8 comments  

Yesterday at the Women Deliver global conference, Melinda Gates announced that the Gates Foundation will invest $1.5 billion

Melinda Gates, courtesy of Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP

over the next five years in programs promoting maternal and child health, family planning, and nutrition in developing countries.  Fantastic.  Yet, one of Women Deliver’s key goals – safe and legal abortions as one of the tools that would help combat maternal death – is explicitly excluded from the Gates maternal health initiative.

When asked about this omission by NPR’s Michele Norris last night, here’s what Gate said:

The Foundation specifically doesn’t take a stance on abortion … we don’t want to be part of the controversy or stem that controversy.  We’re much more trying to work ‘upstream’ on reproductive rights.

What did she mean by using this riparian metaphor in relation to reproductive rights?  Well, as she explained:

If you say to a woman: Would you like to have an injection and come in once a month or an implant where you came in once every three years, and you give them the choices of the different tools, then you don’t even have to get into the issue of abortion downstream.

You can listen to the full interview here:

Gates’ riparian parry makes sense if and only if all sex that might result in a pregnancy takes place in contexts that are voluntary and planned for.  But as we know, this is not always the case.  It’s fine to take the position that abortion should be an option not of first resort (as has Hilary Clinton’s position, for instance), but the need for safe and legal abortion is not obviated by accessible and affordable birth control technology as Gates maintains.  Girls who do not plan on having sexual intercourse and thus are unlikely to have addressed their fertility in the structural ways Gates describes frequently find themselves pregnant either because they changed their minds and had sex with a boy or their pregnancies result from unconsented to intercourse. So too, adult women who may want to have more control of their fertility than Depo Provera or Noristerat would allow (the former is administered every 3 months and the latter every 8 weeks) may also have need for abortion services due to rape.  Nevermind the women who wish to terminate a pregnancy for reasons of their own health or the health of the fetus.

Substantial research has shown that women in developing countries who are most interested in the kind of long-term contraception that Gates’ touts are women who are older and have already had several children.  They use Depo Provera or Noristerat in order to control their family size.  Younger women who have not yet reached their ideal family size were less interested in longer-term contraception that patches and implants provide.  One study showed that “few women accepted Norplant before delivery of three or more children.”  Thus, women who wish to regulate their fertility in a more nimble manner than patches and implants afford remain susceptible to unwanted pregnancies for multiple reasons, and the availability of contraception would not eliminate the need for safe abortion services.

An estimated one in seven maternal deaths are the result of unsafe abortions.  Unfortunately, access to long-term contraception may minimize but will not fully address this enduring tragedy of women’s health.

8 comments

  1. […] At last week’s Women Deliver conference (covered by Gender Across Borders), Melinda Gates announced that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would devote $1.5 billion to maternal and child health over the next five years.  They will not, however, fund abortion services.  Gates said in her remarks that she couldn’t imagine being denied the “basic right to decide how many children to have.” she also said that the Gates Foundation would focus it’s efforts “upstream,” explaining that with proper family planning abortion will not be necessary.  I don’t even think I have to address that little doozy, but if you’re interested, Columbia’s Gender and Sexuality Law Blog does a good job of taking on the problematic nature of that reasoning. […]

  2. […] At last week’s Women Deliver conference, Melinda Gates announced that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would devote $1.5 billion to maternal and child health over the next five years.  They will not, however, fund abortion services.  Gates said in her remarks that she couldn’t imagine being denied the “basic right to decide how many children to have.” she also said that the Gates Foundation would focus it’s efforts “upstream,” explaining that with proper family planning abortion will not be necessary.  I don’t even think I have to address that little doozy, but if you’re interested, Columbia’s Gender and Sexuality Law Blog does a good job of taking on the problematic nature of that reasoning. […]

  3. This is a excellent piece of information.<a href=”pregnancybyweeks.blogsgalaxy.com”>pregnancy by weeks</a>

  4. This is a excellent piece of information.pregnancy by weeks

  5. This is a excellent piece of information.pregnancy by weeks

  6. Yet coach outlet for sale then you are off to a good start

  7. the style never change discount chanel bags sale55 was launched within special event from the designer’s 50 many years within making elegance as well as style

  8. Such an excellent write-up!

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Adoption adultery Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Islamophobia Israel Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.