IMPERIALISM; HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALI$M

Database reveals secrets of China's loans to developing nations, says study

2021/3/31

©Reuters

DAKAR (Reuters) - The terms of China's loan deals with developing countries are unusually secretive and require borrowers to prioritise repayment of Chinese state-owned banks ahead of other creditors, a study of a cache of such contracts showed on Wednesday.

The dataset - compiled over three years by AidData, a U.S. research lab at the College of William & Mary - comprises 100 Chinese loan contracts with 24 low- and middle-income countries, a number of which are struggling under mounting debt burdens amid the economic fallout from the COVID-10 pandemic.

Much focus has turned to the role of China, which is the world's biggest creditor, accounting for 65% of official bilateral debt worth hundreds of billions of dollars across Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia.

"China is the world’s largest official creditor, but we lack basic facts about the terms and conditions of its lending," the authors, including Anna Gelpern, a law professor at Georgetown University in the United States, wrote in their paper.

The researchers at AidData, the Washington-based Center for Global Development (CGD), Germany's Kiel Institute and the Peterson Institute for International Economics compared Chinese loan contracts with those of other major lenders to produce the first systematic evaluation of the legal terms of China’s foreign lending, according to CGD.

Their analysis uncovered several unusual features to the agreements that expanded standard contract tools to boost the chances of repayment, they said in the 77-page report.

These include confidentiality clauses that prevent borrowers from revealing the terms of the loans, informal collateral arrangements that benefit Chinese lenders over other creditors and promises to keep the debt out of collective restructurings - dubbed by the authors as "no Paris Club" clauses, the report said. The contracts also give substantial leeway for China to cancel loans or accelerate repayment, it added.

Scott Morris, a senior fellow at CGD and co-author of the report, said the findings raised questions about China's role as one of the G20 group of major economies that has agreed a "common framework" designed to help poorer nations cope with the financial pressure of COVID-19 by allowing them to overhaul debt burdens.

The framework calls for comparable treatment of all creditors, including private lenders, but he said most of the contracts examined prohibit countries from restructuring those loans on equal terms and in coordination with other creditors.

"That's a very striking prohibition, and it seems to run counter to the commitments the Chinese are making at the G20," Morris told Reuters, though he added that it was possible China would simply not enforce those clauses in its loan contracts.

The Chinese foreign ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

China has said in the past that its financial institutions, and not just the country’s official creditors, were working to help ease the debt woes of African nations.

It also said in November that it had extended debt relief to developing countries worth a combined $2.1 billion under the G20 programme, the highest among the group’s members in terms of the amount deferred.

The material examined by researchers for the study includes 23 contracts struck with Cameroon, 10 with Serbia and Argentina as well as eight with Ecuador.

In January, the World Bank warned that several countries were in urgent need of debt relief due to the severity of the global recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

(Reporting by Alessandra Prentice and Karin Strohecker; Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)

Russia registers 'world's first' Covid vaccine for animals

Agence France-Presse

March 31, 2021

Russia announced Wednesday it had registered what it said was the world's first coronavirus vaccine for animals, describing the step as important to disrupting mutations.

It said mass production of the vaccine could begin in April.

The agriculture oversight agency Rosselkhoznadzor said in a statement that the vaccine called Carnivak-Cov had been tested beginning October on dogs, cats, mink, foxes and other animals and was proven to be effective.

"All test animals that were vaccinated developed antibodies to coronavirus in 100 percent of cases," said Konstantin Savenkov, deputy head of Rosselkhoznadzor.

"It is the world's first and only product for preventing Covid-19 in animals," he said.

Rosselkhoznadzor said the development of its shot would help prevent mutations in animals and cited Denmark's decision to cull 15 million mink last year after some were found to be carrying a mutated virus variant.

"The use of the vaccine, according to Russian scientists, can prevent the development of virus mutations," the statement said.

The agency added that animal-breeding facilities and private companies from countries including Greece, Poland, Austria, the United States, Canada and Singapore had expressed interest in Carnivak-Cov.

Military officials in Russia's second city Saint Petersburg announced earlier this week that army dogs would undergo mandatory vaccination before being deployed at airports and participating in nationwide World War II commemorations in May.

Russia has heavily promoted its state-sponsored coronavirus vaccine abroad but it has been met with scepticism in the West and even by many in Russia.

