How Did Ronald Reagan Have To Accomplish With The Mexico City Policy
This policy was first implemented in 1984. What do you think Ronald Reagan was hoping to accomplish with this policy? Two reasons that President Reagan could have implemented the Mexico City Policy would be that it ensured the United States would stay out of partnerships that could infringe upon local customs (for example, forced abortion), and could spur economic growth. According to an article by the National Review, President Reagan believed “people are the greatest assets.” At the same time in the United States, our economy was growing because of all our working people. Therefore, I believe his second overall goal with the Mexico City Policy was to help these developing countries grow by ensuring they would have people in the future to help the country grow itself, “many nations, population growth has been an essential element in economic progress. (Quote from the National Review- by
…show more content…
Bill Gribbin)” However, I believe that President Reagan’s primary goal with the Mexico City Policy was to influence developing nations to take up pro-life ideals, as it practically forced developing nations to comply or be left behind in terms of funding.
2. Provide a summary of what the trends are in figure one. Do not interpret why the trends are occurring, just describe it.
Areas with low exposure to the Mexico City Policy (that never really relied on it) hovered between 12-19 induced abortions of 10,000 woman per year from 1994 until 2008.
In contrast, areas with high exposure grew noticeably slowly and at a steady rate of increase from 1994 until 2004. From 2005 to 2008, the number of induced abortions for women in high exposure areas grew seemingly exponentially going from around 17 abortions in 2005 to over 40 abortions by 2008.
3. Now discuss why you think the trends are occurring the way they are. What is influencing the patterns? Doing some online research will help determine what’s influencing the data.
One reason for these trends could be that with the Mexcio City Policy in place, organizations that previously offered contraception and abortion services no longer received funding. That would cut out many women who need to get their birth control from those exiled organizations. If they don’t have access to anything else, this could lead to a higher number or unwanted or unsafe pregnancies that needed to be terminated (national review).
To break it down even more specifically, I think the trends are occurring because of the change in Presidents and change in whether the Mexico City Policy is in effect or not. Clinton served as president from 1993 to 2001 and removed the Mexico City Policy at the start of his presidency in 1993. Throughout Clinton’s entire presidency, the number of induced abortions grew very slowly between 0-2 (per 10,000 women) year over year. Bush took over as president from 2001 to 2009, and immediately reinstated the Mexico City Policy. When this happened, the number of induced abortions for high exposure Sub-Saharan African countries grew by 2-3 woman year over year from 2001 to 2004. However, with the Mexico City Policy completely underway and additional state department restrictions induced by Bush, by 2005 the number of induced abortions were growing extremely fast, going from 17 induced abortions to over 40 induced abortions by 2008. This growth could be attributed to the women who previously relied on receiving contraception from the agencies that stopped receiving funding under the Mexico City Policy.
4. Provide a summary of what the trends are in figure two. Do not interpret why the trends are occurring, just describe it.
For countries with low exposure to the Mexico City Policy, the prevalence of modern contraceptive use was between 15-17% from 1995 until 2000. In 2001 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use jumped to 20% and maintained relatively steady until 2005. In 2006 through 2008 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use hovered around 23%.
For countries with high exposure to the Mexico City Policy, the prevalence of modern contraceptive use was about 9% from 1994-1996. In 1997 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use jumped to 12% and grew by 1% year over year until about 2002. Finally, from 2002 until 2008 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use in countries with high exposure to the Mexico City Policy stayed relatively steady around 15%.
5. Now discuss why you think the trends are occurring the way they are. What is influencing the patterns? Doing some online research will help determine what’s influencing the data.
The jump in contraceptive use happens at the same time as the Mexico City Policy was reinstated. This increase in contraceptive use was most likely caused by an increase to information and access. According to several research studies from the 1980s through the 1990s, the use of contraception in countries like Zimbabwe increased because of increased access (rand.org). The more trainings provided on contraceptive use led to more users. Additionally, factors like the distance a woman was away from the hospital played a role, essentially the closer to the hospital the more likely she was to be using a modern contraceptive. For women further from hospitals, it is possible that private donors could have “picked up the slack” to provide organizations no longer being funded with the resources to continue providing contraception. Finally and most convincingly, with increased education came increased contraception users. United Nations University published a report explaining that in the 1990’s only 36.1% of females in Sub-Saharan Africa were literate. In the 2000’s 49.6% of females in Sub-Saharan Africa were literate (United Nations). In other words, despite being correlated with the reinstated policy there is no proof the policy caused the increase in modern contraception.
6. Based on what you wrote for question #1 do these graphs support the idea that the policy is working towards its goal? Why or why not?
In terms of reaching his goal to influence sub-Saharan countries to turn away from abortion and take up Republican pro-life ideals, the policy failed.
Instead of discouraging abortion, he made general contraception harder to access for women in rural areas that previously relied on organizations to provide their contraception and suddenly stopped being funded under the Mexico City Policy. This directly correlated with the sharp rise in the number of abortions when the policy was reinstated under president Bush. The time Bush took over as president was also an important growth time for Sub-Saharan African countries in terms of getting females education. More education led to higher contraception users and based on the two graphs, you cannot prove the policy being reinstated caused the higher number of contraceptives, but it is clear they did correlate. Therefore, President Reagan’s Mexico City Policy did not succeed in forcing developing countries to lower abortion numbers and take up pro-life ideals, nor can it be solely credited with the increased use of modern
contraception.
