Trump wants to torch contraception for poor women. So far, Belgium says no – Salon.com

Report on U.S. Foreign Aid Policy Shift and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent policy change by the U.S. administration has resulted in the withholding of $9.7 million worth of contraceptive supplies, currently stored in Belgium. These supplies, originally procured by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for distribution in low-income countries, are now in limbo following a decision to no longer classify contraception as lifesaving treatment. This action directly contravenes multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 1 (No Poverty), while also undermining partnerships and responsible resource management as outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Direct Contravention of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The refusal to distribute essential contraceptive commodities is a direct setback to achieving SDG 3, particularly Target 3.7, which calls for universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including family planning. The broader dismantling of USAID programs further threatens progress on other health targets.

• Increased Maternal Mortality: Experts predict that a lack of access to contraception will lead to a rise in unintended pregnancies and a subsequent increase in maternal deaths, moving away from the goal of Target 3.1 to reduce the global maternal mortality ratio.
• Rise in Unsafe Abortions: An increase in unintended pregnancies is also projected to lead to a higher incidence of unsafe abortions, a major cause of preventable maternal death and morbidity.
• Impact on Communicable Diseases: A study published by The Lancet estimated that overall USAID funding cuts could result in over 14 million additional deaths by 2030, particularly impacting progress against HIV/AIDS and malaria, key components of Target 3.3.

Implications for SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 1 (No Poverty)

Access to family planning is a cornerstone of gender equality and a critical tool for poverty reduction. The current policy undermines the empowerment of women and girls, creating significant obstacles to achieving SDGs 5 and 1.

1. Undermining Bodily Autonomy: The policy directly obstructs Target 5.6, which aims to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.
2. Limiting Educational and Economic Opportunities: Without the ability to plan their families, women and girls are less likely to complete their education (SDG 4) and participate in the economy (SDG 8), reinforcing gender inequality and cycles of poverty.
3. Exacerbating Poverty: The inability to space births and plan family size is a significant driver of poverty, making the achievement of SDG 1 more difficult for communities that rely on international aid for family planning services.

Logistical Status and Contradiction of SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The potential destruction of viable medical supplies represents a significant waste of resources, in direct opposition to the principles of SDG 12, which promotes sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

• Asset Status: $9.7 million in contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and hormonal implants remain in warehouses in Belgium. Many products are viable through at least 2027.
• Distribution Offers Rejected: Non-profit agencies, including MSI Reproductive Choices, have offered to cover all costs associated with distributing the supplies, including shipping and repackaging, at no expense to the U.S. taxpayer.
• Wasteful Alternative: The proposed alternative of incinerating the supplies is estimated to cost over $160,000. This action is currently prevented by an incineration ban in the Flanders region of Belgium.

Erosion of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The administration’s policy reflects a departure from the collaborative approach essential to achieving the SDGs. The dismantling of USAID programs and the rejection of offers from international partners weaken the global partnerships outlined in SDG 17.

• Weakened Institutions: The immediate termination of USAID family planning contracts has disrupted established supply chains and health programs, causing what one advocate called a more extreme and immediate effect than previous policy shifts.
• Rejection of Collaboration: The refusal to work with NGOs and the Belgian government to find a productive solution for the contraceptive supplies undermines the spirit of multi-stakeholder partnerships (Target 17.16 and 17.17).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article’s central theme is the denial of access to contraceptives and family planning services, which are fundamental components of public health. It explicitly mentions potential increases in “maternal deaths,” “unintended pregnancies,” “unsafe abortion,” and negative impacts on mortality related to “HIV/AIDS and malaria.”
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article highlights that the lack of access to family planning has “devastating and long-lasting impacts for women and communities.” It states that these services help “women and girls around the world… stay in school, pursue economic opportunities and climb out of poverty,” directly linking reproductive health to the empowerment and equality of women.
3. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • A direct connection is made between access to reproductive health services and poverty reduction. The article quotes an expert stating that without these services, women and girls are denied opportunities to “climb out of poverty.”
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The contraceptive supplies were “originally intended for distribution in low-income countries.” The decision to withhold this aid exacerbates health and economic inequalities between developed nations (like the U.S.) and the developing countries that rely on such support, particularly vulnerable populations within those countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article discusses the breakdown of international partnerships through the dismantling of “U.S. foreign aid programs” and USAID. It also highlights potential new partnerships, with non-profit agencies like “MSI Reproductive Choices” offering to distribute the supplies, demonstrating the interplay between governments, private contractors (Chemonics), and non-governmental organizations in global development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.1: “By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio…” The article directly addresses this by predicting that the cuts will lead to “increases in maternal deaths.”
   • Target 3.7: “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning…” This is the core target discussed. The entire article revolves around the withholding of “$9.7 million in contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices and hormonal implants” and the elimination of the “entire family planning budget” from U.S. foreign aid.
   • Target 3.3: “By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria…” The article mentions that USAID funding cuts could increase mortality related to “HIV/AIDS and malaria” and that past cuts disrupted efforts to include “HIV testing in family planning in Kenya.”
2. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.6: “Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights…” The article details a policy that actively denies access to contraception, which is a fundamental aspect of sexual and reproductive health and rights for women and girls.
3. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.2: “Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments…” The article describes the U.S., a developed country, dismantling its foreign aid programs and cutting its family planning budget, which represents a failure to meet its development assistance role in this area.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 3:
   • Implied Indicator 3.1.1 (Maternal mortality ratio): The article’s prediction of “increases in maternal deaths” directly implies that the maternal mortality ratio is a key metric for measuring the impact of these policy changes.
   • Implied Indicator 3.7.1 (Proportion of women… who have their need for family planning satisfied with modern methods): The article discusses an expected “increase in unmet need for contraception,” which is the inverse of this indicator. The “$9.7 million in contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices and hormonal implants” represents a tangible quantity of modern methods that are not being distributed.
   • Implied Indicator 3.3.1 (Number of new HIV infections…): The article warns that “mother-to-child transmission of HIV will increase,” which is directly related to the number of new infections.
2. Indicators for SDG 5:
   • Implied Indicator 5.6.1 (Proportion of women aged 15-49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care): The denial of access to contraceptives directly undermines the ability of women to make informed decisions about contraceptive use, thus negatively impacting this indicator.
3. Indicators for SDG 17:
   • Implied Indicator 17.2.1 (Net official development assistance… as a proportion of… gross national income): The article’s focus on the dismantling of “U.S. foreign aid programs” and the cut to the “entire family planning budget” are direct measures of a reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) for global health.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: salon.com