Officials registered the Sputnik V vaccine last August, ahead of large-scale clinical trials, sparking concern among many experts over the fast-track process. It has since registered two more vaccines.

Leading medical journal The Lancet has since confirmed Sputnik V to be safe and over 90 percent effective.

Moscow has applied to Europe's medicines regulator to gain approval for the use of Sputnik V in the 27-nation bloc, but is still waiting for an answer.

New York legalizes adult use marijuana, expunges former pot convictions

New York Daily News
March 31, 2021

New York state legalized recreational marijuana on March 31, 2021. -

 Hector Vivas/Getty Images/New York Daily News/TNS

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York officially legalized weed Wednesday as Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that will regulate the sale of recreational marijuana for adults and expunge the records of people previously convicted of possession. Legislators approved the long-stalled measure late Tuesday, sending the bill allowing adults over 21 to use marijuana legally to the governor’s desk. “This is a historic day in New York — one that rights the wrongs of the past by putting an end to harsh prison sentences, embraces an industry that will grow the Empire State’s economy, and prioritizes marginalized ...

EPA chief purging Trump-era advisors to 'focus on science and reduce industry influence'
Common Dreams
March 31, 2021

www.rawstory.com

In a move aimed at restoring the role of science at—and public trust in—the Environmental Protection Agency, Administrator Michael Regan announced Wednesday that more than 40 advisers appointed by former President Donald Trump will be fired from the agency.

"When politics drives science rather than science informing policy, we are more likely to make policy choices that sacrifice the health of the most vulnerable among us."
—EPA Administrator Michael Regan

The Washington Post reports Regan's purge will include Trump appointees who informed EPA policies and actions that favored the agenda of polluting corporations and industries over protecting the environment and addressing the climate crisis.

Trump-appointed members on two EPA panels—the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)— helped thwart or roll back regulations related to air pollution, fracking, and other environmental issues.

"Resetting these two scientific advisory committees will ensure the agency receives the best possible scientific insight to support our work to protect human health and the environment," Regan—a former EPA regulator and head of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality— said in a statement.

Regan's move is one of numerous steps taken by the Biden administration to restore scientific integrity throughout the federal government after the anti-science years of the Trump administratio

The former administration downplayed or outright denied the climate crisis; the coronavirus pandemic; the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction and use; the dangers of carcinogenic pesticides, asbestos, and other toxins; and many other facts that conflicted with its pro-corporate and pro-polluter agenda.

Declaring that the American people "deserve access to science and data," Regan earlier this month restored the EPA's climate change website, which had been shut down under former Administrator Scott Pruitt.

Pruitt also led a purge of scientific advisers who refused to toe the fossil fuel industry line, and along with his successor Andrew Wheeler—a former coal lobbyist—raised alarm by elevating individuals with industry connections and often scientifically dubious views to imporant agency panels.


One of these people, former Big Oil and chemical consultant Tony Cox, was chosen by Pruitt in 2017 to lead an EPA air pollution advisory board.

In a letter to EPA staff earlier this month, Regan wrote that "when politics drives science rather than science informing policy, we are more likely to make policy choices that sacrifice the health of the most vulnerable among us."

Regan added that "manipulating, suppressing, or otherwise impeding science has real world consequences for human health and the environment."

Environmental advocates applauded Regan's dismissals.

"It only makes sense to go back to the drawing board," Genna Reed, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the Post.

Christopher Zarba, a retired EPA official who led the agency's office that coordinates with scientific panels, called Regan's move "absolutely warranted." Zarba told the Post that during the Trump era, "lots and lots of the best people were excluded from being considered" for positions on science committees, and that individuals who were tapped for posts "did not accurately represent mainstream science."

While green groups and activists welcomed moves like restoring the EPA climate site and purging advisory boards, they stressed that the Biden administration must act more urgently to combat the climate crisis, protect the planet, pursue environmental justice, and curb the influence of polluters.

Donna Chavis, senior fossil fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said earlier this month that "Regan and the EPA have a new opportunity to place environmental justice at the center of the agency and the United States' approach to the climate crisis."

Chavis, who is also an elder of the Lumbee Nation, urged Regan to "take bold and visionary steps to rebuild the EPA and address the very real climate crisis we face in the U.S. and globally."