SOURCES: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5013/index1.html http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444206/mexico-city-policy-who-study-abortion-rate-africa-wrong http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu37we/uu37we0t.htm http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/
Bill Gribbin)” However, I believe that President Reagan’s primary goal with the Mexico City Policy was to influence developing nations to take up pro-life ideals, as it practically forced developing nations to comply or be left behind in terms of funding.
2. Provide a summary of what the trends are in figure one. Do not interpret why the trends are occurring, just describe it.
Areas with low exposure to the Mexico City Policy (that never really relied on it) hovered between 12-19 induced abortions of 10,000 woman per year from 1994 until 2008.
In contrast, areas with high exposure grew noticeably slowly and at a steady rate of increase from 1994 until 2004. From 2005 to 2008, the number of induced abortions for women in high exposure areas grew seemingly exponentially going from around 17 abortions in 2005 to over 40 abortions by 2008.
3. Now discuss why you think the trends are occurring the way they are. What is influencing the patterns? Doing some online research will help determine what’s influencing the data.
One reason for these trends could be that with the Mexcio City Policy in place, organizations that previously offered contraception and abortion services no longer received funding. That would cut out many women who need to get their birth control from those exiled organizations. If they don’t have access to anything else, this could lead to a higher number or unwanted or unsafe pregnancies that needed to be terminated (national review).
To break it down even more specifically, I think the trends are occurring because of the change in Presidents and change in whether the Mexico City Policy is in effect or not. Clinton served as president from 1993 to 2001 and removed the Mexico City Policy at the start of his presidency in 1993. Throughout Clinton’s entire presidency, the number of induced abortions grew very slowly between 0-2 (per 10,000 women) year over year. Bush took over as president from 2001 to 2009, and immediately reinstated the Mexico City Policy. When this happened, the number of induced abortions for high exposure Sub-Saharan African countries grew by 2-3 woman year over year from 2001 to 2004. However, with the Mexico City Policy completely underway and additional state department restrictions induced by Bush, by 2005 the number of induced abortions were growing extremely fast, going from 17 induced abortions to over 40 induced abortions by 2008. This growth could be attributed to the women who previously relied on receiving contraception from the agencies that stopped receiving funding under the Mexico City Policy.
4. Provide a summary of what the trends are in figure two. Do not interpret why the trends are occurring, just describe it.
For countries with low exposure to the Mexico City Policy, the prevalence of modern contraceptive use was between 15-17% from 1995 until 2000. In 2001 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use jumped to 20% and maintained relatively steady until 2005. In 2006 through 2008 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use hovered around 23%.
For countries with high exposure to the Mexico City Policy, the prevalence of modern contraceptive use was about 9% from 1994-1996. In 1997 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use jumped to 12% and grew by 1% year over year until about 2002. Finally, from 2002 until 2008 the prevalence of modern contraceptive use in countries with high exposure to the Mexico City Policy stayed relatively steady around 15%.
5. Now discuss why you think the trends are occurring the way they are. What is influencing the patterns? Doing some online research will help determine what’s influencing the data.
The jump in contraceptive use happens at the same time as the Mexico City Policy was reinstated. This increase in contraceptive use was most likely caused by an increase to information and access. According to several research studies from the 1980s through the 1990s, the use of contraception in countries like Zimbabwe increased because of increased access (rand.org). The more trainings provided on contraceptive use led to more users. Additionally, factors like the distance a woman was away from the hospital played a role, essentially the closer to the hospital the more likely she was to be using a modern contraceptive. For women further from hospitals, it is possible that private donors could have “picked up the slack” to provide organizations no longer being funded with the resources to continue providing contraception. Finally and most convincingly, with increased education came increased contraception users. United Nations University published a report explaining that in the 1990’s only 36.1% of females in Sub-Saharan Africa were literate. In the 2000’s 49.6% of females in Sub-Saharan Africa were literate (United Nations). In other words, despite being correlated with the reinstated policy there is no proof the policy caused the increase in modern contraception.
6. Based on what you wrote for question #1 do these graphs support the idea that the policy is working towards its goal? Why or why not?
In terms of reaching his goal to influence sub-Saharan countries to turn away from abortion and take up Republican pro-life ideals, the policy failed.
Instead of discouraging abortion, he made general contraception harder to access for women in rural areas that previously relied on organizations to provide their contraception and suddenly stopped being funded under the Mexico City Policy. This directly correlated with the sharp rise in the number of abortions when the policy was reinstated under president Bush. The time Bush took over as president was also an important growth time for Sub-Saharan African countries in terms of getting females education. More education led to higher contraception users and based on the two graphs, you cannot prove the policy being reinstated caused the higher number of contraceptives, but it is clear they did correlate. Therefore, President Reagan’s Mexico City Policy did not succeed in forcing developing countries to lower abortion numbers and take up pro-life ideals, nor can it be solely credited with the increased use of modern
contraception.
SOURCES: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5013/index1.html http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444206/mexico-city-policy-who-study-abortion-rate-africa-wrong http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu37we/uu37we0t.htm http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/