On the global gag rule, on funding for UNFPA, and on PEFPAR — who holds the office of the Presidency makes the critical difference.
Americans view U.S. assistance for global women’s heath programs as important, but not necessary to our own interests but these issues must form a core part of our foreign policy as much as oil, war and trade. The next administration can change that.
The staff of the International Women’s Health Coalition pens a letter to our future president with concrete ideas for how to reverse the current harmful policies that do nothing to end violence, stop needless deaths from pregnancy and childbirth or prevent HIV.
A new US presidential administration can revitalize support for UNFPA and reorient USAID, which will go a long way in creating more breathing space for local reproductive health advocacy in the Philippines.
U.S. support for an Inter-American Convention on Sexual and Reproductive Rights would restore America’s leadership role in promoting women’s health abroad.
In the upcoming presidential debate on foreign policy issues, will candidates be asked to address sexual and reproductive health and human rights of women as a critical component to our nation’s foreign policy?
We all arrive through pregnancy. You’d think with this kind of reputation, prioritizing maternal health might be a no-brainer for governments. What about the United States? Will our presidential candidates address the plight of mothers worldwide in the first debate?