Canada rejects outright ban on bee-killing pesticides

Agence France-Presse

March 31, 2021

Canada's health agency announced Wednesday restrictions on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in agriculture to protect aquatic insects, backtracking on a proposed outright ban prompted by a massive bee die-off.

Health Canada had proposed in 2018 prohibiting the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam, two of three neonicotinoid pesticides widely applied to crops in this country.

But after a re-evaluation of scientific data including new water monitoring data, and 47,000 public submissions, the agency said in a statement it found "some uses do not pose a risk to aquatic insects, while other uses do pose risks of concern."

Pesticides makers will have two years to adapt to the new rules, which include reduced application rates and the number of applications, as well as spray buffer zones.

The regulations apply to a range of fruit and vegetable crops such as onions, lettuce and blueberries, potatoes, corn and soybeans.

Neonicotinoids are insecticides that are absorbed by plants and are believed to be responsible for the collapse of bee colonies around the world.

They are also suspected of disrupting memory and flight abilities of insects.

© 2021 AFP

CONTRACTING OUT FAIL

15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson vaccine destroyed in subcontractor mishap: report

Matthew Chapman
March 31, 2021

www.rawstory.com


On Wednesday, POLITICO reported that a catastrophic error by a Johnson & Johnson subcontractor led to 15 million doses of COVID-19 single-dose vaccine being rendered useless.

"Johnson & Johnson had hired the company, Emergent BioSolutions, to manufacture the active ingredient, or drug substance, of the vaccine at its plant in West Baltimore," reported Erin Blanco, Sarah Owermohle, and Rachel Roubein. "Workers at the facility mistakenly mixed ingredients for the J&J vaccine with those of another manufacturer's coronavirus shot, according to the two officials."

"The Biden administration has asked Johnson & Johnson to directly supervise Emergent's vaccine production going forward, said a senior administration official. Getting the facility back on track — and up to regulatory standards — could take a matter of days or weeks, the official added," said the report. "The incident at the plant prompted the Food and Drug Administration to delay approving Emergent to help Johnson & Johnson produce vaccine; the company had sought permission via an amendment to the emergency use authorization for its shot."

In spite of these setbacks, the vaccine effort is ahead of schedule, with the Biden administration doubling its goal to 200 shots in arms within the first 100 days. One of the main challenges on the horizon will be persuading Americans reluctant to vaccinate to do so, particularly Republicans.

The incident at the plant prompted the Food and Drug Administration to delay approving Emergent to help Johnson & Johnson produce vaccine; the company had sought permission via an amendment to the emergency use authorization for its shot.

Ayn Rand-inspired 'myth of the founder' puts tremendous power in hands of Big Tech CEOs like Zuckerberg – posing real risks to democracy

The Conversation
March 30, 2021

www.rawstory.com

Coinbase's plan to go public in April highlights a troubling trend among tech companies: Its founding team will maintain voting control, making it mostly immune to the wishes of outside investors.

The best-known U.S. cryptocurrency exchange is doing this by creating two classes of shares. One class will be available to the public. The other is reserved for the founders, insiders and early investors, and will wield 20 times the voting power of regular shares. That will ensure that after all is said and done, the insiders will control 53.5% of the votes.

Coinbase will join dozens of other publicly traded tech companies – many with household names such as Google, Facebook, Doordash, Airbnb and Slack – that have issued two types of shares in an effort to retain control for founders and insiders. The reason this is becoming increasingly popular has a lot to do with Ayn Rand, one of Silicon Valley's favorite authors, and the “myth of the founder" her writings have helped inspire.

Engaged investors and governance experts like me generally loathe dual-class shares because they undermine executive accountability by making it harder to rein in a wayward CEO. I first stumbled upon this method executives use to limit the influence of pesky outsiders while working on my doctoral dissertation on hostile takeovers in the late 1980s.

But the risks of this trend are greater than simply entrenching bad management. Today, given the role tech companies play in virtually every corner of American life, it poses a threat to democracy as well.
All in the family

Dual-class voting structures have been around for decades.

When Ford Motor Co. went public in 1956, its founding family used the arrangement to maintain 40% of the voting rights. Newspaper companies like The New York Times and The Washington Post often use the arrangement to protect their journalistic independence from Wall Street's insatiable demands for profitability.

