the ability of NGOs to gather information and speak without
impediment and to associate freely with foreign NGOs to increase the effectiveness of their
speech and advocacy. This law reform gag not only irreparably damages the association, free
speech, and political advocacy rights of international human rights advocates, but causes
continuing irreparable injury to the American public. Impeding the information gathering and freedom
of expression of human rights advocates sends a message worldwide that we are willing to
diminish First Amendment protections for political ends and undermines the commitment of the
United States to free dissemination of information and democratic values worldwide.
( ) The gag rule undermines US democracy promotion
Priscilla Smith et al, acting director of Center for Reproductive Law and Policy’s Domestic Program, Human
Rights Magazine, Summer 2002, http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer02/smith.html
The global gag rule erects barriers to the development of the democratic process in other countries, the promotion
of civil society and development of FNGOs abroad, and the enhancement of women’s equality and
participation in the political process. The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), 22 U.S.C.A. § 2304(a)(1), states
that "a principal goal of the United States" is to "promote the increased observance of internationally recognized
human rights by all countries." Surely this includes the fundamental rights to free speech and democratic
participation, internationally protected human rights championed by the United States. Despite the
robust public debate on abortion in our own country, the Bush administration is repressing public discourse
on abortion in other countries. This amounts to undercutting the bedrock foreign policy principles of encouraging
democratic participation and the use of the public forum to resolve divisive issues. United States development
assistance has long supported the involvement of FNGOs to resolve development challenges and
help create self-sustaining societies. In particular, the FAA requires the United States to support the
enhancement of women’s status and democratic participation in civil society. The global gag rule
disproportionately impacts women and women’s groups, many of which receive funding from USAID
for projects related to reproductive healthcare, maternal and child survival, and voluntary family
planning. These groups, as the "front line" of the women’s health movement, observe firsthand the
effects of illegal, unsafe abortion and are often called on to participate in their countries’
deliberations about abortion law reform. The United States cannot have it both ways—supporting
women with one hand and silencing them with the other.
10
SDI ‘08
Soft Power/Leadership 2NC
Generous family planning assistance is key to US soft power and global stability
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, US Army, Retired and Daniel Deneisch, 3-16-2006,
http://www.greenwood.com/psi/online_news.aspx
There are policies which help states through this unstable stage of demographic transition, and move to the
next, less danger stages. The policies most needed are those which help reduce fertility. The first is family
planning services. It is essential that women have access to services that allow them to control
their fertility. Next is the economic development of women. The greater a woman's ability to earn
money and contribute to the household’s wellbeing, the more control she will have over her own
reproduction. Education of girls is very significant since girls receiving education are less likely to be
married off by their families at a young age and therefore are more likely to economically powerful
women. The next is the prevention of HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS pandemic contributes to the stage in
which there is a youth bulge which is prolonged not only by high birth rates, but high death rates.
Societal pressures are increased as the trained professionals a society depends upon (doctors,
government leaders, soldiers) succumb to the disease. The new global reality requires a shift in the
way the US conducts foreign policy A fundamental shift in the way we deal with the rest of the
world is required in the current global political climate. No longer can US unilateralism (the attitude
of "we're the only super power and we know we're right and we do not care what the rest of the
world thinks; we can do what we want.") be the guiding principle of our foreign policy. Dr. Joseph
Nye, Jr. provides an alternative, "Soft Power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than
coercion or payments. Soft power rises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals
and policies."4 It is important not to dismiss this as just mere popularity; there are real political
consequences if we do not find a better way to present us policy to the world. Strong anti-American
feelings in a country inhibit the ability of other governments to cooperate with American goals be
fear of losing power. A shift toward the soft power approach will change the international political environment
and will go a long way toward undoing much of the damage to America moral leadership. Why this is Necessary
Defeating or preventing threats to US national security will not only take the best efforts of the United
States, but the enthusiastic cooperation of the vast majority nations around the world. Further these threats are
nontraditional ones such as: terrorism, non-state actors, regional challengers, WMD proliferation, cyber-
criminals, AIDS pandemic. These are best resolved by promoting policies in atrisk countries through the early stage of
demographic transition: family planning services, economic development of women, education of girls
and HIV/AIDS prevention programs. Our future security rests on the people of foreign countries trusting in
our good intentions, seeing us in a positive light and believing that our goals are compatible with their
goals. It is a matter of what works in today’s world and it is in our best interest as a global leader.
Global Nuclear Exchange

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the
rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best
long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because
a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free
markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and
low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the
United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a
global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
11
SDI ‘08
Ext – Leadership
( ) Family planning initiatives would dispel hypocritical US image
Goldfarb 03. (Tobey E., J.D. from California Western, “Abstinence Breeds Contempt: Why the U.S.
Policy on Foreign Assistance for Family Planning is Cause for Concern”, California Western
International Law Journal, 33 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 345, Spring, lexis)
The evolution of United States involvement in international family planning programs, rooted in global population
concerns, has yielded an international political forum for the domestic abortion debate.n190 Private interest
groups have been able to impact foreign policy decisions to a degree that would be unconstitutional
in domestic matters. n191 The recent decisions that have resulted from such influence actually undermine
broader strategic goals of the United States. n192 Furthermore, if the decisions do serve a legitimate
foreign policy purpose, the legal rationale for not contributing to the UNFPA would also prevent U.S.
contribution to other international efforts, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and USAID
itself because of their similarly attenuated funding of abortion related activities. n193 There is
increasing concern in the international community over the current Bush Administration's aggressive exercises in
unilateralism.n194 The United States could make concessions and reconsiderations on the international family
planning issue that could help to dispel this concern. The resulting long-term strategic benefit that would result from
renewed trust in the United States and its international reputation is far more appropriate and would outweigh
any short-term domestic political backlash.
( ) Family planning foreign assistance is key to US soft power
Meaghan Parker, Writer/Editor , Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson
Center, Spring 2004, PECS News,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id
=53303
Soft Power Like Engelman, Cincotta believes that foreign assistance programs that encourage progress
through the demographic transition are part of the “soft power” the United States can use to improve
security. “At PAI, we believe that if policymakers more fully understand the demographic transition,
and if they can grasp the strategic implications of what we call the security demographic, those who
drive
our foreign policies could grow to appreciate just how powerful focused ‘soft power’ actually can be.”
( ) Gag Rule Jacks US Leadership
Center for Reproductive Rights, October 2002, Zwerver= a “Dutch Senator,”

