You are on page 1of 4

Madison Gilbert

AP English III

Mr. Sellek

7 March 2017

Dear future lawmaker,

When the Great Depression ensued, as a result of the stock market crash in the late 1920s,

Herbert Hoover was assuming the presidency. His administration did little to relieve Americans

who were heavily affected by the economic recession. Once Roosevelt gained entrance into the

Oval Office in 1933, he established programs that would improve the quality of life for

struggling U.S. citizens. He even went so far as to “pack” the Supreme Court in order to ensure

that his policies would be declared constitutional. This move is still discussed between historians

today, and raises the question: is the government responsible for the well being of all people?

Under the umbrella of universal care, is the argument of whether or not federal funding should

be allotted to organizations and nonprofits that provide increasingly controversial services, such

as abortions, around the world. President Trump just recently reinstated a rule that prevents the

United States from monetarily aiding foreign organizations that use the funds to perform or

discuss abortions. Supports of the rule cite the America-first policy and the morally indecency

behind abortion as evidence that this is a good move. The counterargument describes the moral

obligation that America has to provide help on a global scale, as well as the pro-choice argument.

Americans should be concerned with this issue because the way the U.S. government treats

people abroad, could transfer onto their treatment of domestic citizens.

Advocates of the “global gag rule” argue that Trump’s America-first policy will only

have beneficial outcomes. By reverting back to isolationism, America can refocus on job and

economic growth at home, while once again becoming a worldwide powerhouse. They also cite

Japan as being a prime example of a country who successfully practiced isolationism and

brought their citizens into a prosperous era of growth and security. Supporters of the rule argue

that the funding being cut from foreign programs can be used to better welfare organizations and

nonprofits at home; therefore improving the lives of everyday Americans instead of foreigners.

Advocates for this rule also argue that abortions should be criminalized and made illegal in every

state. Therefore, they should also be condemned on a worldwide scale due to the immorality of

killing a living being. This is not true for all cases, but does involve conflicting beliefs with

multiple religions (Christianity, Judaism, etc.). By putting these perspectives together, people

support Trump’s reinstallation of the “global gag rule” due to its promotion of isolationism and

condemnation of abortion.

Those who oppose the gag rule cite America’s moral obligation to provide international

help and the pro-choice argument. Many U.S. citizens argue that as one of the wealthiest nations

on Earth, it’s morally right for America to assist other countries that are not as well off. By

providing aid and funding to third-world countries, the U.S. would not only by fulfilling an

internal moral agreement, but it would also be boosting the global economy - growth that would

eventually indirectly benefit America. Pro-choice supporters are also against the gag rule; they

believe that a woman has the right to make any choice regarding her body regardless of her

geographical location. They argue that by decreasing funding to organizations that provide

abortions, the funding for women’s general health care is also being reduced. The same
organizations that provide abortions to women in third-world countries also give women access

to contraception, check-ups, and other general health benefits. In countries where the contraction

of AIDS almost surely means death, having easy access to contraception is something some

women depend on. Those who condemn this rule also cite the global backlash as evidence that

the rule is not only highly controversial, but also negatively impacts the world as a whole.

Finally, many fear that the rule could be foreshadowing the criminalization of abortion in

America; by overturning the rule, some hope that a woman’s right to abortion will be protected

within the U.S.

After analyzing both sides of this highly controversial topic, a compromise can be

determined. If President Trump is no longer willing to allocate funds to global organizations that

provide women’s health care, while offering abortions, then he should establish different global

programs that still cater to health care for women, without the addition of abortions. This would

appease pro-life advocates, while also addressing the concerns of those opposed to the gag rule.

These new organizations would also help ensure that women all around the world have access to

a healthy lifestyle, despite the economic or political state of their country. This solution is also

beneficial on another level; when it comes to third-world countries, many women spend all day

attempting to provide their family with food and water. By rewarding their hard work with health

benefits, families will become healthier and live longer. This will provide countries with more

skilled labor for longer periods of time, and boost the global economy in this way.

In conclusion, Trump’s reinstallation of the global gag rule has sparked a debate amongst

people throughout the world. Supporters of the rule argue that it promotes much-needed

American isolationism, while also appealing to the pro-life argument. Those who condemn the
gag rule argue that backlash from pro-choice groups are present; in addition to this, the rule

negates the moral obligation the U.S. has to help countries that are not as wealthy. The most

beneficial compromise would be for Trump to take the funds he’s withdrawing from global

organizations, and put it towards the creation of new organizations that still provide women’s

healthcare, with the absence of abortion.