In a typical dual-class structure, the company will sell one class of shares to the public, usually called class A shares, while founders, executives and others retain class B shares with enough voting power to maintain majority voting control. This allows the class B shareholders to determine the outcome of matters that come up for a shareholder vote, such as who is on the company's board.

Advocates see a dual-class structure as a way to fend off short-term thinking. In principle, this insulation from investor pressure can allow the company to take a long-term perspective and make tough strategic changes even at the expense of short-term share price declines. Family-controlled businesses often view it as a way to preserve their legacy, which is why Ford remains a family company after more than a century.

It also makes a company effectively immune from hostile takeovers and the whims of activist investors.

Checks and balances

But this insulation comes at a cost for investors, who lose a crucial check on management.

Indeed, dual-class shares essentially short-circuit almost all the other means that limit executive power. The board of directors, elected by shareholder vote, is the ultimate authority within the corporation that oversees management. Voting for directors and proposals on the annual ballot are the main methods shareholders have to ensure management accountability, other than simply selling their shares.

Recent research shows that the value and stock returns of dual-class companies are lower than other businesses, and they're more likely to overpay their CEO and waste money on expensive acquisitions.

Companies with dual-class shares rarely made up more than 10% of public listings in a given year until the 2000s, when tech startups began using them more frequently, according to data collected by University of Florida business professor Jay Ritter. The dam began to break after Facebook went public in 2012 with a dual-class stock structure that kept founder Mark Zuckerberg firmly in control – he alone controls almost 60% of the company.

In 2020, over 40% of tech companies that went public did so with two or more classes of shares with unequal voting rights.

This has alarmed governance experts, some investors and legal scholars.


Ayn Rand and the myth of the superhuman founder

If the dual-class structure is bad for investors, then why are so many tech companies able to convince them to buy their shares when they go public?

I attribute it to Silicon Valley's mythology of the founder –- what I would dub an “Ayn Rand theory of corporate governance" that credits founders with superhuman vision and competence that merit deference from lesser mortals. Rand's novels, most notably “Atlas Shrugged," portray an America in which titans of business hold up the world by creating innovation and value but are beset by moochers and looters who want to take or regulate what they have created.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Rand has a strong following among tech founders, whose creative genius may be “threatened" by any form of outside regulation. Elon Musk, Coinbase founder Brian Armstrong and even the late Steve Jobs all have recommended “Atlas Shrugged."

Her work is also celebrated by the venture capitalists who typically finance tech startups – many of whom were founders themselves.

The basic idea is simple: Only the founder has the vision, charisma and smarts to steer the company forward.

It begins with a powerful founding story. Michael Dell and Zuckerberg created their multibillion-dollar companies in their dorm rooms. Founding partner pairs Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak and Bill Hewlett and David Packard built their first computer companies in the garage – Apple and Hewlett-Packard, respectively. Often the stories are true, but sometimes, as in Apple's case, less so.

And from there, founders face a gantlet of rigorous testing: recruiting collaborators, gathering customers and, perhaps most importantly, attracting multiple rounds of funding from venture capitalists. Each round serves to further validate the founder's leadership competence.

The Founders Fund, a venture capital firm that has backed dozens of tech companies, including Airbnb, Palantir and Lyft, is one of the biggest proselytizers for this myth, as it makes clear in its “manifesto."

“The entrepreneurs who make it have a near-messianic attitude and believe their company is essential to making the world a better place," it asserts. True to its stated belief, the fund says it has “never removed a single founder," which is why it has been a big supporter of dual-class share structures.

Another venture capitalist who seems to favor giving founders extra power is Netscape founder Marc Andreessen. His venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz is Coinbase's biggest investor. And most of the companies in its portfolio that have gone public also used a dual-class share structure, according to my own review of their securities filings.
Bad for companies, bad for democracy

Giving founders voting control disrupts the checks and balances needed to keep business accountable and can lead to big problems.

WeWork founder Adam Neumann, for example, demanded “unambiguous authority to fire or overrule any director or employee." As his behavior became increasingly erratic, the company hemorrhaged cash in the lead-up to its ultimately canceled initial public offering.