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_europerspectivesggr.pdf, p. 6
The United States has supported international family planning and population assistance since the
1960s.
Senator Zwerver pointed out that: The United States has been a leader in family planning assistance. The
United States was one of the first countries to provide family planning assistance to poor countries.
Tens of millions of people around the globe use family planning as a direct result of United States assistance, and
many millions more have benefited indirectly from improvements in services resulting from American advice and
inno- vations. I would say this is something the United States can really be proud of. But it is also
something one cannot take for granted. The United States has spent the past 40 years helping provide
international development assistance and services where they are needed most, building a strong
global reputation for promoting and defending the principles of free speech, women’s equality and repro-
ductive health. Yet the global gag rule undermines those very achievements. As Senator Zwerver noted, "the
global gag rule is destroying your good reputation."
12
SDI ‘08
Gag Rule Impact – Terrorism
Family planning solves terrorism
Bishop 04. (Kaci, Immigration attorney with the NC Justice Center, “Politics Before Policy:
The Bush
Administration, International Family Planning, and Foreign Policy”, North Carolina Journal of
International Law & Commercial Regulation, 29 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 521, Spring, lexis)
Since September 11, 2001, combating global terrorism has been one of the most primary, if not the most primary,
pieces of
President Bush's foreign policy, but his actions against international family planning programs and
the women who
benefit from these programs may hinder his work to protect national security. President Bush has said:
Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed [*570] dramatically.
Enemies in the past needed
great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less
than it costs to purchase a
single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.
To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal - military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to
cut off terrorist financing.
291
But it seems that the Bush Administration is sabotaging one of the tools in its arsenal by cutting funding and support to
family planning programs internationally. "While we may be able to secure our borders militarily, the
United
States is neglecting one of the surest, most cost-effective means of protecting our nation: reducing
poverty,
ignorance, suffering, and despair in volatile nations." In March 2002, at the United Nations Financing for Development Conference,
292
many countries,
including the United States, linked terrorism to poverty, advocating that "poverty in all its forms is the greatest
293
single threat
to peace, democracy, human rights and the environment... It is a time-bomb against the heart of liberty." As 294
discussed above, one of the ways to reduce [*571] poverty is through promoting and providing family
planning services. 295
Thus, it follows that one of the tools in the Bush Administration's arsenal is to promote family planning rather than set out policies that discourage it.296
There is some dispute, however, as to whether terrorism does arise out of poverty. Indeed, the United States has backed away from believing that there is a direct
connection. Rather,
297
poverty may be a way of recruiting people to join a terrorist group, but poverty does not cause terrorism. Moreover, some
298
analysts have said not only

that poverty does not cause terrorism, but also that poverty is not a recruitment tool. "Terrorists draw their support and their human ammunition not from the most
299
impoverished, illiterate in
their societies, but from the educated and (relatively) well-off." But while these same analysts do not suggest that reducing poverty would necessarily reduce
300
terrorism, they do suggest that

terrorists come from countries where there is "a lack of political freedom, the repression of women, and a
dramatic isolation
from creative ideas and culture." Thus,
301 focusing on improving the status and rights of women would help to meet the Bush Administration's
goal of
combating terrorism, and an easy and cost-effective method for doing so is to focus efforts on family planning
and reproductive programs and services in the developing world.
Mexico City Policy undercuts cooperation on terrorism and trade

Goldfarb 03. (Tobey E., J.D. from California Western, “Abstinence Breeds Contempt: Why the
U.S.
Policy on Foreign Assistance for Family Planning is Cause for Concern”, California Western
International Law Journal, 33 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 345, Spring, lexis)
There are several International Agreements that may be violated by a U.S. refusal to fund the
UNFPA.n206 Most directly on
point is the ICPD Programme [*366] of Action.n207 In light of U.S. support of the Conference, it is no longer appropriate for the U.S. to advocate for the Marxist-
set
Leninist approach
forth in the Mexico City Policy, which characterizes population growth as a neutral phenomenon. n208 The Programme of Action clearly recognizes
the relationship
between population growth and underdevelopment. n209 The goals set forth therein: to provide universal access to health and primary education; reduce maternal
mortality and HIV/AIDS; and
advance gender equality, seek to remedy the adverse effects of this relationship. n210 The Programme of Action also articulated "three essential principles of
reproductive rights": the right to
freely decide the number and spacing of children; the rights to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health; and the right to make decisions
concerning reproduction free of
coercion, discrimination, or violence. n211 The U.S. claims continued support of those goals. n212
13
SDI ‘08
at the international
Since the agreement is not self-executing, it does not, on its own, create any enforceable rights at the domestic level.n213 However,
level, it seems
hypocritical that the United States played a pivotal role in the drafting of the goals and agreements, only
to then discredit
the International agency that has undertaken a course towards their achievement.
President Bush claims to be "committed to helping the U.N. to advance human rights, healthcare, security, and education throughout the world," and has even gone
so far as to proclaim October
24, 2002 United Nations Day.n214 The U.S. praises the recent creation of a U.N. program on HIV/AIDS. n215 [*367] This program brings together the resources of
several other U.N.
programs, including UNFPA.n216
The Bush Administration's insistence on unilateralism undercuts U.S. sincerity and credibility in the eyes of
the
international community. The perceived insincerity is then a threat to national security. Countries that
depend on
UNFPA services and other U.S. funding resources could be allies in fighting terror or mutually beneficial trade
agreements.
Instead, recent decisions have caused skepticism and distrust of the American agenda.
14
SDI ‘08
Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation
The gag rule crushes effective family planning assistance
Sue Idtensohn, president/CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, 2-18-05, Orlando Sentinel,
p. A26
First imposed in 1984 by the Reagan administration and reinstated by President George W. Bush
four years
ago, the Mexico City Policy prohibits the U.S. government from providing foreign aid and supplies to
family-planning organizations overseas that engage in any activity that could be construed (according
to arbitrary U.S. guidelines) as being abortion-related, including counseling or referral. The policy was
purportedly designed to reduce the incidence of abortion, yet there is no evidence that such a
reduction has
occurred. Also known as the Global Gag Rule, the policy has closed scores of clinics in some of the
world's poorest countries and drastically impaired other clinics' abilities to maintain adequate levels of
staffing/supplies, including condoms needed for HIV prevention. In Africa, for example, there are only
enough condoms for every adult male to receive four condoms per year. Here at home, Florida's
teenage
pregnancy rate ranks sixth nationally, and, as nearly 80 percent of teen mothers go on welfare,
stopping the
teen pregnancy cycle is crucial. According to two studies in AGI's Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive
Health, individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 account for 50 percent of all new cases of
sexually
transmitted diseases in 2000. We must recognize that the problems we face locally are also
occurring
globally but on a much larger scale. Roughly one-sixth of the world's population lives in
environmentally
fragile hot spots where the unmet need for family planning is often highest, and that population is
growing
nearly 40 percent faster than the world as a whole. The largest generation of young adults in history (more
than 1.3 billion) is entering its reproductive years, and the number of people facing critical fresh water
and crop-land scarcity worldwide is rising rapidly. We must engage our community and encourage our
elected officials to help the United States keep its promise to support family planning and reproductive
health-care services -- for women, for children, for the planet.
The gag rule guts the effectiveness of family planning

