A year ago, organisations advocating for women's rights were bracing themselves for a new Trump administration. Scarcely anyone expected. The volume and speed of presidential directives originating in the White House were viewed as a premeditated approach to cause confusion and fear. This strategy had its intended impact – there was confusion, anger and exhaustion as agencies hastened to fill the gap left by a major funding freeze. But that was just the beginning.
The US administration has been the main instigator, bolstered by fervent lobbying efforts by far-right organisations exploiting the situation to solidify transnational relationships with ideological partners.
The anti-rights movement refers to a global network of political leaders, religious institutions, civil society groups as well as ultra-rich backers and donors that work to dismantle progress across a wide spectrum of issues. This encompasses pro-choice policies, equality for sexual minorities, gender identity recognition, and inclusive relationship teaching.
They achieve this through advocating to officials, financing legal challenges, sabotaging multilateral work to push for parity, disseminating propaganda, and supporting ideologically-matched groups.
We examine five junctures that shaped the security, respect, and well-being of the female population.
In March, a month and a half following a prominent humanitarian funder is halted, causing widespread distress, a top American diplomat announces that over eighty percent of the organization's initiatives will be axed. Career diplomats, ex-presidents and relief and public health authorities denounce the action, cautioning that people will die as a result. Activists say that the demise of the agency is greater than a budgetary issue, it is a brutal assault on fundamental freedoms and family planning and reproductive care. Numerous groups say women and girls will be disproportionately affected by shrinking assistance, especially in conflict areas. As the year ends, statistics reveal how a significant mortality toll has been exacted from sickness, hunger, poor pregnancy healthcare, and abuse targeting females, with a far greater catastrophe looming. Another pair of leading funders follow with their own cuts. A head of a worldwide campaign network says a choice to reduce international development funding is a move to appease a political ally.
In March, several Christian-right organisations meet in an upmarket New York hotel for a strategic summit held in parallel with the international conference on women's rights. It is an forum to discuss methods on how to defeat the UN’s “radical agenda”. They are in high spirits as they celebrate changes in American foreign policy on gender, diversity and abortion. Meanwhile, the head of the United Nations opens the gender equality forum with a somber alert that “the venom of male dominance” is back, after a study indicates that groups opposing progressive rights are systematically eroding established norms on key women’s rights issues around the world.
Over the summer, a cluster of meetings in Africa focused on the traditional family and national sovereignty sparks alarm among rights advocates. In the start of May, a national leader and spouse open a major forum to resist what they label criminal foreign forces eroding traditional family values. A shortly thereafter, another Pan-African conference on family values is held. Both events are graced by leading Western campaigners against gender ideology, including heads of influential networks. One speaker calls on African NGOs to push back against “worldwide progressive social restructuring” of international organizations. In June, a prominent church hosts a family strengthening conference in West Africa, an event that pro-choice campaigners say has become an anti-LGBTQ, anti-gender platform. Activists observe that the scale of their presence has expanded considerably.
As health facilities across Africa report they are facing shortages of birth control, including post-rape care packages, the US announces in July plans to destroy millions of dollars worth of contraceptives held in a European depot. A leading family planning organization states that their incineration will prevent a huge female population from access to birth control, and lead to a public health crisis of unwanted pregnancies. The organization labels the plan an ideological decision “about imposing an anti-rights agenda on the entire world” and “a calculated move to control fertility”. A prominent medical humanitarian organization calls it “cruel and irresponsible”. NGOs offer to buy the contraceptives so they can be distributed to those in need, but the US declines every proposal. The situation remains at a standstill as host nation officials refuse to permit the destruction of viable medicines.
Reviving the global gag rule, which halts US aid to groups that offer, promote, or give information about abortion services overseas, is commonplace under certain US administrations. It was widely expected when the ban was reimposed in January. The administration also rejoined an international anti-abortion agreement. But in the autumn, the US announces it intends to extend the restrictions to include governments and multilateral organisations in addition to NGOs, and to encompass equity and inclusion initiatives. Further specifics about the broader enforcement are anticipated next year. A expert in child welfare says extending the reach will have “catastrophic impacts”. Pro-choice activists fear that fresh American assistance deals being discussed with African nations will become dependent on agreeing to the new, wider policy.
Lena Hartwell is a former statistician and lottery enthusiast who now writes about probability and smart play strategies.