Investors forced out Uber's Travis Kalanick in 2017, but not before he's said to have created a workplace culture that allegedly allowed sexual harassment and discrimination to fester. When Uber finally went public in 2019, it shed its dual-class structure.

There is some evidence that founder-CEOs are less gifted at management than other kinds of leaders, and their companies' performance can suffer as a consequence.

But investors who buy shares in these companies know the risks going in. There's much more at stake than their money.

What happens when powerful, unconstrained founders control the most powerful companies in the world?

The tech sector is increasingly laying claim to central command posts of the U.S. economy. Americans' access to news and information, financial services, social networks and even groceries is mediated by a handful of companies controlled by a handful of people.

Recall that in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter were able to eject former President Donald Trump from his favorite means of communication – virtually silencing him overnight. And Apple, Google and Amazon cut off Parler, the right-wing social media platform used by some of the insurrectionists to plan their actions. Not all of these companies have dual-class shares, but this illustrates just how much power tech companies have over America's political discourse.

One does not have to disagree with their decision to see that a form of political power is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of companies with limited outside oversight.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]

Jerry Davis, Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford and Professor of Management and Sociology, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Biden declares ‘transgender rights are human rights,’ becomes first president to mark Transgender Day of Visibility

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
March 31, 2021

www.rawstory.com

President Joe Biden on Wednesday honored America's transgender community by declaring "Transgender rights are human rights," and became the first U.S. President to mark Transgender Day of Visibility with a proclamation

"Transgender rights are human rights — and I'm calling on every American to join me in uplifting the worth and dignity of transgender Americans," Biden said on Twitter. "Together, we can stamp out discrimination and deliver on our nation's promise of freedom and equality for all."

The Washington Blade was first to report on Biden's proclamation, which has yet to be officially published. According to the Blade an advance copy says:]

Today, we honor and celebrate the achievements and resiliency of transgender individuals and communities. Transgender Day of Visibility recognizes the generations of struggle, activism, and courage that have brought our country closer to full equality for transgender and gender non-binary people in the United States and around the world. Their trailblazing work has given countless transgender individuals the bravery to live openly and authentically. This hard-fought progress is also shaping an increasingly accepting world in which peers at school, teammates and coaches on the playing field, colleagues at work, and allies in every corner of society are standing in support and solidarity with the transgender community.

"Transgender Americans of all ages," Biden adds, "face high rates of violence, harassment, and discrimination. Nearly one in three transgender Americans have experienced homelessness at some point in life. Transgender Americans continue to face discrimination in employment, housing, health care, and public accommodations. The crisis of violence against transgender women, especially transgender women of color, is a stain on our Nation's conscience."

In addition to the violence and discrimination transgender people face, as HRC reports at least 82 anti-transgender bills have already been filed in state legislatures across the country, more than last year's record of 79.

Last month President Biden also tweeted:

Just five days after taking office he reversed President Donald Trump's devastating ban on transgender service members:

Heavy metal star takes on Poland's anti-blasphemy law
Agence France-Presse
March 31, 2021

A Polish court ordered heavy metal star Adam Darski to pay a fine for posting a photo of himself stamping on an image of the Virgin Mary Wojtek RADWANSKI AFP

In his Warsaw apartment decorated with occult imagery, heavy metal star Adam Darski from the band Behemoth told AFP he has had enough of being prosecuted under Poland's anti-blasphemy law.

The artist, better known as "Nergal" -- the name of an ancient Babylonian demon, has launched a crowdfunding campaign to fight multiple cases against him and to help others do the same.

"I am sounding the alarm," the heavily-tattooed 43-year-old, dressed entirely in black, said in an interview.

A Polish court last month ordered Darski to pay a fine for posting a photo of himself stamping on an image of the Virgin Mary

It was the sixth criminal case against him.

He has previously been taken to court for tearing up a Bible on stage and making crude comments about Poland's powerful Catholic Church.

"In 1989, we put an end to a totalitarian communist regime. Now, a short time later, we have a new religious nationalist regime.
Report Advertisement

"I just want to create. Let me create! It's terrible if an artist needs to question himself or consult a lawyer every time he wants to say something, record something, express himself."

- 'Ordo Blasfemia' -

Prosecutions under article 196 of Poland's Criminal Code for "offending religious feeling" have gone up in recent years under the government of the populist Law and Justice (PiS) party.