Barbara B Cranea, Executive Vice President, Ipas and Jennifer Dusenberry, Research Assistant,
Population
Action International, November 2004, Reproductive Health Matters
Soon after the Gag Rule was reinstated, the Global Gag Rule Impact Project, a group of organisations under the leadership of
Population
Action International (PAI), came together to document its effects at country level. Beginning in 2002, PAI, Ipas and Planned
Parenthood
Federation of America conducted research with assistance in gathering evidence in the field from Engender Health and
Pathfinder
International.[ 19 ] The resulting case studies and other documentation entitled Access Denied: US Restrictions on
International Family Planning describe the damage of the Gag Rule, focusing on Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia and Romania.
The findings corroborate evidence that others have assembled for these and other countries.[ 20, 21 ] Access Denied gave
particular attention to the effect on established family planning organisations in Kenya, Ethiopia and Zambia. Some of these
organisations were forced to close clinics, terminate staff and cut both family planning and prevention
and treatment services for STIs and HIV/AIDS, maternal health and well-baby care, sexual health education, and youth
outreach
programmes. The Gag Rule also led to the termination of all US contraceptive supply shipments to leading
family planning organisations in 29 countries. In the absence of alternatives, women who relied on these services
must certainly have suffered more unwanted pregnancies and more unsafe abortions, although the impact is
difficult to quantify. Defenders of the Gag Rule have suggested that when NGO family planning service
15
SDI ‘08
providers, such as IPPF member associations, reject the Gag Rule and turn down USAID family planning funds,
USAID can turn to other NGOs who will provide the necessary contraceptive services while complying with the Gag Rule.
However, the evidence from Access Denied suggests that these other NGOs may be less effective and
experienced as service providers, and may not reach the same geographic areas. In some instances, USAID
funds are being shifted to public sector facilities that tend to provide less user-oriented services than NGOs. In Romania,
where legal
abortion has been the major means of fertility regulation for many women, the Gag Rule contributed to the separation of
contraceptive
services from abortion-related services. This effectively reduced the opportunity to promote post-abortion contraceptive
information and
services, again probably contributing to more rather than fewer abortions.[19.] The Gag Rule has also had indirect and
unintended
effects. Uncertainty about what is permitted and the desire to avoid controversy has often resulted in over-interpretation of
its restrictions
and avoidance even of permitted activities by both US and developing country NGOs and USAID staff. Many NGOs, fearful of
losing
their US funding, have unnecessarily interpreted the policy to restrict other potentially controversial activities as well. One
media
organisation in Zambia, for example, eliminated a chapter on emergency contraception from a brochure it produced on
contraceptive
options.
16
SDI ‘08
Ext – Gag Rule = Overpopulation
The gag rule crushes the effectiveness of reproductive health provision
Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program
at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003,
The global gag rule has shut down programs that provide family planning, HIV/AIDS and other
reproductive health care—effectively undermining services, such as those outlined below, that it is not
supposed to affect. Although the global gag rule permits both emergency contraception (EC) and postabortion
care, it has curtailed initiatives to increase women’s access to these services. Often NGO
representatives and health-care professionals are not aware of the exceptions included in the global gag
rule, or they feel pressured to avoid all activities that may be associated with abortion.
The gag rule undermines provision of family planning assistance

Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program
at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 2003,
The global gag rule has severely disrupted, and in some cases halted, key family planning programs that service
low-income communities in Ethiopia, Kenyaand Uganda. For example, a major family planning provider in Kenya
lost substantial funding when the global gag rule was reinstated. Because the provider refused to be subjected to the
gag rule, it was forced to close clinics and lay off staff as a result. [One major reproductive health organization’s] clinics not only
provided family planning but other reproductive health services such as STI management, well-baby care and immunization. With the
closure of these clinics, services are no longer available to communities. NGO, Kenya Because of the global gag rule, reproductive
rights are being violated as women are not getting access to family planning. International NGO, Kenya In Kenya, cooperating agencies
have been unable to work with local organizations that are leading providers of reproductive health services. We cannot provide
population funds to [two major reproductive health organizations in Kenya], one of which was going to play a significant role in the
provision
of long-term and permanent family planning methods to women in rural areas. The cost of trans- port to a service provider is
prohibitive. Women in their late 30s with many children are at risk of maternal mortality and morbidity because they can’t access family
planning. Because of the gag rule, we have to look for alternative partners. We haven’t been able to find any. Cooperating Agency,
Kenya The impact of the global gag rule is huge. It has wiped out partners. Now [a USAID reproductive health project]
can’t work with [a major reproductive health organization], and yet another is struggling because of the global gag rule. It is obvious that
it doesn’t work. The gag rule is creating a bigger problem and it is doing more harm than good. Cooperating Agency, Kenya The cost of
providing family planning services is extremely low relative to the benefits. Studies in several countries show that for every dollar
invested in family planning, governments save as much as $16 in reduced expenditures in health,
education and social services. As USAID notes, this is especially relevant in low-income countries struggling to pay for health
services.42 A Peruvian NGO lamented the impact of the gag rule on reproductive health service provision: I think family planning
services have been affected, in the sense that several organizations have not signed, and have stopped receiving U.S. funds and that
means that certain sectors no longer receive care. NGO, Peru
17
SDI ‘08
Ext – US Gag Rule Key Global Restrictions
( ) US gag rule key to global restrictions on abortion.
Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship
Program at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law
and Policy, 2003,
The most effective way to reduce unsafe abortion is to ensure that safe abortion services are both legal
and accessible. Respondents in all four countries lamented that policymakers often hide behind the global gag rule to
justify their inaction on law and policy reforms meant to address unsafe abortion. With some key civil society groups
silenced, any progress toward the adoption of a locally responsive, socially responsible health agenda is
severely impeded. Abortion complications are the easiest to prevent. But we cannot work to prevent them with the global
gag rule.
Now how can we work to avoid unsafe abortion? It is the issue that contributes to the most mortality. NGO, Kenya The global
gag rule adds support to those supporting the restrictive law—it gives them another reason to oppose liberalization. The
global gag rule will impact the liberalization of the law because the government makes the policy and it closely watches
U.S. policy. NGO, Ethiopia We will not be involved in the law reform efforts in Ethiopia because of USAID, because the U.S.
government does not allow it. I will feel fine about attending meetings but I will be unable to speak up. I can be there as a
silent observer. Cooperating Agency, Ethiopia The gag rule’s silencing of reproductive rights advocates has been
particularly damaging when highly restrictive abortion laws are under consideration and actively supported by
opponents of women’s rights. In Peru, for example, a constitutional clause largely prohibiting abortion has recently been
considered.
But the gag rule stifled the much needed, informed and balanced debate on this prohibition. It gave free reign to opponents
of women’s rights and sidelined gagged NGOs too intimidated to speak up about the ban. This conservative group in the
government is aware of the fact that the gag rule exists, and what they can use it for. International Donor, Peru 350,000
clandestine abortions a year, that’s the problem. So how do I think this global gag rule affects that? Well, in the sense that
there are institutions that cannot even discuss this problem and eventually propose legal reforms that might contribute to
solve the problem. Government Official, Peru
( ) The gag rule undermines movements to reform restrictive abortion laws

