Em sua primeira semana de atuação, o Presidente dos Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, suspendeu uma medida política conhecida, popularmente,  como  “Regra Global da Mordaça.” [en] A mudança está sendo aplaudida por grupos ligados aos direitos das mulheres e à saúde pública, pois restabelecerá, globalmente, a ajuda financeira aos programas internacionais de planejamento familiar.

A medida, também conhecida como a “Política da Cidade do México”, proibe que fundos do governo americano sejam encaminhados a equipes e clínicas de  planejamento familiar fora dos EUA que realizam ou promovem abortos ou que fazem lobby para sua legalização. Obama suspendeu a proibição um dia depois do 36º aniversário do Roe contra Wade, o caso que levou à legalização do aborto nos EUA. A norma foi criada em 1984 e, desde então, foi várias vezes revogada e aprovada pelos presidentes que se seguiram. Uma postagem no blog South-South explica [en]:

“The Global Gag Rule [also known as the “Mexico City Policy” or specifically, The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1))] denied United States family planning funds to foreign NGOs that use their own private, non-U.S. dollars to counsel women, make referrals for abortion, or perform abortions. It even denied U.S. funds to NGOs that expressed support for laws to make abortion safe and legal. The Global Gag Rule was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, where it was in effect until Friday, 23 January 2009.”

Críticos apelidaram a proibição de “Regra Global da Mordaça” pela maneira como ela restringe as equipes lá fora de participar da discussão sobre o aborto em seus países. Texas in Africa, aponta para o fato [en] de que um outro problema com a medida é que suas restrições são amplas demais.

“The Global Gag Rule doesn't take a country's policies on abortion into account. Instead, it blocks funding from any organization that supports abortion rights anywhere in the world. That means if Planned Parenthood operates a clinic in rural Uganda that gives advice on family planning and provides prenatal screening, it loses funding when the Global Gag Rule is in effect because of its pro-choice stance on policies in the U.S. This happens regardless of the fact that abortion is illegal in Uganda unless it involves preserving the mother's life or health.
When the Bush administration reinstated the Global Gag Rule in 2001, clinics all over Africa lost all of their funding. In many places, especially in Kenya and Ghana, it meant that tens of thousands of people lost their only access to health care. Period.”

Frente a esses fatos, muitos blogueiros estão elogiando a decisão de Obama e o impacto em potencial que terá nas questões de saúde reprodutiva e planejamento familiar pelo mundo afora. Danie, Danie, Danie acredita [en] que deveríamos agradecer Obama, enquanto que Arash Kardan bloga [en]:

“Desperately poor women with high risk pregnancies won’t have to die because their doctor can’t tell them about termination options. Many will have more access to safe abortion care, and won’t die or face permanent injury due to risky do-it-yourself procedures. Women won’t have to get pregnant because their local birth control clinic had to choose between no funding or substandard, dishonest care, and subsequently closed down…This is what change can mean. Thousands of women’s lives saved. And after the past 8 years of this deadly policy, it’s about time.”

No entanto, muitos grupos contra o aborto condenaram a mudança, com o argumento, por exemplo, de que os dólares de impostos pagos pelos americanos não deveriam ser gastos em apoio ao aborto e que isto abre a porta para um número crescente de abortos mundo afora. O Vaticano posicionou-se [en] contra a decisão de Obama e a mudança causou medos em alguns países que vivenciaram o impacto deste financiamento. O blogue Mike in Manila debate [en] a reação nas Filipinas:

“There are fears that now US funds will be released here in Asia as well to fund programs towards a global legalization of abortion. Some pro-Abortion groups have lobbied to tie in US Aid to legalization of abortion in the developing world.
A move that greatly concerns members of the CBCP [Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines] in the country who have called on Philippine-Americans of all faiths to signify their voices against the new executive order as well as for a campaign by them to elected members of the house and senate to be emailed and called by Catholics all over to world to ensure that the ‘pro-death and pro-abortion’ stance of the extreme left of American politics is not pushing to impose abortion supportive or legalization policies to the rest of the world.”

Entretanto, Nicholas, blogando no Staying Left, Living and Driving in South Africa, chama a atenção [en] para o fato de que a escolha por fazer um aborto não fica sempre clara nos países que necessitam desse financiamento:

“When thinking about abortions, especially in developing countries, the arguments seem quite compelling. In sections of the KwaZulu Natal region of South Africa, up to 50% of pregnant women are HIV+. If my work were successful, we could reduce transmission of HIV from mother to baby into the single digits, instead of 30+% in most parts of the country. However, that means we'd have carefully execute a number of steps in a process without faltering. Given the fragility of the health system, the likelihood of passing HIV to the baby is quite high, and if I were the pregnant one, its not a roulette game I'd want to be playing.”

Imagem do The Abortion Debate [O Debate sobre o Aborto] de Better in the Basement no Flickr.