There were 90 such prosecutions in 2018, 136 in 2019 and 146 in 2020, according to Polish media.

The charge carries a maximum sentence of up to two years in prison, although a fine is more likely.

Following his latest prosecution, Darski set up a crowdfunding website called "Ordo Blasfemia" -- a mocking reference to the ultra-conservative legal organization Ordo Iuris behind many of the prosecutions.

Darski announced the new fund on social media saying he was being pursued "under the banner of Catholic dogma" and said he wanted "to finally beat the bastards once and for all, for all the artists in Poland that have been punished for blasphemy".

He said the funds "will not only help protect me against my enemies but also support any action to make people understand that we are in grave danger of losing freedom".

He has raised more than £38,000 (45,000 euros, $52,500) so far.

- 'We can co-exist' -

Founded in 1991 when he was just a teen, Nergal's band Behemoth is well known on the heavy metal scene for the occult, satanic imagery in its highly theatrical performances.

They are regularly taken to task in Polish right-wing media.

The website niezalezna.pl branded one of the band's albums "disgusting" and said the group had "once again offended the religious feelings of millions of Catholics in Poland".

Worshipped by fans, Darski says his critics find "a masochistic pleasure" in watching his concerts or visiting his websites and being shocked.

"Let's let artists practice their art and believers practice their faith. Everyone has their own temple. We can co-exist."

Reproductive Rights And Justice: A Critical Opportunity For The Biden Administration To Protect Hard-Fought Gains

Swapna Reddy
Mary Saxon
Yeonsoo Sara Lee
Nina Patel
MARCH 31, 2021

10.1377/hblog20210326.802027



Early in his presidency, President Joe Biden is indicating a departure from the previous administration on the issue of reproductive rights. Within the first days of taking office, the president issued a memorandum to restore US international foreign aid for reproductive health programs by repealing the infamous Mexico City Policy, better known by its critics as the “Global Gag Rule” because the policy prevents health care providers from speaking about abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal. President Biden stated that he ended the policy as part of an effort to “protect women’s health at home and abroad.”

Then, on February 22, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging Trump-era policy changes to the Title X family planning program, a federal grant program for low-income people to receive contraception, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other reproductive health services; these changes bar federal funds for providers or clinics that refer patients for abortions. In parallel, conservative-leaning state legislatures across the nation are introducing numerous bills in their legislative sessions limiting the right to choose, some of which have already been challenged in the courts.

In the midst of this rapidly evolving landscape, it is crucial that the Biden administration act swiftly and decisively to protect hard-fought reproductive rights domestically by not only reversing the anti-choice policy decisions of the Trump administration but also strengthening federal policies so that a woman’s right to choose does not continue to be treated as a political football that is one administration, one court case, or one state legislative act from being taken away.

Reversing Bad Policy Abroad: The “Global Gag Rule”

The Mexico City Policy places strict parameters around overseas non-governmental organizations receiving USAID support. When the policy is in effect, organizations risk losing critical funding if they provide abortion-related services, referrals, or counseling, or inform women about their reproductive choices. Since it was enacted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, this controversial foreign aid approach has taken on a highly politicized nature and functioned as a “light switch” policy, turned on under Republican administrations and turned off under Democrat-led administrations. This restrictive policy has exacerbated health disparities among low-income and marginalized women in developing countries and, opposite to the policy’s stated goal, has led to an increase in unsafe abortions. Even in countries where abortion is broadly legal and a part of the continuum of reproductive health care, providers working for gagged organizations are largely unable to mention abortion as an option to women in need. In fact, the Global Gag Rule has increased the typical abortion rate in countries highly exposed to the policy by 40.0 percent and reduced contraceptive use by 13.5 percent.

In 2017, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reinstate the Global Gag Rule and expand the policy to include all global health assistance programs, including those that provide HIV/AIDS treatment under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), maternal and child health, and water, sanitation, and hygiene; this equates to roughly $12 billion of aid, according to Guttmacher Institute. The vagueness of the expanded Trump-era policy fuels a climate of fear-based decision making, self-censorship, and over-interpretation for providers and organizations reliant on USAID funding. Amidst other policy changes like with Title X and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Global Gag Rule serves as one of many in the Trump administration’s long crusade to restrict women’s health care, domestically and abroad.