Ipas, October 2003, “Myths and Realities: Debunking USAID’s Analysis of the Global Gag Rule,” (Ipas= a
nonprofit organization that “works globally to increase women's ability to exercise their sexual and
reproductive rights,”), http://www.ipas.org/publications/en/GGRMYTH_E03_en.pdf
MYTH: “Few organizations have a history of lobbying for change in the legal status of abortion.”
REALITY:
NGOs in at least twenty countries affected by the global gag rule have recently attempted to reform
abortion laws. During a study conducted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, local NGOs lamented that
policy makers often cite the global gag rule as an obstacle to their support for law and policy reforms meant to
address unsafe abortion. With key civil society groups silenced, any progress toward the adoption of a locally
responsive, socially responsible public health agenda is severely impeded:
Abortion complications are the easiest to prevent. But we cannot work to prevent them with the
global gag
rule. Now how can we work to avoid unsafe abortion? It is the issue that contributes to the most
mortality.
NGO, Kenya
( ) US standards are modeled globally.

Senator Olympia Snowe, 7-19-01, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:75604.wais
The real issue before us today is often referred to as the ``Mexico City Policy'' because it was at the
1984
U.N. Population Conference in Mexico City that the Reagan Administration adopted this policy.
Under the
Mexico City Policy, the Reagan Administration withheld international family planning funds from all
groups that had the slightest involvement in legal abortion-related services even though they were
paid for with their own private funds. This was done despite the fact that similar restrictions were
not placed on funding programs run by foreign governments that related to legal abortions. It is
also often referred to as the international ``gag rule'' because it prevents organizations from even
providing abortion counseling or
18
SDI ‘08
referral services. The matter before us is in part about leadership. The United States has traditionally
been
the leader in international family planning assistance. This has been the case ever since this issue rose to
international prominence with the 1974 U.N. Population Conference in Bucharest. At that time, a
great
number of the world's developing countries perceived family planning as a Western effort to reduce
the
power and influence of Third World countries. However, in the years since, the need and importance
of
family planning has been recognized and embraced by most developing nations. If, as a country, we
believe in volunteerism in family planning-- and we do--then we should maintain our leadership. Because of our
leading role in international family planning, we have unrivaled influence in setting standards for family planning
programs. A great number of other donors and recipient countries adopt our models in their own efforts.
19
SDI ‘08
Family Planning Solves Overpop
Increased support for family planning is key to lock in peak population
Richard Cincotta et al, Senior Research Associate, Population Action International, 2003, The Security
Demographic, p. 41
POLICY PRESCRIPTION In recent decades the world as a whole has moved fairly rapidly through the
early and middle stages of the demographic transition. Average family size is now a bit more than half
of what it was in the early 1960s, and infant mortality has declined by two- thirds. Policies and investments
that improved family planning and related reproductive health services and brought more girls into the
class- room and women into the workplace are major reasons for this progress. Waning international
support for family planning services, however, renders uncertain the pace of further progress through
the transition.
Increased family planning assistance can secure stable population size—Its not too late to
solve
Richard Cincotta et al, Senior Research Associate, Population Action International, 2003, The
Security
Demographic, p. 40
Support for international family planning efforts has waned, however, in recent years—and at an
inopportune time.48The need for more and better quality reproductive health care, contraceptives
and
counseling is growing. Nearly 1.1 billion young people aged 15 to 19 are entering their re-
productive years,
most of them unaware of the risks and responsibilities of sex and reproduction. Three million people
die each
year from aids. And still, around 515,000 women perish annually from largely preventable
pregnancy-related
causes, including about 70,000 deaths from unsafe abortions.49 Can the world change course?
According to
demographers, it already has. Growth of global population is decelerating more dramatically than
was
anticipated even in the mid-1990s. The United Nations Population Division, the most widely
consulted
demographic accountant on these matters, has set its 2002 medium variant projection—the one
the division
deems most predictive—at 7.9 billion people in 2025. That’s about 1.5 billion more people than
today. But
it is also nearly 600 million fewerthan the same UN demographers had projected for 2025 just a
decade
earlier.50Yet, the growth rate of population would be slower still if not for the fact that an estimated 38
percent of all pregnancies worldwide—some 80 million annually—are either unintended at the time or
unwanted at any time.51 The global demographic transition is still far from complete. While one-third
of the world’s countries have made their way fully through the transition, more than a third remains
in the early and middle phases. The future could see a continuation of today’s impressive declines in
fertility and childhood mortality, and a reversal in the hiv/aidspandemic—but only if policymakers
support
and fund the policies and programs that make such change possible. If the relationships between the
demographic transition and conflict seen in the post-Cold War years hold in the coming decades,
decisions
made today that affect funding that facilitates this momentous transition could have an enormous
influence, not only on demographic prospects, but also on the future of global security.
20
SDI ‘08
US Family Planning Assistance Solves
( ) Only the U.S. has the expertise to effectively provide family planning assistance
Population Action International, 1997,
http://66.39.133.128/resources/publications/why_pop/whyassistance.htm
The United States is the recognized world leader in the population field and, through its foreign aid program, remains the single
largest contributor of funds to population and family planning activities among industrialized countries. The principal objectives of U.S.
involvement in global population programs are to enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of
their children, to improve individual health (particularly the health of women and children), and to reduce population growth rates to levels
consistent with sustainable development. Tens of millions of couples use voluntary family planning services as a direct result of U.S. population
assistance. Millions more have adopted family planning due to U.S. government support for a broad range of technical assistance, training,
information, communication, policy, and research activities in developing countries. In the 28 largest recipient countries of U.S. funds, the
average number of children per family has dropped from 6.1 in the 1960s to 4.2 today, a decline of nearly one-third. The U.S. government
provides its population assistance through three channels: bilateral, nongovernmental, and multilateral. One-third to one-half of the funds are
provided directly to the governments of about 40 developing countries for projects jointly managed by the field missions of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), which administers the U.S. foreign aid program. The remainder of USAID funds support a wide range of
population activities in over 100 countries implemented by private, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. has also been a major
contributor to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the largest multilateral organization involved in population, since its founding in
1969. Virtually every major innovation in the population and family planning field can be directly or indirectly linked to
U.S. support. For example, the U.S. has pioneered a variety of successful approaches to extending family planning
through the private sector. Modern technology has also been creatively applied to the population field in the areas of
mass communication, demographic data collection and analysis, and biomedical research in the development of new
contraceptives. The dedicated staff of career experts on population and related areas within USAID is unique among
donor agencies. In addition, a strong public-private partnership with U.S.-based NGOs has been key to the USAID’s
ability to provide high quality technical advice and support to governments and indigenous NGOs in developing
countries. Compared to other donors, USAID’s substantial in-country presence has also been an important strength of
U.S. population and development assistance. The U.S. population assistance program was initiated in 1965. During the 1960s and
1970s, the U.S. population program enjoyed a significant level of bipartisan support under presidents of both political parties. A strong
consensus existed that rapid population growth was one of the world©ˆs most serious problems, undermining the prospects for economic and
social progress in developing countries and posing a long-term threat to U.S. national interests in the areas of trade, security, environment,
and international migration. Domestic political considerations, however, led the Reagan and Bush Administrations to directly challenge this
consensus.
( ) U.S. technical support and networking makes its family planning work irreplaceable
Sally Ethelston, Vice President for Communications at Population Action International, 2004, Progress & Promises
Trends In International Assistance for Reproductive Health and Planning,
http://66.39.133.128/resources/publications/pandp/
Under the Global Gag Rule, funds are denied to foreign NGOs that choose to counsel their patients on a full range of
reproductive health options when those options include abortion, even if legal in their own country. When an NGO refuses to
accept the gag rule, in addition to losing U.S. family planning funds, it also loses access to USAID-donated contraceptive supplies
and technical support. Its ability to form partnerships with other U.S.-funded NGOs in the country also suffers. This loss of
supplies, technical support, and partnerships is often more devastating than the loss of funds. (For a detailed update on the
impact of the gag rule in Ghana, see the Ghana case study: "Sexual and Reproductive Health in Ghana and the Role of Donor
Assistance&151;A Case Study".)
21
SDI ‘08
Overpop Increasing
We’re over carrying capacity and populations are increasing
Scotsman, 5/16/08
Its campaigners say time is running out before a tipping point is reached when it will be too late to reverse the decline.
The research revealed that while species are suffering across the globe, humans are now consuming 25 per cent more resources than the
planet can replace.
Human behaviour is causing habitats to vanish, sealife to be over-exploited and animals to be hunted to near extinction, according to the
report 2010 and Beyond: Rising to the Biodiversity Challenge.
Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, said: "It's a pretty gloomy picture. Clearly our impact on the planet is growing and at the
same time the populations of important species around the world are declining.
"A lot of these problems are because we have got a growing population and growing need for food and resources and there's often a
competition between needing resources and biodiversity."
Population Increasing – will exceed carrying capacity

