United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa

Bendavid, Eran; Avila, Patrick; Miller, Grant

doi:10.2471/blt.11.091660

Cited by 79 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two recent studies investigated changes in abortion and contraceptive use induced by MCP. Bendavid et al (2011) compared changes in abortion and contraceptive use over time in countries highly exposed to MCP relative to less-exposed countries. The authors find that more exposed countries experienced slower increases in contraceptive prevalence and higher increases in abortion after the reenactment of the MCP, suggesting that reduced contraceptive supply may have increased the incidence of abortion.…”

Section: Previous Estimates Of Substitution Between Abortion and Contmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Population Policy: Abortion and Modern Contraception are Substitutes

Miller

Valente

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A longstanding debate exists in population policy about the relationship between modern contraception and abortion. Although theory predicts that they should be substitutes, the empirical evidence is difficult to interpret. What is required is a largescale intervention that alters the supply (or full price) of one or the other and, importantly, that does so in isolation (reproductive health programs often bundle primary health care and family planning-and in some instances, abortion services). In this article, we study Nepal's 2004 legalization of abortion provision and subsequent expansion of abortion services, an unusual and rapidly implemented policy meeting these requirements. Using four waves of rich individual-level data representative of fertile-age Nepalese women, we find robust evidence of substitution between modern contraception and abortion. This finding has important implications for public policy and foreign aid, suggesting that an effective strategy for reducing expensive and potentially unsafe abortions may be to expand the supply of modern contraceptives.

show abstract

Section: Previous Estimates Of Substitution Between Abortion and Contmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…actually reduced the availability of modern contraceptives relative to abortion and thus increased abortion rates (Bendavid et al 2011;Jones 2015). 5 Understanding the tradeoff between contraception and abortion would also shed light on ways to prevent maternal deaths.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population Policy: Abortion and Modern Contraception are Substitutes

Miller

Valente

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Health workers are crucial and already in undersupply. In developed countries health professionals represent 33 per 10,000 people, in most developing countries this drops to 2 for the same number of people (Bendavid, Avila, & Miller, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study in 2011 showed that under Reagan's ban women in African countries such as Nigeria and Kenya were 2.73 times more likely to seek abortions (Bendavid et al, 2011). The figures recorded shot up because the removal of abortion facilities also removes access to family planning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means the global gag rule seriously threatens the UN Sustainable Development Goal of reducing maternal mortality to less than 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030. It also threatens the goal of ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including family planning, information and maternal and child nutrition advice (Bendavid et al, 2011). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenging ignorance: why reproductive rights matter so much in Africa

Bradley

2017

African Identities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trump's Abortion‐Promoting Aid Policy

Latham¹

2017

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the fourth day of his presidency, Donald Trump reinstated and greatly expanded the "Mexico City policy," which imposes antiabortion restrictions on U.S. foreign health aid. In general, the policy has prohibited U.S. funding of any family-planning groups that use even non-U.S. funds to perform abortions; prohibited aid recipients from lobbying (again, even with non-U.S. money) for liberalization of abortion laws; prohibited nongovernment organizations from creating educational materials on abortion as a family-planning method; and prohibited health workers from referring patients for legal abortions in any cases other than rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. The policy's prohibition on giving aid to any organization that performs abortions is aimed at limiting alleged indirect funding of abortions. The argument is that if U.S. money is used to fund nonabortion programs of an abortion-providing NGO, then the NGO can simply shift the money thus saved into its abortion budget. Outside the context of abortion, we do not reason this way. And the policy's remaining three prohibitions are deeply troubling.

show abstract

United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa

Cited by 79 publications

References 19 publications

Population Policy: Abortion and Modern Contraception are Substitutes

Population Policy: Abortion and Modern Contraception are Substitutes

Challenging ignorance: why reproductive rights matter so much in Africa

Trump's Abortion‐Promoting Aid Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About