The efforts of the Biden-Harris administration to repeal the policy serves as an important first step toward addressing the harms caused by the previous administration. With the momentum generated by reversing the Global Gag Rule, activists and health leaders urge the new administration to continue addressing Trump-era policies that limited a woman’s right to choose, her family planning, and her health care options.

Reversing Bad Policy At Home

The Biden-Harris administration faces large hurdles to “protect women’s health home and abroad” as promised. First among them is reversing Trump administration policies that threaten decades of progress in women’s health, family planning, and reproductive rights.

Title X Regulations

Beginning in June 2018, the Trump administration revised regulations within Title X, making two key changes: a “gag” rule that prevents providers from referring patients for abortion care and requirements that Title X–funded centers must both establish and maintain physical and financial separation from the provision of abortion. Furthermore, this rule removed the requirement to provide “nondirective counseling,” or impartial guidance, to patients. These changes are commonly referred to as the Domestic Gag Rule and have drawn immense criticism from a number of health professional associations, as they argue that such policies directly threaten the provider-patient relationship because they prevent providers from fulfilling their ethical obligation to inform pregnant women about all of their medical options during pregnancy, including but not limited to abortion. These organizations include the American Medical Association, which filed a petition to overturn the Domestic Gag Rule policy that the US Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear.

Trump-era changes to Title X funding resulted in a number of consequences—Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of sex education and a leading sexual and reproductive health provider, amongst others, withdrew from Title X, calling the gag rule “unethical and dangerous.” Furthermore, an estimated one in five Title X sites no longer accept funding from Title X, resulting in budget shortfalls that will impact their ability to serve their patients. In sum, the Trump administration’s Domestic Gag Rule has endangered family planning care for 1.6 million women nationwide and restricted Title X’s network capacity by 46 percent nationwide and up to 100 percent in some states.

In consequent appellate court rulings, conflicts persist about the legality of these changes to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule; while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Gag Rule, the 4th Circuit found that the decision was “flawed” and held that the rule was “both arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.” Due to these rulings, the gag rule was suspended in Maryland, in the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit, but persists elsewhere in the United States. These policies—in addition to exacerbating disparities in access to reproductive health care among low-income, rural, and women of color—also discourage open, honest conversation between patients and their health providers and would restrict funding for some of the most robust systems of reproductive health care in the nation, which provided reproductive health care services for more than four million people annually before 2016.

President Biden has asked the HHS to review the Trump administration’s rule to overhaul the Title X family planning program, although no action has been taken yet to change the policy. Immediate action on the part of HHS to reverse the Domestic Gag Rule would presumably render the US Supreme Court hearing moot and increase access to reproductive services for women depending on Title X-funded providers.
ACA Contraceptive Coverage Mandate “Conscience Exemptions,” Abortion Coverage Billing Regulations

The Trump administration also made changes to the ACA, which helps 63 million US women access birth control without copayments; the changes allow any employer, school, insurance plan, or individual to deny access to the no-cost contraceptives on the basis of religious or moral objection. Despite strong opposition from women’s health advocates, the US Supreme Court upheld the administration’s “conscience” exemptions of the ACA’s contraceptive mandate on July 13, 2020. This ruling disproportionately impacts low-income women and their families, as they are less likely to use contraceptives due to high out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, the Guttmacher Institute found that 58 percent of oral contraceptive users in the US indicated needing the pill, at least in part, for a purpose other than contraception; among the reasons for using oral contraception are regulating periods, preventing menstrual-related migraines, and controlling chronic health conditions such as endometriosis. Thus, removing insurance coverage for these services impacts women’s ability to manage, alleviate, or treat a variety of medical issues. By removing this exemption, the Biden administration can restore this basic women’s health insurance coverage benefit.