Canberra Times, 6/25/08
Henk Verhoeven, Beacon Hill, NSW Population overload In 1798 Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population,
which argued that population had a natural tendency to increase faster than the means of subsistence, and that efforts should be made to cut
the birth rate. Since the industrial revolution, the human population has increased more than sixfold, to more than six billion, and on current
trends would increase to 8.5billion by 2025, placing increasing stress on food and water supplies (''Lack of water for food production a
looming crisis'', June 23, p9).
Population pressures growing

Washington Post, 6/22/08
Either way, the fact is that the world's population is growing -- 78 million people are added to the world's roughly 6.7 billion each year --
and this affects the planet more than we admit, contributing to deforestation, ethnic conflict and global warming. More Malthusian than not,
Engelman's examination of the issue is useful and illuminating, though his solution -- contraception that is easily available and socially
sanctioned -- seems a little facile.
22
SDI ‘08
Overpopulation Impact – Nuclear War
Overpopulation causes nuclear holocaust
Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich, Stanford Biologists, The Population Explosion, 1990 p 174-5
The population explosion contributes to international tensions and therefore makes a nuclear
holocaust more likely. Most people in our society can visualize the horrors of a large-scale nuclear war
followed by a nuclear winter.' We call that possible end to our civilization "the Bang." Hundreds of
millions
of people would be killed outright, and billions more would follow from the disruption of agricultural
systems and other indirect effects largely caused by the disruption of ecosystem services. it would
be the
ultimate "death-rate solution" to the population problem-a stunning contrast to the humane
solution of
lowering the global birthrate to slightly below the death rate for a few centuries. As this is written
(mid-1989), it fortunately seems that the chances of the Bang have lessened. New-minded
leadership in the
Soviet Union is for the moment in the ascendancy. President Mikhail Gorbachev, along with a few
other
world leaders, seems to be aware that environmental security is at least as important as military
strength in
providing security to nations, and appears to be doing everything possible to damp down the arms
race
between the United States and the Soviet Union. An apparently more pragmatic government also is
in place
in the United States, although it is still too soon to tell whether the superpowers are on the road
toward
massive nuclear-arms reduction and true reconciliation. What is certain is that the structure of
military forces
around the world still provides plenty of chances for local conflicts to escalate into Armageddon
even in the
face of growing East-West rapprochement. There remains the problem that, as the world gets
further and
further out of control, crazies on both the left and the right may exert increasingly xenophobic
pressures on
national governments. The rise of fundamentalism in both East and West is a completely
understandable but
not at all encouraging sample of what the future may hold in terms of conflict. Those struggling to
achieve
a permanently peaceful world still have much work to do, especially as growing and already
overpopulated nations struggle to divide up dwindling resources in a deteriorating global environment.
23
SDI ‘08
Overpopulation Impact – Warming
Preventing overpopulation best way to solve warming
Rapley, ’07 (Chris, Director of the British antarctic survey, http://prorev.com/2007/12/population-growth-crisis-that-dares-not.html)
By avoiding a fraction of the projected population increase, the emissions savings could be significant and would be at a cost, based on UN
experience of reproductive health programs, that would be as little as one-thousandth of the technological fixes. The reality is that while the
footprint of each individual cannot be reduced to zero, the absence of an individual does do so.
Extinction
Henderson 2006 [Bill Henderson, environmental scientist, “Runaway Global Warming Denial.” Countercurrents.org August 19, 2006.
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson190806.htm.]
The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not
understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears.
Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If
impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of
greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we
know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and
fauna beloved to man in the world we share.
Runaway global warming: there are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils, carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a
drought struck Amazon, methane in Arctic peat bogs and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. For several decades it has
been hypothesized that rising temperatures from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning
fossil fuels could be releasing some of and eventually all of these stored carbon stocks to add
substantially more potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Given time lags of 30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bombs
exploding, their released greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of
degrees higher than our norms of human habitation and therefore extinction or very near extinction of humanity.
24
SDI ‘08
Overpopulation Impact – Water Wars
Family planning is key to prevent water shortages
Ann Hwang, medical student at the UC-San Francisco, and a former intern at the Worldwatch
Institute, January 1,
2002, World Watch
At the national level, reducing population growth can promote economic development. Some
economists
argue that families with fewer children save more money, a phenomenon called the "demographic
bonus."
Higher savings rates may in turn reduce a country's dependence on foreign capital. Decreasing
population
growth can also ease the strain on overtaxed natural resources, particularly those associated with
subsistence agriculture. Today, an estimated 420 million people live in countries where the amount
of
cropland per capita has dropped below 0.07 hectares--the amount generally deemed necessary to
sustain a
bare minimum vegetarian diet. By 2025, the number of people living in such countries will probably
have
reached between 550 million and 1 billion. But the most important limit is not likely to be access to
land;
it's likely to be access to water. Already, half a billion people are living in areas prone to severe water
shortages. In 25 years, that number will probably have risen to between 2.4 and 3.2 billion. Such
figures
suggest the importance of family planning as a global enterprise. By 2050, the world's population is
likely to approach 9 billion--almost a 50 percent increase from its current level of 6.1 billion. Nearly
all of
that increase will come in the developing world and at this point, most of it is probably inevitable.
That's
because record numbers of young people are now coming into their peak reproductive years
(between the
ages of 15 and 24). Even if the global fertility rate (the average number of children per woman)
were to fall
overnight from its current level of 2.8 to the longterm "replacement level" of 2.1, more than three-
quarters of
the growth projected for the next half century would still occur, because of the enormous
demographic bulge
of young adults.
waters wars will go global

Business & Finance Magazine, June 15, 2007. “Water, Water, Not Everywhere” Lexis.
This sudden scarcity of an element whose symbolic and spiritual importance matches its centrality
to human
life will cause stress and exacerbate conflicts worldwide. Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia will be
the first
to be exposed. The repercussions, however, will be global.
Water wars lead to nuclear war

Weiner, Prof. At Princeton, 1990, The Next 100 Years p. 270
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves
with the Cbomb,
the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other.
Already
in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions
over
25
SDI ‘08
dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a
flashpoint. A
climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash
some of
the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity
26
SDI ‘08
Overpopulation Impact – Agriculture
Overpopulation threatens agricultural collapse and humanity’s extinction
Mona L. Hymel, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arizona College of Law, November 1998,
North
Carolina Law Review
As the twentieth century draws to a close, humanity faces the daunting prospect of supporting its
population without inducing catastrophic and irreversible destruction on Earth's life-support systems.
Human and agricultural fertility are on a collision course: the stork is threatening to overtake the plow. 1
More than 600 of the world's most distinguished scientists, including a majority of the living Nobel
laureates in the sciences, issued a warning to humanity in 1992. 2 They warned that only a few decades
remained to stop unrestrained population growth and environmentally devastating economic practices
before efforts to achieve a sustainable future "will be lost and prospects for humanity immeasurably
diminished." 3 In 1994, the world's scientific academies echoed this warning. 4 The very rapid rates
of
human-induced climate change, combined with fragmentation of natural habitats for agriculture
and
development activities, are unprecedented.
27
SDI ‘08
Overpopulation Impact – Economy
Overpopulation makes economic collapse inevitable
Lester Brown, founder of the WorldWatch Institute, April 2004,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/voic-brow.html
NOVA: What happens if countries can't stabilize their populations? Will they just eventually break
down? Brown: One of the things that's happening in the world today as our numbers have passed
the six
billion mark is that in order to support six billion-plus people, we are over-consuming the Earth's natural
capital. Forests are shrinking, fisheries are collapsing, water tables are falling, soils are eroding,
grasslands are deteriorating from over-grazing. This over-consumption of natural capital artificially
inflates economic output, including food output. We are developing a bubble economy. The worrisome
thing about bubble economies is that if you can't shrink the bubble, eventually it will burst. Then you
have serious problems. We've seen bubble economies develop in the high-tech stock market in the
U.S. We
saw the value of high-tech stocks drop by 60 percent or so. We saw this with real estate in Japan a
decade
ago, when suddenly the bubble burst overnight and real estate prices also dropped by 60 percent.
28
SDI ‘08
Overpop = Eco Collapse
Overpopulation will crush global ecosystems

J. Anthony Cassils, with the Population Institute of Canada, January 2004, Population and
Environment, p. 175
The prospect of an almost fifty percent increase in the global population over the next fifty years is
nightmarish. This increase is equivalent to the entire population of the Earth in 1960. Almost all of that
increase will occur in the least developed countries that are unable to meet the needs of their
present
population. The impact will include more pollution, an acceleration of global warming, and more severe
damage to fisheries, forests, fresh water supplies, fertile soil, and biodiversity. Migration pressures,
and ethnic and religious conflict will increase. Most of the population in both rich and poor countries will
want to consume more with devastating effects on ecosystems already reeling under current human
demands.
Overpopulation causes natural resource exhaustion

Anup Shah, Global Issues editor, 1998, Ecology and the Crisis of Overpopulation
Global population size is inherently connected to land, air, and water environments because each and
every individual uses environmental resources and contributes to environmental pollution.. Although
there has been an excess of potentially cultivable land throughout human history, the exponential
growth of human population has hastened the pace of land-use change. Hectares required for global
food production now fall near the lower limit of estimated cultivable hectares (Meadows et al., 1992).
Water represents a second commonsense link between population size and resource use. It is central to
the ecological cycles on which we depend and is used by humans for consumption as well as
agricultural and energy production. Global water use has tripled since 1950, now standing at between
3,500 and 4,500 cubic kilometers per year, equivalent to eight times the annual flow of the
Mississippi River,
and representing one-third of the water readily available
29
SDI ‘08
A2: Abortion Bad
( ) The gag rule doesn’t decrease abortions
Barbara B Cranea, Executive Vice President, Ipas and Jennifer Dusenberry, Research Assistant, Population
Action International, November 2004, Reproductive Health Matters
With a high degree of certainty, it can be said that the Gag Rule has not achieved an overall reduction
in abortions. By disrupting family planning services through effective NGO providers that reject the
Gag Rule and lose their US funding, the policy is more likely to have increased the number of abortions.
At the same time, the Gag Rule's limitations on NGOs that accept US funds are less likely to reduce
abortions than to keep them clandestine and unsafe.
( ) The gag rule results in millions of abortions—family planning would solve
The Post-Standard 2001(“HEADLINE: COURAGEOUS VOTE GLOBAL GAG RULE CAN ONLY
RESULT IN MORE, NOT FEWER, ABORTIONS.”, pg. A10 May 17, lexis)
The executive order from the White House restored the so-called "Mexico City policy" to foreign aid for
family planning. That policy, established in 1984, bars federal support for any family planning group that
uses other resources to perform or "actively promote" abortion. Since abortion remains an option in family
planning in nations that don't outlaw the procedure, and since family planning groups would fall short of their
responsibility if they didn't mention this fact to their clients, the effect of the "Mexico City policy" is to
deprive these groups of resources needed to accomplish the rest of their mission. That mission, hard as it
may be for anti-abortion ideologues to accept, does not include "promoting abortion," whatever that vague
term may mean. Indeed, U.S. foreign aid has not been used for abortion or abortion counseling since 1973.
Ironically enough, the money banned by Bush's so-called gag rule would actually help provide the
means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. One report predicts restoring international
family planning assistance to 1995 levels would mean 2.2 million fewer abortions worldwide. But
arithmetic like that is not part of anti-abortion math - or politics. Its champions appear willing to sacrifice
every last woman and child hurt by withdrawal of family planning assistance - including the 190 women
around the world who learn of an unwanted pregnancy every minute; or the 110 women experiencing
complications in pregnancy; or the 92,000 infant deaths and thousands of maternal deaths that could be
prevented each year.
( ) The gag rule results in a net increase in abortions
Scientific American, April 2001
Women's groups that advocate safe abortion and receive U.S. funding will have to forfeit their right to
speak. If they decide to forgo aid, they will lose money for contraceptives. That, in turn, may lead to
more abortions--one of the policy's greatest ironies. Women who do not use contraception are nearly
six times more likely to have an abortion than women who do, according to Cohen. Even absent the
Mexico City Policy--which applies only to the $425-million family-planning budget of U.S. AID--the United
Nations reports that there is a worldwide shortfall of $3.6 billion in meeting demands for family-planning
services. This unmet need is reflected in 80 million unwanted pregnancies every year. "We have more and
more women who are interested in delaying or avoiding pregnancy," says John Bongaarts of the Population
Council. "All these women need contraception."
30
SDI ‘08
A2: Abortion Bad
( ) Fetus is not life -- Brain development research proves that life is not created at fertilization – it takes 9 months to produce a
human being.
Swomley 93. (John, graduate of Dickinson College Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Colorado,
St. Louis University Public Law Review, p. 410-11)
Charles Gardner, who did his doctoral research on the genetic control of brain development at the
University of Michigan Medical School's Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, writes, "The
biological' argument that a human being is created at fertilization . . . comes as a surprise to most
embryologists . . . for it contradicts all that they have learned in the past few decades." n6 Gardner
notes that in humans when two sibling embryos combine into one . . . the resultant person may be
completely normal. If the two original embryos were determined to become particular individuals,
such a thing could not happen. The embryos would recognize themselves to be different . . . and would
not unite. But here the cells seem unaware of any distinction between themselves . . . . The only explanation is
that the individual is not fixed or determined at this early stage. Gardner also writes, "The fertilized egg is clearly not a
prepackaged human being . . . . Our genes give us a propensity for certain characteristics, but it is the enactment of the
complex process of development that gives us our individual characteristics. So how can an embryo be a human being?" n8
He further states, "The information required to make an eye or a finger does not exist in the fertilized egg. It exists in the
positions and interactions of cells and molecules that will be formed only at a later time." n9 Such research and discoveries
lead to the conclusion that a developmental process taking about nine months produces a human being. Therefore the idea
that a human exists at conception is a theological statement rather than a medical or scientific fact. Gardner concludes that
"fertilization, the injection of sperm DNA in the egg, is just one of the many small steps toward full human potential. It seems
arbitrary to invest this biological event with any special moral significance . . . . It would be a great tragedy if, in ignorance of
the process that is the embryo, state legislators pass laws restricting individual freedom of choice and press them upon the
people. The embryo is not a child. It is not a baby. It is not yet a human being."
( ) Zero net link -- Abortions are inevitable – it’s a just question of whether the abortions are safe.
Interpress Service, 12-8-2006, (“HEALTH: INT'L FAMILY PLANNING FUNDING PROBLEMS START WITH U.S.”,
December 8, lexis)
BROOKLIN, Canada, Dec. 7, 2006 (IPS/GIN) -- Public health experts say that U.S. political interference and
declining financial support for family planning, abortion and prevention of other sexually transmitted infections has contributed to