Health insurance protections were further impacted during the Trump administration via changes that forced health insurers offering coverage on ACA Marketplaces to bill consumers separately for insurance premiums covering abortion services. These restrictions have led to increased confusion and administrative costs, which some experts predict could lead to elimination of abortion services from health plans and impact the coverage of 3.4 million enrollees. Compounding these barriers, pregnant women seeking abortion care who are denied coverage experience an emotionally and financially distressing conundrum: They must decide between continuing unwanted pregnancies or enduring high personal costs and debt (the estimated cost of an abortion ranges from $400 to $1,650 and above, disproportionately impacting low-income women). This exacerbates existing disparities in care, as the ability to access abortion has been shown to be linked to a woman’s economic means. The Biden administration has the opportunity to restore the original regulation and intent of the ACA by reestablishing the contraceptive mandate for employers and reaffirm patient protections for abortion services.
A Flurry Of Anti-Choice Action At The State Level

As Democrats currently hold the majority in the House and Senate as well as control the Executive branch, albeit in a highly partisan climate, many conservative-led state legislatures appear to be using the current state legislative sessions as opportunities to introduce bills limiting reproductive choice at breakneck speeds. Nationally, in the 2021 state legislative session alone, more than 150 anti-abortion bills have been introduced, posing a significant threat to women’s reproductive health and right to choose.

Notable state legislative attempts include one proposed Arizona bill that would allow women receiving abortions and their medical providers to be charged with murder and another that would ban medical providers from performing an abortion on a fetus with a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome. In South Carolina, the first piece of legislation introduced in the Senate would ban most abortions once a medical provider can detect a fetal heartbeat; it has since been temporarily blocked by a district court and is now awaiting a ruling on whether to impose an injunction from a federal judge, foreshadowing a turbulent and rapidly changing legislative landscape. In Texas, proposed anti-abortion bills range from total bans on abortion to appointing attorneys to represent fetuses when minors report to a judge for an abortion without formal parental consent.

In Montana alone, more than 60 bills have been introduced to restrict abortion access, such as one that would ban abortions after 20 weeks; the Republican legislator who introduced that bill acknowledged her hope that it would lead the US Supreme Court to “revisit” the landmark Roe v. Wade, which established women’s constitutional right to safe and legal abortion. Additionally, Tennessee lawmakers proposed a bill that would allow a biological father to block a woman from getting an abortion. Exhibit 1 below outlines these examples of recent state action to thwart reproductive rights.
Exhibit 1: Key anti-choice state legislative action in 2021

State
Bill Number
Summary


Arizona

House Bill 2650

Would allow women who receive an abortion and their health care providers to be charged with first-degree murder (punishable by the death penalty).


Arizona

Senate Bill 1457

Would ban providers from performing an abortion if the fetus has a genetic abnormality.


Arkansas

Senate Bill 6

Would ban nearly all abortions in the state except those necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the fetus or mother.


Montana

House Bill 136

Would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.


South Carolina

Senate Bill 1

Would ban abortions once a provider can detect a fetal heartbeat with few exceptions.


Tennessee

Senate Bill 494

Would allow biological fathers to stop an abortion.


Texas

House Bill 69

Would ban abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.


Texas

House Bill 1171

Would require the fetus to be appointed an attorney in the case of a minor petitioning for an abortion in front of a judge.


Texas

House Bill 3326

Would ban and criminalize most abortions punishable by the death penalty with exemptions for ectopic pregnancies that put the woman’s life is at risk.


Source: Authors’ analysis.

Amidst a pandemic that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands and destroyed the livelihood of millions, this flurry of anti-choice state bills reflects a mismatch between state legislatures’ priorities and the reality of their populations’ pressing needs, such as COVID-19 mitigation strategies, vaccination distributions efforts, economic relief, and pandemic mental health services. The numerous anti-abortion bills, most of which do not hold legal muster, also make it clear that there is a superseding presumptive interest at the state level in sparking a legal battle to be appealed to the US Supreme Court, with the intent of incrementally dismantling the rights created through Roe v. Wade. While recent similar attempts at the US Supreme Court through cases (such as June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, which considered whether a Louisiana state law placing hospital-admission requirements on abortion clinic doctors was unconstitutional) have made limited headway, the most recent makeup of the US Supreme Court—many of whom have indicated anti-choice leanings in the past—and the volume of state-level anti-abortion bills may create a perfect storm jeopardizing a woman’s right to choose at the national level.

The stakes related to a woman’s right to choose are high; therefore, it’s vital that the Biden-Harris administration remain committed to restoring the hard-fought gains in reproductive rights. We call on the administration to act quickly and decisively to not only reverse the detrimental policies of the previous administration but also to fortify federal protections for accessible and safe services in the face of mounting state-level and legal threats to reproductive rights and justice.