shockingly high death and disability rates in developing countries. Approximately 500,000 women die each year of causes related to
pregnancy, abortion and childbirth, 99 percent of them in developing countries, according to the World Health Organization.
"These deaths would not be tolerated in other circumstances," saysDorothy Shaw, senior associate dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the
University of British Columbia in Canada. Countries are failing in their responsibilities and promises to fund sexual and
reproductive health programs, including supporting universal access to contraception, Shaw said. Contraception alone would
dramatically reduce abortion rates, she said. "More than 68,000 women die every year from back-alley or selfinduced abortions,"
noted Janie Benson, vice president of research and evaluation at Ipas, an NGO focused on increasing women's ability to exercise their sexual
and reproductive rights and preventing unsafe abortions worldwide. Many of the 20 million women who have unsafe abortions each year
suffer from medical complications -- some for the rest of their lives,Benson told IPS. "This is a preventable pandemic," she
emphasized. Legal abortions are extremely safe. And when abortion is made legal, it does not increase the number of abortions,
she said, citing theSouth African experience as an example. However, by making abortion legal, South Africa is no
longer eligible for USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) funding forsexual and reproductive health
programs, including som e HIV/AIDS programs. "We need governments to decide that women's lives are worth saving," she
said. Changes in U. S. policy could make a substantial contribution to improving the sexual and reproductive lives of people
worldwide, according to a series of six reports coordinated by the World Health Organization and being published in the British medical
journal Lancet this week. Officially termed the Mexico City Policy, the George W. Bush administration mandates that no U.S. family
planning assistance can be provided to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to perform, recommend or refer
women for abortions. The destructiveness of U.S. policy is hard to understate, says Steven Sinding, former director-general of the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). IPPF lost $15 million in funding because of this policy, known as the "gag rule"
because it stifles free speech and public debate on abortion-related issues. "Three of the five family planning facilities supported by IPPF
inKenya were forced to close as a result," Sinding told IPS. The direct consequence of those closures was "a dramatic rise in unsafe
abortions and substantial increase in unwanted pregnancies," hesaid.
31
SDI ‘08
A2: Abortion Bad
( ) They’ve missed the point – the internal link is to ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING AND CONTRACEPTION.
The gag rule limits the extension of those services to millions of women – causing deaths worldwide.
Ann Hwang, medical student at the UC-San Francisco, and a former intern at the Worldwatch
Institute, January 1, 2002, World Watch
Family planning provides a higher return on investment than almost any other type of development
assistance. "A development success story" is the phrase the World Bank used in its 1994 survey of the
field. Its most obvious successes appear, not in demographic trends, but in the lives of the women
it reaches. In the developing world, pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death and disability for
women of reproductive age. Worldwide, UNFPA estimates that over 500,000 women die in pregnancy or
childbirth each year and several million more suffer injury or infection. Ninety-eight percent of these
women live in developing countries. In Africa, the continent with the highest rates of maternal death, a
woman has a one in sixteen chance of dying in childbirth over her lifetime. Before giving birth, African mothers
sometimes bid their older children farewell. In Tanzania, a common formula is: "I am going to the
sea to fetch a new baby but the journey is long and dangerous." The World Health Organization
estimates that 100,000 maternal deaths could be avoided each year if all women who said they
wanted to stop bearing children were able to do so. Reducing maternal mortality would also confer
enormous benefits on large numbers of children, as is apparent in a negative way from current child
mortality statistics: in some developing countries, the loss of a mother increases the death rate by
50 percent for children under the age of five.
( ) Their argument ignores the sexual violence and discrimination that make abortion a necessary option for women in developing
countries
Julia Ernst, Adjunct Professor of Law; Executive Director, Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship
Program at Georgetown Law and Tzili Mor, International legal fellow at Center for Reproductive Law
and Policy, 2003, Breaking the Silence, http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/bo_ggr.pdf, p. 28
Cultural practices that are harmful to women and girls, domestic and sexual violence against women, and
women’s low socioeconomic status in each of the four countries under study also contribute to high rates
of unwanted pregnancy. In Ethiopiaand Uganda, for example, early marriages are common; the average
age of marriage for women is 17.1 and 19.4 respectively.77 Young girls and women are usually subordinate
to their older spouses and often have limited power to access family planning services or make decisions
about their fertility. In all countries, violence against women restricts women’s ability to control the
frequency and timing of sex. Abduction for the purposes of wife acquisition persists in Ethiopia, and it is
estimated that in the southern regions up to 80% of marriages result from abductions.78 In Lima, Peru, a
recent survey found that 48.4% of women had experienced some form of violence, and 22.5% had
experienced
sexual violence from an intimate partner. In Cuzco and rural areas of Peru, the incidence of physical
and sexual violence perpetrated by intimate partners is even higher.79 In Kenya, the Penal Code does not
prohibit marital rape and sexual harassment is pervasive in schools and uni- versities, while in conflict-ridden
Uganda, rape has been used as a weapon of war.80 Many women suffer from unwanted pregnancies as a
result of sexual violence and many turn to abortion as a last resort, despite its illegality. These social
conditions, combined with wide- spread poverty, mean that unsafe abortion is often the only
alternative for women faced with unwanted pregnancies in each of the four sur- veyed countries. Due to
an increasing recogni- tion of the public health problems posed by unsafe abortion in these countries, the
medical community, governments and other advocates are taking preliminary steps to reduce abortion-related
deaths and injuries. In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft law that would liberalize the
country’s currently restrictive abortion laws. In Kenyaand Uganda, public discussion about unsafe abortion
and the need for abortion law reform is beginning to take place.82 In contrast, despite efforts by women’s
rights organizations, the government in Peruhas recently considered adopting a constitutional clause further
restricting abortion.
32

Obama Good - Gag Rule

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Obama Good - Gag Rule

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDI ‘08

Elections Impact – Gag Rule

2. Gag rule causes global overpopulation

3. The impact is ecological extinction

3. Disad turns the case

4. Obama solves the aff

The gag rule cripples AIDS prevention

AIDS threatens human extinction

( ) The gag rule guts AIDS treatment programs

( ) Democracy checks extinction

( ) The gag rule undermines US democracy promotion

Global Nuclear Exchange

( ) Family planning foreign assistance is key to US soft power

( ) Gag Rule Jacks US Leadership

Center for Reproductive Rights, October 2002, Zwerver= a “Dutch Senator,”

analysts have said not only

terrorism, they do suggest that

Mexico City Policy undercuts cooperation on terrorism and trade

The gag rule guts the effectiveness of family planning

The gag rule undermines provision of family planning assistance

( ) The gag rule undermines movements to reform restrictive abortion laws

( ) US standards are modeled globally.

Population Increasing – will exceed carrying capacity

Population pressures growing

waters wars will go global

Water wars lead to nuclear war

Overpopulation will crush global ecosystems

Overpopulation causes natural resource exhaustion

( ) The gag rule results in millions of abortions—family planning would solve

( ) The gag rule results in a net increase in abortions

Scientific American, April 2001

You might also like